Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. There's plenty of room for the fitting of oversized prop mods to be an interesting and balanced fitting choice, as long as the benefits and drawbacks are in their proper place.

As an avid FW bro, I would like to see tact destroyers removed from available ships to take into small plexs. My logic follows as such, if Loki's and Tengu's (both medium sized t3 ships) can't get into mediums, why should tech 3 destroyers be allowed in smalls?

Edit: I don't mind the power of the ships as much as I do their ability to engage much weaker ships in small FW plexs.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. There's plenty of room for the fitting of oversized prop mods to be an interesting and balanced fitting choice, as long as the benefits and drawbacks are in their proper place.

Yeah actually saying over and over does make it true, because we are the people still logging in and playing the game and experiencing what PVP is like now on a daily basis. Multiple classes are obsolete because of D3s and links are everywhere and a prerequisite for a decent chance at successful solo/small gang pvp; both of which combined have created one of the worst environments for solo and small gang PVP I've experienced in 3+ years. In the words of The Hound, "f- links, f- D3s, f- the king"

Hey everyone!
Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary.

So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships.

These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one.

Confessor:

• New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
• Highslots: 6 (-1)
• Turrets: 4 (-2)
• Powergrid: 62 (-18)
• CPU: 180 (-10)
• Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
• Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
• Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
• Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
• Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)

Svipul:

• New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
• Highslots: 6 (-1)
• Turrets: 4 (-2)
• Powergrid: 59 (-19)
• CPU: 205 (-10)
• Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
• Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
• Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
• Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
• Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)

Material Requirements (unchanged):
+1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core

Hey everyone!
Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary.

So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships.

These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one.

Confessor:

• New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
• Highslots: 6 (-1)
• Turrets: 4 (-2)
• Powergrid: 62 (-18)
• CPU: 180 (-10)
• Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
• Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
• Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
• Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
• Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)

Svipul:

• New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
• Highslots: 6 (-1)
• Turrets: 4 (-2)
• Powergrid: 59 (-19)
• CPU: 205 (-10)
• Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
• Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
• Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
• Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
• Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)

Material Requirements (unchanged):
+1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core

Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.

It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case). At the end of the day we're more focused on getting an interesting variety of ships than in following any specific patterns rigidly.

The whole point of the Confessor is the 10MN fit. It's simply not good otherwise. Three midslots is restrictive enough.

[Svipul, Cancer 2.0]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Federation Navy 10MN Afterburner
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 50
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 50
Warp Scrambler II

125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
[empty high slot]

Small Ancillary Current Router II
Small Auxiliary Thrusters II
Small Ancillary Current Router I

Just realized, this fit doesn't actually work with the new changes. At the least it needs to drop a Neut and fit a 6% CPU implant. It could also drop the velocity rig for a CPU rig and a Gyro for a PDS2 or any number of other more extreme tweaks.

Aha.

[quote]Svipul 1MN MWD:

293 m/s base speed * (1+(6.25 MWD boost * (1,500,000 thrust / (1,500,00 shipmass + 500,000 MWD mass))) = 1,666 / 2499 OH m/s.

In Propulsion mode: 2766 / 4149 OH m/s.

Confessor 1MN MWD:

299 m/s * (1 + (6.25 MWD bonus * (1,500,000 MWD thrust / (2,000,000 shipmass + 500,000 MWD mass))) = 1424 / 2136 OH m/s.

In Prop mode: 2373 / 3560 OH m/s

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. There's plenty of room for the fitting of oversized prop mods to be an interesting and balanced fitting choice, as long as the benefits and drawbacks are in their proper place.

Aha.

I think that the whiners complaining how they are invincible need to do is adapt and over come, the introduction of these new ships have made pvper's who face them rethink their cookie cutter fits and take these new ships head on.

I feel the changes are not needed they are a T3, look at how OP the cruisers are, cap stable running rep, guns, web, prop, td and still pushing large amounts of DPS for example my current proteus fit gets 724 dps with 5 rails and 5 hammerheads. And is cap stable firing those rails running my rep full time and prop and web.

If the whiners keep it up we will lose a tactical destroyer level with each lose at this rate.


A tip for CCP quit taking notes from the whiners of how OP they are, you introduced a great ship leave it how it is. That subscriber base will never adapt and keep expecting the game to be changed to their liking instead of just playing and adapting to new hurdles.

This t3d shows us the problem with assault frigs, its nice time to think about them and their niche in pvp.

Honestly they should look at both interceptors and assault frigates. Could just merge a few of them (so instead of 2 interceptors and 2 assault frigates, just turn them into a new type of frigate fleet

1 interceptor (fast light tackle), one assault frigate (dps tackle), one heavy tackle frigate (tank, tackle). Throw out one of the ships for each race.

Just thoughts, use the d3 forms and make a frigate based on each, one fast tackle, one good dps, one good tank.

Then again why bring one when you can bring a destroyer that can transform into each at will...

Yea they'll need to be rethought