Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Marine Raider
Minmatar Black Lance Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 19:30:00 -
[1]
I am currently in the long haul for the interdictor which I think is a sweet ship just because of the role it plays. However, atm, I am questioning what the whole point is. Why should I go out of my way to train destroyers to lvl 5 and propulsion jamming to lvl 5 for a single ship. Why is it that in every t2 ship class (Frigs, Cruisers) there are multiple classes (Frigs: AF, Inty, Cov Ops, Bombers, Cruisers: HAC, Recon, Logistic) while Destroyers have only one, the all annoying dictor which can sometimes be called primary before a scorpion. Shouldn't a second type of t2 destroyer be added or would that just destroy all balance in the game? _______________________________________________
Raiders Company - WE SET THE PACE USMC |

Kateryne
Steel Frontier Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 19:48:00 -
[2]
An actualy t2 destroyer (interdictors may be t2, but their more specialist variants of destroyers than truly upgraded ones) would be good, but im guessing that if a second one is made it would be the next level up of bomber, or an uber mining platform (either suit me fine :D) Looking for a corp?
Like POS? |

Hub Quantum
Dark Synergy Inc. Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 20:50:00 -
[3]
I think partly that propulsion jamming 5 and destroyers 5 is why interdictors aren't a dime a dozen, the above two are deadend skills and thus help limit the amount of people you see in them.
While it sucks if you are training for it, it does help limit the people going for an interdictor, which is good, because they shouldn't be common.
Compare that to say, getting a HAC in which every single skill required to 5 is either a great skill to have to 5 anyway (Weapon upgrades, spaceship command as well as assault ships which engineering 5 and mechanic 5 are pretty much required of every serious pilot) or it'll at least let you go one other place (Cruiser 5 to recons)
|

Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 21:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 14/08/2006 21:01:59 The only "dead end" skill is destroyers and that doesn't mean someday they won't add another t2 destroyer. So you might have your work cut out for you when they arrive.
So you waste, in the end, you waste 9-11 days to get a nice niched ship? I think it's worth it personally.
That leaves us to the prop jamming 5, and if you run inties you know sure as hell that another 5% bonus to that 20k scrambler energy use is always nice.
|

Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 21:51:00 -
[5]
I just want a cormy w/o the 25% rof 
|

Maya Rkell
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 22:07:00 -
[6]
Given the only significant differences between destroyers and AF's are in tank and alpha (not DoT), a "better than T1" T2 destroyer would make AF's rather nastily obselete.
A different take on T2 destroyers (cloak removal, heavy bomber, etc.) is imo called for.
|

Talori'i
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 22:13:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Talori''i on 14/08/2006 22:15:51 I want an assault destroyer. smaller sig bigger then tech 1 frigates, but smaller then normal destroyer, 2-3 more slots, sort of a mini-HAC. 20-25% increase to cpu and PG reduced speed. Keep the ROF penalty, and have the bonuses go one towards the EW of the race, and second to tanking.
Build cost: 15 mil, selling for around 40-50 mil
4 8 15 16 23 42 |

Jerick Ludhowe
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 22:54:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 14/08/2006 22:56:16
Originally by: Maya Rkell Given the only significant differences between destroyers and AF's are in tank and alpha (not DoT), a "better than T1" T2 destroyer would make AF's rather nastily obselete.
I'd agree except that t1 destroyers are less agile, slower, and have a much larger sig radius than t1 frigates. That being said I would asume that a t2"assault destroyer" would have those same disadvantages in comparison to an AF.
Do I think the game needs a t2 Assault destroyer? Hell no, however ignoring one of the largest disadvantages of the destroyer class in your comparison of the two ships is rather one sided imo.
I'll agree with you that if another t2 destroyer was to be implemented that it should have a somewhat unique role. I like your idea of a heavy bomber, or close range torp boat.
|

