| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Phoenix Jones
   |
Posted - 2006.05.04 19:30:00 -
[1]
I was looking at interceptors, frigates, and destroyers.
Average interceptor sig is about 30
For frigates, around 40 to 45 (T2 assault ships will be moved there soon via dev post in general forum).
Destroyer's signatures is around 90
Cruisers are around 110 to 150.
The difference here.. Cruisers can take some pain, Frigates have their speed and sig, while Destroyers even with speed are a Very Big Target (especially for a small gunboat).
My suggestion would be to reduce the Destroyer's signature by 20 to 25% (effectively moving it to around the 60's area). meaning that it can survive more gun damage even with its present defensive (medium/low) slots. This helps both T1 and T2 Versions survive a bit longer on the field (as well as not being as easy to target).
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 19:36:00 -
[2]
Effectively making AF's even more obselete.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 01:58:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Maya Rkell
Effectively making AF's even more obselete.
so will giving AF a true 4th bonus.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 02:00:00 -
[4]
your too worried about AFs.
they will never be obsolete because they will still be a rich mans toy just like HACs.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 02:02:00 -
[5]
Audri Fisher, I'm afraid I don't follow..
Viktor Fyretracker...um...they will remain good for PvE, you mean. They are hardly a "rich man's toy", most of them cost barely twice as much as their race's interceptors.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 05:02:00 -
[6]
incredible tank + damn nice damge output + 4th true bonus = nerfbait Maya.
|
James Duar
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 07:18:00 -
[7]
I have to say, destroyers desperately need some kind of an edge against...something. They can't kill frigs, they can't kill cruisers, jesus, they'd be hard pressed to nail a slow moving shuttle.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:48:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/05/2006 12:48:22
Originally by: Audri Fisher
incredible tank + damn nice damge output + 4th true bonus = nerfbait Maya.
Right. I'm against the 4th bonus.
James Duar, en-mass they kick an equal number of frigate's ass. That's what they're designed for, fleet defence. NOT solo.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Phoenix Jones
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 19:45:00 -
[9]
This isn't a thread about AF's. Please stay on topic.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 19:53:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/05/2006 19:53:07
The interaction of AF's, Bombers and Dessies is a current hot topic.
Also, is is entirely incorrect to try and balance a ship type in isolation. Ship balance is comparative, not a matter of absolutes.
Try coming up with a valid counter-argument instead.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 23:55:00 -
[11]
The issue is that while all three classes use extremly varied setups and tactics, they all have the same role, killing frigs, specificaly tech I frigs. There simply aren't enough targets to go around.
My proposal:
Stealth Bombers are commerce raiders, reduce there cruis sig bonus ( not so useful against frigs, esp cepters) and let them be able to use a full complement of cruise launchers and the covert ops cloaking device so they can be true attack boats.
Destroyers: the fleet's defense ships
relatively easy to kill by anything bigger than they are, they cram so much firepower that they have virtualy no tank, unifrmly lethal though to anything smaller than they are. with there small bore range, It doesn't take many to effectively cover a fleet from frig hull hostiles. Basicaly if you want your intercepters or frigs to tackle, you are going to have to kill/jam/dampen the escort first. Adds another layer of complexity to fleet fights on who gets called first.
Assault frigates: are the punch of a frigate navy. costley enough that there use in full scale fleet ops is prohibitive, they shine in small scale scirmishes and patrol duty where there small size and toughness gets them through a tough spot.
There problem solved!
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 03:36:00 -
[12]
oh, and btw, the reason it is a "hot topic" is becuase anytime someone mentions any frig or destroyer hull, you bring all other hulls into the thread. It's something that you have created, nothing more.
|
Lisento Slaven
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 03:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Effectively making AF's even more obselete.
AF's are obsolete? They make any form of NPCing extremely easy with their resistances. Uber tanks.
Destroyers suck horribly. I use them the same way people use kessies - kamikaze style. Destroyers can't survive and have a very limited use other than dealing out damage quickly before falling apart to anything that runs into them.
---
Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE.
Put in space whales! |
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 03:59:00 -
[14]
great buff to the destroyer would be to give it a ROF bonus to small turrets.
|
source
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 04:23:00 -
[15]
Destroyers are fine as they are now. Like most underused ships, the only ones that whine about them are the ones that get from their af/inty/cruiser etc. into one and find that its not as fast as a frig or can't tank damage like a cruiser. In fleet fights I have seen/used nothing better as anti frig tackler killing. Solo I can kill any inty/t1 frig and even a couple afs(though the resistance makes it quite hard to kill them before they kill you). So in short yes, it is not a kill everything ship but a very niched ship.
Being the smaller brother of the battle cruiser I could see a change to It's "special Bonus" of -25% rof to something more along the lines of a gang bonus of some sort. Not like a bc command module bonus but more of a "+1% gang targeting speed" or something anti frig related which could even be race specific. Taking caldari for example "+1% damage of light missile precision or damage and gallente +1% of light drone damage. Not stackable of course, or else there would be gangs of 20 destroyers .
Another possible "special bonus" could be a speed increase to make them more like there t2 cousins. 90% of other t2 ships t1 coutner parts have most of the same capabilites just with better resists and more bonus'. So why not destroyers?
Destroyers rock!
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 04:54:00 -
[16]
+25% to gang sensor resolution......
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 05:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
great buff to the destroyer would be to give it a ROF bonus to small turrets.
the 25% penalty they have at present is because they have 3 bonuses vs other tech I ships 2.
25% ROF bonus would turn a cormarat into a no frig gets withen 45km of me machine....
you can already do that out to 20km with 75 mm tech II guns, they simply melt inties. with a full rack of 150 mm tech II guns and spike ammo, I can take out a crows shilkeds plus dig into armor with 2 volleys, and my gunnery skillsa ren't maxed, nor was I using an implant.
Destroyers are king of small bore burst damage, swapping the rof penalty for a bonus would maker them nerfbait.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 12:13:00 -
[18]
Audri Fisher,
It wasn't origionally my concept. I just agreed and am running with it. (I think it was j0 who origionally said it).
Bombers, ditch the stealth bombers, make them tough and with resists like AF's and give them 3-4 of the heavy rocket launchers. Presto, anti-BS/capital frigates.
Destroyers are a whole order more complex a problem.
Lisento Slaven, sorry, should of specified - in PvP. Still useful PvE. And yes, dessies die lots...but they're also 1/30 the cost of the average AF. AND they're insurable. Sure, solo they're not brilliant, but neither are AF's (bar the Ishkur)
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 17:11:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Audri Fisher,
It wasn't origionally my concept. I just agreed and am running with it. (I think it was j0 who origionally said it).
Bombers, ditch the stealth bombers, make them tough and with resists like AF's and give them 3-4 of the heavy rocket launchers. Presto, anti-BS/capital frigates.
Destroyers are a whole order more complex a problem.
Lisento Slaven, sorry, should of specified - in PvP. Still useful PvE. And yes, dessies die lots...but they're also 1/30 the cost of the average AF. AND they're insurable. Sure, solo they're not brilliant, but neither are AF's (bar the Ishkur)
Cost analysis is not appropriate between tech I and tech II ships. I have not costed them out, but the cost to build a Destroyer vs an Assault frigate isn't that much different. I beleive it cost around 1.8-1.9 times the amount to build an AF vs a cormorat. The reason that Assault frigates cost so much more is that they are viewed as much more desirable by people. If destroyers truely were almost on par with an Assault frig, the assault frig prices would drop as more people used destroyers in risky ops, instead of a costly, and uninsurable AF.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 19:12:00 -
[20]
Absoloute and total rubbish. An AF costs in the region of x6-8 times as much to build, inc. T2 components. And most people have to pay the market cost.
AF's cost more because of the difficulties in production which T2 provides, as well as the premium allways attached to limited-production items.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Illegal
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 19:38:00 -
[21]
seconded, the AF cost is relational to the T2 production aspect.
--
[center]center] |
Lygos
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 20:15:00 -
[22]
I'd prefer faster lock time, range or higher volley damage than any sort of defence or survivability. I'd accept a larger sig even. 200m/s is sufficient because the only traveling or moving I ever do is if the gang leader's insta drops me more than 2km to the gate.
I'm not going to be orbitting anything most likely, unless it's been heavily sensor damped.
Turns out that frigate guns are fun at 30km. I see no reason why CCP shouldn't consider expanding on this even further.
|
source
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 20:22:00 -
[23]
As you guys are getting a little off topic, I'll steer it back into the right direction.
I think a "extra bonus" besides the -25% rof (yes keep that or like somebody pointed out above they would pwn) That gives gang members Anti-frig bonus' which could or could not be racial dependant.
Any comments?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 20:33:00 -
[24]
Perfectly on topic. There's need need for anotehr destroyer bonus, theyre allready cutting far to deep into the AF's role.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Dhin Xar
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 22:05:00 -
[25]
Maybe I'm just in an odd part of 0.0, but I see atleast ten times more AFs than Destroyers. I don't think they are in any danger of becoming obsolete. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 22:12:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 06/05/2006 22:12:56
Originally by: Dhin Xar
Maybe I'm just in an odd part of 0.0, but I see atleast ten times more AFs than Destroyers. I don't think they are in any danger of becoming obsolete.
No, you're not (in an odd part). The "underpowered" AF's are widely used... for PvE.
Not for PvP. That's where the problem lies.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
ArcticFox
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 23:21:00 -
[27]
Edited by: ArcticFox on 06/05/2006 23:22:28
I'd like to see my interdictor get a small hp boost so I can survive being sneezed on twice while I drop a bubble instead of just once. 
In all seriousness I do think interdictors need just slightly more survivability (not enough that they can take on AFs, I like that most AFs will still pwn an interdictor if the dictor is stupid enough to engage on the AFs terms), but not of the type that AFs have. In other words, AFs have a somewhat sustainable survivability (they can fit a good tank), I don't think interdictors should have this, but they should be able to take a few hits before they have to run or blow up. As it stands having HP comparable or less than that of a plated cepter while having 3x the sig radius seems a bit overdone in terms of vulnerability.
EDIT: Maya, you're absolutely right about AFs being underused in PvP. I know there's a thread in my alliance forums all about how people shouldn't bother with afs, since you can do more for less money in PvP with a t1 cruiser.
----------------------------------
"There's no +6 Sword of WTFPWN in Eve." - Er... Some person on the forum... |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |