EVE Search - Combat Destroyers (contrast with existing Attack Destroyers)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Combat Destroyers (contrast with existing Attack Destroyers)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2157	Posted - 2015.01.02 00:33:54 - [1] - Quote All of the destroyers we have in the game are attack destroyers, meaning they are focused on high damage output with relatively weak defenses. It is fitting to the old naval warfare lore of the name, but as "Destroyer" is an entire ship class, I think it makes sense for combat destroyers to be available. They would have fairly strong offense paired with moderately strong defense. They would be tougher and more powerful than frigates, but slower and less agile. Consider some tech 1 options for these: * 5-6 high slots, 7-8 total mid/low slots * 5-6 weapon hardpoints * Skill bonuses could be damage and range, or damage and defense. * They would have the 50% range role bonus just like the turret-based attack destroyers -- and that tracking penalty they used to have should be brought back, for both these and those. * They should have slightly higher hit points than attack destroyers but slightly lower max velocity * They should have a slightly larger signature radius as well, but a faster capacitor regen * Powergrid should probably remain about the same while CPU might need to go up slightly. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Foxicity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 81	Posted - 2015.01.02 01:23:06 - [2] - Quote Well someone has to say it. This suggestion seems reasonable and I don't hate it. It is a bit bland though. Maybe add the ability to call CONCORD to help you kill something?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2159	Posted - 2015.01.02 01:57:20 - [3] - Quote Cute, but please try to keep it constructive. I do make troll posts from time to time, but this is not one of them. I think we all would agree that having a ship call CONCORD is pretty imbalanced. I feel like the intrigue of these ships is solely in them filling a gap in the ship lineup. They seem more interesting to me than the new attack destroyers that were released a few expansions ago. Still, if people want to see them spiced up a bit, maybe they could have a more unique role bonus instead of the range increase and tracking penalty. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Foxicity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 82	Posted - 2015.01.02 02:00:43 - [4] - Quote Well I mean it's not a "my god, this is what's been missing from my life" kind of idea, but filling a gap sounds fine. I don't fly destroyers enough to say that attack destroyers don't fill my needs.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2159	Posted - 2015.01.02 02:15:06 - [5] - Quote Yeah, most people don't seem that interested. Everyone likes battleships except nowadays everyone likes cruisers. Not a lot of folks like frigates and the ones that do seem mostly satisfied. I like frigates and destroyers a lot, but it has always bugged me that destroyers are so squishy. I enjoy that battlecruisers are tanky while also dishing out damage, and I think that there should be destroyers like that, too. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 842	Posted - 2015.01.02 02:21:49 - [6] - Quote I was halfway ok with it until you proposed modifying the existing destroyer lines as well as implementing the new ones. Leave the current destroyers alone unless you want this to turn into a discussion about why changing the current destroyers are bad instead of discussing your ideas for new destroyers. As for the idea itself.... kind of bland. It doesn't really address the issues you think it will solve. 1/2: They won't be better than current destroyers for forward scouting even with more HP, because with higher sig and lower velocity, you are still going to get stomped before your fleet get there due to increased vulnerability to large guns and drones (which they would not be fast enough to kite) Still better to bring a frigate or ceptor for scouting and tackling. 3: For solo PvP, being slower, and having tracking penalties with a slightly greater range means in practice that there are more opportunities for enemies to get inside your guns and kite your tracking. Basically your lower tracking means getting kited by close range frigs easier, while your bonuses force you into the midrange combat role that cruisers will stomp you at, even with a bit more dps and a bit more ehp. 4: Um I guess. a bit more range and fitting would mean they are better than the other dessies at PvE, but since destroyers occupy a PvE niche of "Lv 2 missions and I can't afford a cruiser", it's not a huge endorsement. 5: Small smartbomb range is so bad. So incredibly bad. Barring a 200% bonus to smarty range, I don;t think there's any chance to salvage it. Just about the only use for them is bombing light drones that have already settled into attack orbits. But that's a problem with small smartbombs in general, not your idea.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2160	Posted - 2015.01.02 02:49:16 - [7] - Quote Anhenka wrote: (which they would not be fast enough to kite) I'm not so certain of that--though you do bring up a decent point. They might need to have speed matching attack destroyers but I think even with a bit less, they will still outmaneuver cruisers well enough to go toe to toe with one. The big difference between doing that with a combat destroyer vs. an attack destroyer is that the combat destroyer won't die as quick to one lucky volley when your ship suddenly decides to change its orbit direction. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 771	Posted - 2015.01.02 03:50:44 - [8] - Quote I think the field of ships - particularly small ships - is so crowded already that I wonder what niche you are trying to fill with these new ships. What is their purpose? I proposed a faction frigate with a bonus to smart bombing range and damage several months ago - the idea was to have a ship that would be good at helping to clear drones off and also good at damaging or decloaking ships (it was a very fast accelerating, very agile design). It was not particularly well-received, but sometimes that's just the mood the forums are in on a particular day. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Catherine Laartii Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF 454	Posted - 2015.01.02 03:53:38 - [9] - Quote Part of the reason why using the attack bc meta on destroyers is awkward is that their sig radius leaves vulnerable to medium weapons, and destroyers in generally will be comparably slow compared to frigates, and less tanky than AFs or even other t1 frigs. Perhaps making them very fast on their feet and having a leveled bonus to reduce sig radius per level might be a good route to go?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2161	Posted - 2015.01.02 05:00:20 - [10] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: I think the field of ships - particularly small ships - is so crowded already that I wonder what niche you are trying to fill with these new ships. What is their purpose? The niche is a small ship that is good for solo operations, having a solid arrangement of both high slots and mid/low slots. It would make a good hull for fitting in a wide variety of ways, fitting whatever your needs are at the time. This is much like combat battlecruisers, or battleships like the Raven, Megathron, Tempest, and Armageddon. Small tech 1 ships have nothing like this. You either have very few high slots or very few mid/low slots. To give an extreme Swiss Army Ship example, there are no small ships that can fit guns, a tractor beam, a salvager, a cloaking device, a probe launcher, a prop mod, an ECM burst, an analyzer, a codebreaker, and an active tank. You can do that with combat battlecruisers and battleships, and you could do that with a combat destroyer, but you can't do that with any frigate nor any attack destroyer. Catherine Laartii wrote: Perhaps making them very fast on their feet and having a leveled bonus to reduce sig radius per level might be a good route to go? Perhaps it is not that combat destroyers should be slower than attack destroyers are now, but that attack destroyers should be faster. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
MBizon Osis State War Academy Caldari State 62	Posted - 2015.01.02 05:10:34 - [11] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Part of the reason why using the attack bc meta on destroyers is awkward is that their sig radius leaves vulnerable to medium weapons, and destroyers in generally will be comparably slow compared to frigates, and less tanky than AFs or even other t1 frigs. Perhaps making them very fast on their feet and having a leveled bonus to reduce sig radius per level might be a good route to go? I agree with this +1. The gun/missile dessies are in a bad spot right now. The main issues are: 1 Stuck with out a good prop option: The small ABs are not near enough and the small MWDs are sure death given the more than double the base sig size over frigs(exception Talwar). Lastly the over size 10 MN AB is too much PG. 2 Too light on the fitting resources (PG, CAP, CPU, and low number and crappy lay out of Fitting Slots. These all ensure that the gun/missile dessies will always be over matched by some T1 frigs. And fit for lvl1 missions and the occasional extra DPS for frig gangs.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2162	Posted - 2015.01.02 05:16:25 - [12] - Quote I'd ask for a 2MN afterburner and microwarpdrive but then we'd need to increase the mass of destroyers. But maybe that would make more sense! T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 12	Posted - 2015.01.02 06:16:24 - [13] - Quote I think the existing destroyers should be combat destroyers and a 3rd T1 destroyer be added Attack destroyer 8 high 8 guns current dessi mid and low slot layout 5 damage per level 10 application / projection per level 95 reduction on medium gun fitting. so ABCs baby brothers.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 842	Posted - 2015.01.02 06:21:11 - [14] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: I think the existing destroyers should be combat destroyers and a 3rd T1 destroyer be added Attack destroyer 8 high 8 guns current dessi mid and low slot layout 5 damage per level 10 application / projection per level 95 reduction on medium gun fitting. so ABCs baby brothers. Posting in a buff suicide ganking thread. 10 effective turret, medium gun packing hull that only costs a mil or two? Think 1100dps gank destroyers. Just say no.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2162	Posted - 2015.01.02 06:29:03 - [15] - Quote A Catalyst with 8 medium neutron blasters would hit harder than a Brutix! I'm actually of the mind that the attack battlecruisers would have been fine with just medium guns. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Nikolai Leonov Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.01.02 09:39:55 - [16] - Quote The problem with your idea is that a Destroyer is designed to do exactly what it's name implies. Its a combat roll fulfillment, if you want something tanky, move a size up.
Xindi Kraid Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 897	Posted - 2015.01.02 10:06:30 - [17] - Quote I think destroyers have plenty attack power. What's lacking is one with a bit of meat. A destroyer that can actually survive combat with cruisers given they have a large enough sig radius to be vulnerable to cruiser weaponry. So, a combat destroyer really needs some tanking bonuses, not more damage bonuses. Still, there's not a WHOLE lot of room for new T1 destroyers, regrettably (though I would like to see more T2 options as well as faction options)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2162	Posted - 2015.01.02 10:29:43 - [18] - Quote They should have made the new destroyers into combat. Think of it: Dragoon: 25mb/s drone bandwidth, 5 high slots, 3 mid slots, 5 low slots, zero turret/launcher hardpoints Skill bonuses: drone damage/HP and neutralizer/vampire cap drain amount Shines at: dismantling them with drones while sucking their capacitor dry and kiting weapons Roles: drones, disruption Corax: 6 high slots, 5 mid slots, 2 low slots, 5 launcher hardpoints, 1 turret hardpoint Skill bonuses: missile velocity and missile damage Shines at: kiting them at high speed and moderate range while assaulting with missiles Roles: missiles, range Algos: 25mb/s drone bandwidth, 5 high slots, 4 mid slots, 4 low slots, 3 turret hardpoints Skill bonuses: drone damage/HP and armor repair amount Shines at: brawling with high defense while remaining mobile and dishing out good DPS Roles: drones, defense Talwar: 6 high slots, 4 mid slots, 3 low slots, 5 launcher hardpoints, 3 turret hardpoints Skill bonuses: max velocity and shield boost amount Shines at: skirmishing at high speed with a flexible weapon setup and good defenses Roles: missiles, defense T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 9	Posted - 2015.01.02 10:33:41 - [19] - Quote Hmm, maybe just start with faction destroyers with appropriate bonuses, like they did with BC's?
Kendarr Zebra Corp The Bastion 41	Posted - 2015.01.02 12:39:02 - [20] - Quote Pizza seem to make good use of the existing destroyers. Zebra-Corp
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 13	Posted - 2015.01.02 18:56:49 - [21] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: A Catalyst with 8 medium neutron blasters would hit harder than a Brutix! I'm actually of the mind that the attack battlecruisers would have been fine with just medium guns. honestly this would have been cool as well. kinda like tier 3 battleships for BCs. that and you might not be completely screwed when a frig looks at you.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 460	Posted - 2015.01.02 20:11:23 - [22] - Quote I'm sorry, but destroyers aren't in need of a "combat" variation. As they stand, it is possible to tank them almost to cruiser levels, or fit them as extremely high DPS glass cannons with good mobility and excellent application. Guess what the playerbase goes for, almost every time? Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1854	Posted - 2015.01.02 21:53:52 - [23] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: I think destroyers have plenty attack power. What's lacking is one with a bit of meat. A destroyer that can actually survive combat with cruisers given they have a large enough sig radius to be vulnerable to cruiser weaponry. So, a combat destroyer really needs some tanking bonuses, not more damage bonuses. Still, there's not a WHOLE lot of room for new T1 destroyers, regrettably (though I would like to see more T2 options as well as faction options) It's called a cruiser..... You are wanting to tank like a cruiser, fly a cruiser. You want to sig tank a cruiser, fly an AF or Interceptor. Where does this combat destroyer fit that doesn't overlap one of those two areas?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2164	Posted - 2015.01.03 03:52:37 - [24] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's called a cruiser..... You are wanting to tank like a cruiser, fly a cruiser. You want to sig tank a cruiser, fly an AF or Interceptor. Where does this combat destroyer fit that doesn't overlap one of those two areas? The gap between frigate and cruiser in terms of tank is pretty big. Allow me to outline it for you: EHP of Merlin with max skills and MSE+AIF: 5920 EHP of Cormorant with max skills and MSE+AIF: 6974 EHP of Moa with max skills and MSE+AIF: 19,506 So the Moa has about 3.3x the EHP of the Merlin, more if you consider what you can get with having more slots and LSE costing a smaller percentage of the Moa's max powergrid. The Cormorant, on the other hand, has only 18% more EHP than the Merlin, despite being much larger and slower, and having fewer mid/low slots. Merlin has 7 total, Cormorant has 5 total, and Moa has 9 total. I just want something with about 7-8 total mid/low slots, destroyer size/speed/sig radius/base HP, and a defense bonus. That will actually put its defenses somewhere between the agile Merlin and the tanky Moa. Somewhere in that huge chasm between them. Somewhere, in fact, closer to the Merlin, but not that small. I'm not sure why you think I want a cruiser but maybe this will help: 1.) Cruisers use medium weapons. Destroyers use small weapons. 2.) Cruisers warp slower than destroyers. 3.) Cruisers have a lot more hit points and powergrid than destroyers. And if that doesn't do it, here's the only other thing I can think of: I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. I'm not asking for a cruiser. Are we clear now? T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2164	Posted - 2015.01.03 03:58:23 - [25] - Quote James Baboli wrote: As they stand, it is possible to tank them almost to cruiser levels, Prove it. Give me one destroyer fit that puts it anywhere near cruiser tank. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 9	Posted - 2015.01.03 11:06:05 - [26] - Quote Make a buff for dessys would require to buff cruisers etc that's like chain reaction. it's a specific class of ships with specific role why to make them more powerful more specific. There are hundreds of mods to make them exactly you'd like to.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2165	Posted - 2015.01.03 12:22:09 - [27] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Make a buff for dessys would require to buff cruisers etc that's like chain reaction. I'm not suggesting any buffs. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Gregor Parud 830	Posted - 2015.01.03 12:25:30 - [28] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Cute, but please try to keep it constructive. I do make troll posts from time to time, but this is not one of them. You reap what you sow.
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 9	Posted - 2015.01.04 01:00:04 - [29] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tiddle Jr wrote: Make a buff for dessys would require to buff cruisers etc that's like chain reaction. I'm not suggesting any buffs. Any improvements considered as buff
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2166	Posted - 2015.01.04 01:27:04 - [30] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Any improvements considered as buff What improvements have I suggested? Please keep in mind that every bonus I have suggested comes with a counter-penalty. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.