Maya Rkell
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 23:16:00 -
[9]
Jerick Ludhowe, well, actually there are not huge differences.
The agility is remarkable similar, and the base speeds are not much different (and in particular, the AF's are somewhat heavier and thus slower with an AB, the Minmatar ones are a little quicker..but not the 6 others).
Sig radius is of relevant to and I factor it into the "tanking".
|

Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 23:58:00 -
[10]
GAH! won't let me post keeps making me log back in 
AF resist on adessy would make AF pointless. give it 20% less ROF penalty per level. this would cancel the 25% rof penalty at level 5.
|
|

Valea Silpha
Cereal Killerz Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 01:22:00 -
[11]
You'll never see uber t2 assault destroyers. Why ? Because theres no bloody point.
8 guns and the same tank as an AF ... can anyone say overpowered ?
Personally, i want to see t2 destroyer mini-command ship. Gang assist mod, 7 gun, sod all tank. Loverlly.
<Hammerhead> TomB is doing the nerfing <Hammerhead> I just stand behind him, look at his monitor and shake my head |

Marine Raider
Minmatar Black Lance Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 01:57:00 -
[12]
I think the idea of having another special role for the destroyer, such as the torpedo boat, or heavy bomber would make it a great upgrade from the stealth bomber. I won't stop training for the dictor, but I'm just wondering if it didn't have to be such a dead end. _______________________________________________
Raiders Company - WE SET THE PACE USMC |

Dr NOe
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 04:59:00 -
[13]
I think there are enough Assault heavy classes really. One thing i have been tossing sbout in my head is the Fleet Defence Ship. Sort of the Old style of Destroyer.
Figure a T2 Destroyer to fill this role. Useing Defender missiles (If and When they work or whatever)to stave off missles from attacks. Maybe even a Anti cloak. Sort of a Pinger to detect cloaked ships. and a launcher which uses Probes that turn to Depth charge type weapons.
Fleet defence is My want and idea. Embelish as you like.
|

Rebekka Ammund
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 05:39:00 -
[14]
I've been flying an Interdictor for about six months now...I have the skills for FFs and DDs...that's it. I LOVE the 'dictor. I won't fly anything but a destroyer/DD variant. I stick to medium-security space and thoroughly enjoy doing missions and taking on the occasional nub-rat in .4 space. I would really like to see another variant. Maybe something that can hold more missiles(limited to light launchers only though) and with a 25 or 30m3 drone bay...enough for light drones...or maybe a FEW specialized ones. Maybe designers could make each race different. Gallente could be a drone ship with some EW...Amarr could be sniper-laser with high speed...Caldari could be a full-on missile boat stripped down otherwise...and Minmatar could be an EW platform with missiles. No reason to make them all the same... Professional Procrastinatory Miner |

Hub Quantum
Dark Synergy Inc. Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 10:00:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Hub Quantum on 15/08/2006 10:01:20
Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 14/08/2006 21:01:59 The only "dead end" skill is destroyers and that doesn't mean someday they won't add another t2 destroyer. So you might have your work cut out for you when they arrive.
So you waste, in the end, you waste 9-11 days to get a nice niched ship? I think it's worth it personally.
That leaves us to the prop jamming 5, and if you run inties you know sure as hell that another 5% bonus to that 20k scrambler energy use is always nice.
Whether or not it's nice to have or not for a single class of ship using a single class of module isn't the point.
1) It's not used in any other pre-reqs for any other items or skills (This is the definition of a dead end skill, it takes you nowhere.) 2) See above, it's only useful on one ship class (Two if you include AFs) for one module type. As soon as you go into cruiser class and above you are measuring a percentage of a percentage of your capacitor on a module you may or may not fit; meaning there are much better ways to spend your SP. 3) It's an x3, meaning though not ludicrous to train, it's not trivial either. Being around 10-15 days.
Again compare that to weapon upgrades 5 or spaceship command 5, or even racial cruiser 5.
Add in destroyers 5 and you are looking at 20-25 days of deadend training to be in an interdictor, which is again, why they aren't terribly common.
|

Clais Monaige
Prodigy Enterprise
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 12:20:00 -
[16]
I'd really like to see different special roles for t2 destroyers, or even t1 variants (with additional models/hull schemes ), something like - EW-boat with decent tanking capabilities - anti-cloaking specialisation with ping, depth charges and so on - small logistic boat which can maintain - at maxed out skills - to support a whole wing of frigates, unable to defend itself due to lack of tanking or weapon-mounting - anti-missile and -drone boat with point-of-defense weaponary, lack of offense power, decent tanking capability
or variants of them. Or at least a small buff to existing t1 ones to make it attractive to high skilled pilots - raise the skill time and make a better benefit of a high destroyer skill. Obviously this would have to be balanced as hell  _____________________________ - be excellent to each other -
|

Garramon
Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 12:53:00 -
[17]
They are only dead-end at the moment. For years skills like cruiser 5 and others were dead-end skills. ------------------------------------------------
|

Midnighter
Minmatar Liberal Trading Co Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 13:34:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Marine Raider I am currently in the long haul for the interdictor which I think is a sweet ship just because of the role it plays. However, atm, I am questioning what the whole point is. Why should I go out of my way to train destroyers to lvl 5 and propulsion jamming to lvl 5 for a single ship. Why is it that in every t2 ship class (Frigs, Cruisers) there are multiple classes (Frigs: AF, Inty, Cov Ops, Bombers, Cruisers: HAC, Recon, Logistic) while Destroyers have only one, the all annoying dictor which can sometimes be called primary before a scorpion. Shouldn't a second type of t2 destroyer be added or would that just destroy all balance in the game?
The reason there are so many more tech2 frigates and cruisers is because they have a larger base stock to choose from. Destroyers have one racial ship build, so that really can not justify 2 or 3 different Assault Ship build. What I hope is seen is a second destroyer vessel is released and this then progresses into a tech2 variant. An example being a mini-Command Ship or a frigate sized vessel with a tracking boost and 4 hi slots that get a reduction in fittings for medium guns and heavy launchers.
If we can get a second tier of Destroyer, then I see no reason why we can't open up the path and get more tech2.
TBH a mini-Command ship sounds really interesting for leading packs of Frigates into small skirmishes and for pack hunting larger ships.
I would also like to see Elite Scout Cruisers that can fit Interdiction Bubbles and Scanning Probes to add another avenue to the deadend Interdictor skill.
I think there is a lot that can be done int the future to expand this field into something really unique and usefull.
|

Magunus
The Forsakened Few
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 13:50:00 -
[19]
I'd like to see some capital ship and fleet support ships made out of tech 2 destroyers. For instance:
1) One that is able to take semi-permanent control of fighters away from a carrier if the carrier allows it.
Basically, this would put the destroyer in control of say 1 fighter per level, and the carrier loses control of them, which allows it to launch another wave, putting 5 more fighters into the fight. Basically works like a carrier, but it has no drone bay, so can't carry it's own fighters. I'd suggest giving it a bonus to drone control range, but then turn off the fighter warping. They have to control the fighters from the grid, but they could be 300km or more away from the main fight. (This idea was taken from the Aegis cruiser description I found on the web which said that it could be used to control US interceptors launched from aircraft carriers at a range of 500 miles.)
2) Point defense, which uses defenders to shoot down incoming missiles regardless of who they're targetting. If they're targetting someone in your gang, it shoots them. Also a bonus to the use of weapon disruption and 8 mids to mount the modules. (An idea that's been floating around since the dawn of time.)
3) Denial of movement. A ship which can detect a cloaked ship (range based on skill, say 25km per level) and force it to decloak by shooting it. Also able to disrupt or prevent a cyno field. (That would require some delay to be added between the generation of the field and the actual jump.) This would make it an excellent defense against force recon (presuming the use of cloak and cyno gets fixed, or is it already?), and a lot better than nothing against any other cloaked ship.
None of these would have significant offensive or defensive capabilities other than speed and range in the case of the first one. They're all pretty much 1 or 2 trick ponies, but they each do something that is definitely a niche. ---
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' |

madaluap
Gallente Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 14:56:00 -
[20]
We need a tech 1 and than tech 2 version of a Gallente drone destroyer  _________________________________________________
|
|

Clais Monaige
Prodigy Enterprise
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 19:45:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Clais Monaige on 15/08/2006 19:47:17
Originally by: Midnighter An example being a mini-Command Ship or a frigate sized vessel with a tracking boost and 4 hi slots that get a reduction in fittings for medium guns and heavy launchers.
A similar idea came to my mind:
Give the ship (tier 2 oder tech 2) a bonus to gang assist modules, or better: to only race specific "peculiarity" electronic warfare or rather it's counter measure. Examples:
Gallente dampen, so give the Caldari boat a bonus to use sensor boosting module. Caldari do ECM, so give Gallente a boost to ECCM module. Amarr: bonus to evasive maneuvers module. Minmatar: bonus to tracking enhancing module. Let them use other modules of that type, but with large penalty so it would be the best to fly the corresponding ship.
In short: make it a anti-electronic-warfare-boat that protects it's fleet from electronic warfare influence. Don't make them too powerfull, only a usefull "hardness" against ew - the "attacking" ships shouldn't be useless, though, so it's just harder for them to jamm/dampen/whatever ew them.
This modules have to be activated and use cap. Perhaps a bonus/penalty attribute of each ship could guarantee that a ship only can sustain the race-specific module forever (or with little capacity use), while other modules eat the cap so they can only be used for 20 seconds or so.
The supported ships have to be in the same grid and in the same gang, but don't have to be locked. Perhaps limit the amount of "help" by limiting the strength of the modules, so that 10 ships require more of these support destroyer to be usefull than 5 do, and the amount of strength would depend on the "target" ship's need, so a bs is more hungry than a frigate.
----------------
The other role would be the mentioned Anti-Cloaking capability. Dedicated modules have to be fitted to use it - perhaps something like depth charges which do little damage (same omnidirectional effect like smart bombs) which have a decent radius, but you have to fire them to each direction. Depending on the level of the ship skill the rof will improve, but you perhaps must fit more than one to effectively use the ship as anti-cloaking, sacrifising it's command / fleet boosting capabilities.
Youst a thought  And yes, i know - the whole idea contradicts the role of a destroyer (yeah, the name says all)  _____________________________ - be excellent to each other -
|

Locke DieDrake
Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 19:49:00 -
[22]
I'd like to see another T2 destroyer and a new teir 2 one also.
Either Assault destroyers, or upgraded bombers.
Upgraded bombers with huge alpha strike would fit the destroyer pattern fairly well. Paper thin but huge damage output.
A t1 Cormorant can be set up to hit at 90km with minimal gunnery skills (sub 1m) and t2 small guns with ranged ammo. Which is cool, until you realise that even at that range most cruisers and almost all BS can single volley your ship. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________ |

Taurgil
Balanced Unity
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 21:44:00 -
[23]
Just to use the Bubble Launcher you will need:
Racial Frig (5) Destroyer (5) Interdictors (1) Interceptors (4) Evasive Maneuvering (5) Prop Jamming (5) Science (5) Engineering (5) Graviton Physics (1)
Hell a lot of skills for a fragile Bubble Launcher I think, compared to the cost of the vessel.
I would suggest to remove the ceptor tree from the requirements. Hey, Evasive Maneuvering V and Ceptor IV for a dictor? Cause of what? Its a specialised Bubble launcher, not more. All other things (e.g. killing frigs) can you do with a BC easier.
And yes, good ideas around a Tier2 Tech1 and Tech2 Destroyer class would be fine 
I see the dictor less as a elite destroyer, rather as a special type of vessel (bubble launcher). A 'real' Tech2 destroyer should be more competitive in fights.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |