| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gierling
   |
Posted - 2006.06.26 02:19:00 -
[1]
Seeing how we are getting tier two BC's?
Click Me
And Me |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 02:19:00 -
[2]
Seeing how we are getting tier two BC's?
Click Me
And Me |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 02:29:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 26/06/2006 02:29:45
Problem with tier 2 dessies is that they would probably just make the tier 1 dessies obselete, as they're all so cheap: I mean does anyone fly a Slasher when you can fly a Rifter, for example? Or an Atron instead of an Incursus?
--Proud member of the [23]--
-WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II- |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 02:36:00 -
[4]
Seeing as how we have tanking BC's and are getting Gank BC's.
Couldn't we get a Destroyer that tanks fairly well, would probably be very apprecietted by the noobs and could probably find a place in PVP as durable tackling.
Click Me
And Me |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 02:36:00 -
[5]
Seeing as how we have tanking BC's and are getting Gank BC's.
Couldn't we get a Destroyer that tanks fairly well, would probably be very apprecietted by the noobs and could probably find a place in PVP as durable tackling.
Click Me
And Me |
Pepperami
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 03:10:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Dark Shikari
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 26/06/2006 02:29:45
Problem with tier 2 dessies is that they would probably just make the tier 1 dessies obselete, as they're all so cheap: I mean does anyone fly a Slasher when you can fly a Rifter, for example? Or an Atron instead of an Incursus?
Depends on roles, some people pick tristans instead of incursus, and some pick merlins instead of kestrals. If a second tier of destroyer did something suitably different then both could be usable.
[Art of War][- V -] |
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 03:12:00 -
[7]
I can't see any possible use for tier2 destroyers.
Well, the caldari one could be a missiles platform, but that just spells trouble, and steps on the flycatcher.
Tanking? You don't tank a destroyer, you just hope the enemy's shots move slower to delay your destruction.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 03:27:00 -
[8]
8x light launcher destroyer would be the kestrel from hell!
|
Constantinee
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 03:34:00 -
[9]
Personally id love the idea of a teir 2 destroyer. The game needs more balances support fighters and a teir 2 dessi may just balance it out a bit.and seeing as how we have a t2 dessi wich is pretty much a warp in drop bubble run for the hills ship destroyers should get a more combat heavy tankking t2 destroyer.
Want a Cheap sig? |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 04:10:00 -
[10]
Theres enough room in racial philosophy to have a second non redundant destroyer.
A gallente Destroyer with a 35 m3 drone bay for example, a minmater destroyer with 5 guns 4 mids and a velocity bonus, a caldari destroyer with an ECM bonus, 3 guns and a decent amount of cap.... an amarr Destroyer with 160 base grid (think about that for a second).
Click Me
And Me |
|
|
Kel Shek
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 04:25:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Kel Shek on 26/06/2006 04:27:35
lol... man, these login screwups are getting old.
~~~~~
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
~~William Blake |
Kel Shek
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 04:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gierling
Theres enough room in racial philosophy to have a second non redundant destroyer.
A gallente Destroyer with a 35 m3 drone bay for example, a minmater destroyer with 5 guns 4 mids and a velocity bonus, a caldari destroyer with an ECM bonus, 3 guns and a decent amount of cap.... an amarr Destroyer with 160 base grid (think about that for a second).
as you pointed out so well... there is NOT room in racial philosophy for a second tier destroyer without stepping on the toes of another ship.
your own example... what would that gallente one do that would not be done better by an Ishkur, or if it could not be done better by an ishkur, then why would anyone fly an ishkur?
ganky-but-vulnerable poor-man's AF's is not a very good role for Destroyers IMO.
~~~~~
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
~~William Blake |
Gierling
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 04:39:00 -
[13]
Hi my name is Gierling and apparantly we've never met or been acquanted, I HATE tech II ships and believe that they ruin the game.
The Ishkur is not a ship that I give a damn about.
It doesn't step on the toes of any existing tech one ships, which as a tech one ship is its only requirement.
(although I will add that the Ishkur has a larger drone bay and more resistances, as well as a lower signature so sod off on that angle as well, its a month old players ishkur, and a veterans cheap useful drone ship).
Click Me
And Me |
Kel Shek
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 05:07:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Gierling
(although I will add that the Ishkur has a larger drone bay and more resistances, as well as a lower signature so sod off on that angle as well, its a month old players ishkur, and a veterans cheap useful drone ship).
I can see, in theory, having the hypothetical Tier 2 destroyer having an Ishkur-like drone bay, but a drone damage bonus....
unless you wanted to give it a 20% bonus to light drones or something... I don't see what it'd do that the vexor wouldn't do better, or that the ishkur wouldn't do as well, and be able to take 5x the beating.
and to put it simply, your irrational dislike of T2 ships, is irrelevant. they MUST be considered in role-balancing and so forth. their value difference aught be considered as well.
a destroyer-size ship with a super-bonus for light drones, would definitely have its role for certain things... (low-cost anti-drone, and anti-interceptor ship, but able to be destroyed very easily)
I'm just not sure thats enough for it to be worth the time and space.
honestly just ignoring T2 ships entirely just damages the credibility your opinion has on it, without doing anything constructive.
~~~~~
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
~~William Blake |
Kanthras
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 05:26:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Kanthras on 26/06/2006 05:26:15
Originally by: Kel Shek
Originally by: Gierling
Theres enough room in racial philosophy to have a second non redundant destroyer.
A gallente Destroyer with a 35 m3 drone bay for example, a minmater destroyer with 5 guns 4 mids and a velocity bonus, a caldari destroyer with an ECM bonus, 3 guns and a decent amount of cap.... an amarr Destroyer with 160 base grid (think about that for a second).
as you pointed out so well... there is NOT room in racial philosophy for a second tier destroyer without stepping on the toes of another ship.
your own example... what would that gallente one do that would not be done better by an Ishkur, or if it could not be done better by an ishkur, then why would anyone fly an ishkur?
ganky-but-vulnerable poor-man's AF's is not a very good role for Destroyers IMO.
1) There is.
2) Because the Ishkur is far more expensive, has far greater skill requirements, is not fully insurable and has a drone bay bonus. The way I understand it, Gierlings proposed tier 2 dessie does not.
3) I thought ganky-but-vulnerable was the definition of destroyers?
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 06:55:00 -
[16]
Personally, I'd rather see another t2 destroyer class which was fragile, fast and light but with huge tracking and volley damage. An excellent anti-frig ship.
Think uber-thrasher style of thing, but for all races.
|
Aduras Cartailin
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 07:56:00 -
[17]
I like to see a hunter-killer destroyer (like most destroyers in real life are). Something that can scan for cloaked ships (subs IRL) and then destroy those ships before they can compromise the security of a system or gank an unguarded hauler.
|
Ghargon
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 08:08:00 -
[18]
personally i recon making all tier 2 dessies dedicated drone boats might be a good idea. Give them no high slots for example and 25m^3 drone bay with bonuses to drone bay and drone damage etc and a decent mid and low slot layout so that they can be useful and i think you have a perfect role for a tier 2 destroyer.
Just my 2 isks
I never think of the future - It comes soon enough |
Aduras Cartailin
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 09:06:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ghargon
personally i recon making all tier 2 dessies dedicated drone boats might be a good idea. Give them no high slots for example and 25m^3 drone bay with bonuses to drone bay and drone damage etc and a decent mid and low slot layout so that they can be useful and i think you have a perfect role for a tier 2 destroyer.
Just my 2 isks
1: Some drone upgrade modules use high slots.
2: How is that so much better than an Arbitraitor, Bellicose, or any Gallente Cruiser?
|
callisthenes excelsior
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 11:20:00 -
[20]
Tier II dessies should be support vessels with armor, shield, and energy transfer...
Perhaps the "explorer" class of ships can be the tier II dessies too.
*longer and better warp
*scan probe bonus
Another odd and nice bonus would be a fleet support cargo class...
*larger cargo
*ability to jet can every 20 seconds...
*tractor beam bonus
This would let dessies of the cargo support class jet ammo etc... |
|
|
Demon Johnson
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 11:21:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Aduras Cartailin
How is that so much better than an Arbitraitor, Bellicose, or any Gallente Cruiser?
Good point. Because a destroyer should hunt fast ships, I think a nice bonus to drone speed would be nice instead of the standard drone-ship damage and hitpoint bonus.
Why?
Take the destroyer, fit some drone tracking modules, some drone range modules and then you have a dedicated "tackler killer" ship. When the small drones get really fast they could hunt down intys and other tacklers (in combination with drone tracking mods). To balance this, a dronebay for about three small drones would be enough, else a single Tier 2 destroyer would kill all enemy tacklers in no time.
Something like: Role bonus: 25% to drone speed per destroyer skill level
|
Boonaki
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 11:28:00 -
[22]
Simple, the first tier designed as a close range destroyer, blasters, rockets, autos, and pulses, faster, better agility, lower sig radius, and a lighter tank.
two as a longe range destroyer, rails, light missiles, arties, and beams. Slower, lower agility, more power grid and CPU, better tank and hps.
Fear the Ibis of doom! |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 12:35:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 26/06/2006 12:37:20
Originally by: Gierling
Seeing as how we have tanking BC's and are getting Gank BC's.
Couldn't we get a Destroyer that tanks fairly well, would probably be very apprecietted by the noobs and could probably find a place in PVP as durable tackling.
Yes, I'm sure AF pilots would love it. 
I don't care about your little theory about only T1 ships mattering, when it's inaccurate, misleading and incorrect. New ships must fit into game balance. Period.
|
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 13:17:00 -
[24]
Dessies suck and nobody really uses htme, so I dobt they bother adding tier 2 version.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, and not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty - Cortes |
Mecinia Lua
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 13:37:00 -
[25]
Destroyers make nice antifrigate/interceptor platforms.
One idea would be to have a new skill:
Heavy Destroyer: These would be a tank style set up that some suggest. Probably have fewer high slots than the ones we have now, perhaps only 5 or 6, but better resists, and perhaps better armor and shields. T
But other destroyers would be nice too. You could have a Missile Destroyer for the Caldari, a Drone Carrier for the Gallente, A fast agile destroyer for the Mitari, and a missile/hybrid gun Amarr one.
The one principle balancing act of the destroyer is that it should not be able to take on a Cruiser or other ship for any length of time. They should not be able to mount bigger than small weapons. They also should not last long against larger ships like Cruisers, Heavy Attack Ships, or Battleships.
Still I think there is room for more destroyers. I hope in the future at some point we'll see some more.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 13:51:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, I'm sure AF pilots would love it.
I don't care about your little theory about only T1 ships mattering, when it's inaccurate, misleading and incorrect. New ships must fit into game balance. Period.
You are fogetting some rather key things here Maya, destroyers have a much larger sig than AFs meaning that they take massive damage from heavy missles and to a lesser extent heavy drones. Destroyers are also less agile than AFs, so already we have some rather big disadvantages compared to AFs before slot layout, strait tankability and dps come into the equation.
If a heavily tanked destroyer varient was to be added it of course would sacrifice much of the firepower that the tier 1 destroyers have as a trade off. I do understand your point however I think you make it seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is.
Battle Cruisers step on the roll of HACs in a way however but that does not make HACs useless. Reasons for this are that HACs are more agile, have a smaller sig, and have massive ressistances. Same goes when comparing destroyers to AFs except that aside from the Thrasher Destroyers suck.
Anyhoo, before any new destroyers are to be implemented I would like to see the current destroyers be put in line with the Thrasher.
|
Na'Thuul
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 14:50:00 -
[27]
Quote:
its a month old players ishkur, and a veterans cheap useful drone ship
Hmmm.. wouldn't that be the Vexor?
---
Sanguine Legion - Forums |
UnSiViLiZeD
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 17:56:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Gierling
Seeing how we are getting tier two BC's?
And Tier 3 BS's, I think we should get a Tier 2 destroyer, if anyone goes back to when they 1st started playing (refers mostly to pre rmr people) you start out in the noob ship then you work your way up to frig then destroyer BC and so on, unless you have friends to tell you how to train this is prolly the obvious route most take, if you look at it from a mineing perspective the destroyer is the next step up from a frig (aside from mining bonus's) so from a pvp perspective a Tier 2 destroyer would be fun IMO
_______________________________________________
Life is a game if your not winning you must be loseing.
|
Jobie Thickburger
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 18:23:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 26/06/2006 02:29:45
Problem with tier 2 dessies is that they would probably just make the tier 1 dessies obselete, as they're all so cheap: I mean does anyone fly a Slasher when you can fly a Rifter, for example? Or an Atron instead of an Incursus?
*Hugs his Combat Condor Irine
Don't listen to the bad man ole girl... I still love you...
Anyhow, T2 Desties would be an interesting Idea, but I can't think of any way to impliment them. Destroyers have 2 purposes, 1) anti-Frig warfare (duh) and 2) get newbies used to Slow, Larger ships like cruisers, without having to wait the 5 days for Frig IV to finish (not to mention gunnery/missile skills to get up)
Still, the only one I could see coming, is a Caldari Destroyer with 6+ light missile launchers on it. The other races are kinda stuck...
CEO - MGTTG
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |