| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arcalane Celso
Caldari
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
   |
Posted - 2007.02.15 09:10:00 -
[1]
So I've been thinking about Destroyers. Currently, they seem stuck in a bit of a niche role - they are salvagers and frigate killers, but are rather outclassed by Cruisers, even though some Cruisers aren't actually much larger than some Destroyers.
Thoughts, then;
Keep existing destroyers, lower the refire penalty a bit (to 20 or 15 %) and upgrade acceleration. And for the love of all that's unholy, add an extra low slot. Please. Maybe slow them down a bit.
Add a new set of "Tier 2" Destroyers that are more focused about multi-target short-range brutal, deadly and vicious combat. Blaster/Pulse/Auto Destroyers, rather than ones that are capable of longer ranges. They'd be faster, perhaps, and tougher. They would have range penalties, but ROF and damage penalties, naturally.
Add another set of "Tier 2" Destroyers that are focused around missiles and rockets, to make sure no aspect of them is left unnoticed. They would be mirror images of the current destroyers, with 6~7 Launcher slots and 1~2 Turret slots. They could have missile damage/velocity bonuses, and an effect to reduce the CPU consumption of Launchers also. Baby Drakes, if you will.
~~
I'm in ur belts minin' ur roids. |
Erim Solfara
Amarr
Tarlos INC
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 13:13:00 -
[2]
I very much like the idea, but you need to bear in mid racial traits.
'Add another low slot' would be more than slightly crap for the Amarr one, with 8-1-4
But brutal close range destroyers for close and tight orbiting frigs would be nice.
New ship class |
roBurky
StateCorp
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 13:35:00 -
[3]
The most common complaint about destroyers is how fragile they are. So I'd like tier 2 destroyers to have the advantage of toughness over the tier 1s, perhaps at the expense of firepower.
Then make Tech 2 destroyers from the tier 2 models, so we can have Assault Destroyers that can be to assault frigates as tech 1 destoyers are to tech 1 frigates.
---
|
Arcalane Celso
Caldari
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 13:43:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Erim Solfara
I very much like the idea, but you need to bear in mid racial traits.
'Add another low slot' would be more than slightly crap for the Amarr one, with 8-1-4
But brutal close range destroyers for close and tight orbiting frigs would be nice.
I haven't had much experience with destroyers outside of the Cormorant, unfortunately, so... guess I should change that to "add a mid/low slot where necessary" 
I expect that all destroyers can still perform well in short-range roles - but it would be much better to have a specifically short-range based one, rather than trying to force our current long-ranged ones into something their bonuses aren't suited for.
~~
I'm in ur belts minin' ur roids. |
isAzmodeus
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 14:12:00 -
[5]
I'd like to see a Destroyer with increased rof for defenders and the ability to target any missile aimed at a gang/fleetmate. A destroyer with 6-8 launchers all churning out defenders would inflict no damage to the enemy fleet, but would be a great missile/torp shield for a friendly fleet. Destroyers would start becoming useful for fleet actions.
As a negative, give them a -% range to standard missiles. It would limit them to just rockets or defenders as viable options. It would be perfect as either an anti-missile ship or an up-close rocketship. And it makes perfect RP sense for factions to develop an anti-missile ship or close-range destroyer.
It would be much more realistic to see fleet engagements with larger ships screened by destroyers to intercept enemy fire, and other screening elements to protect the destroyers. Allows for a much more layered battleplan.
|
isAzmodeus
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 14:12:00 -
[6]
I'd like to see a Destroyer with increased rof for defenders and the ability to target any missile aimed at a gang/fleetmate. A destroyer with 6-8 launchers all churning out defenders would inflict no damage to the enemy fleet, but would be a great missile/torp shield for a friendly fleet. Destroyers would start becoming useful for fleet actions.
As a negative, give them a -% range to standard missiles. It would limit them to just rockets or defenders as viable options. It would be perfect as either an anti-missile ship or an up-close rocketship. And it makes perfect RP sense for factions to develop an anti-missile ship or close-range destroyer.
It would be much more realistic to see fleet engagements with larger ships screened by destroyers to intercept enemy fire, and other screening elements to protect the destroyers. Allows for a much more layered battleplan.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tough Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:41:00 -
[7]
The problem with tier2 destroyers is making a ship that is unique rather than just better than thier tier1 counterparts. We see this problem with the new BCs.
For this reason I think that the defining characteristic of any destroyer should be based off the "special ability bonus/disadvantage" that it gets. What should this special ability be? I honestly have no clew however I'd like it to gear the ships twards passive missile/drone defense rather than personal survivability. I think all destroyers should be weak defensivly but have enough firepower/utility to make up for it.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got" |
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: isAzmodeus
I'd like to see a Destroyer with increased rof for defenders and the ability to target any missile aimed at a gang/fleetmate. A destroyer with 6-8 launchers all churning out defenders would inflict no damage to the enemy fleet, but would be a great missile/torp shield for a friendly fleet. Destroyers would start becoming useful for fleet actions.
Therfore rendering Caldari ships useless.
I wouldn't mind destroyers being upgrades, but not if you're basically destroying a Caldari's primary weapon system because you don't like missiles
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tough Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Angelus Xenotov
Therfore rendering Caldari ships useless.
I wouldn't mind destroyers being upgrades, but not if you're basically destroying a Caldari's primary weapon system because you don't like missiles
The Caldari ship is only useless as long as that destroyer is around. Same goes for other times of support ships so I honestly don't see the point. ECM ships have the ability to render almost any ship "useless".
The idea is to add a little more tactical forthought/cunningness into what ships you destroy first ect.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got" |
isAzmodeus
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:59:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Angelus Xenotov
Therfore rendering Caldari ships useless.
I wouldn't mind destroyers being upgrades, but not if you're basically destroying a Caldari's primary weapon system because you don't like missiles
I fly a missile ship. It would be a highly specialized ship only useful against a certain type of damage. I don't see the problem with this. It would be horrible against gunnery snipers, and only mildly effective against drones. Plus, while it could kill a missile ship's dps, it can't inflict any damage of its own. Therefore, most people wouldn't fly it except for those rare instances they know it would be useful.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 22:58:00 -
[11]
Yeah, turret disruptors don't do jack to missile boats, so something that can reduce the overall effectiveness of missiles might not be unbalanced, although it would call for a boost to missile damage, so that missiles actually start getting used more in PvP.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tough Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:04:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Yeah, turret disruptors don't do jack to missile boats, so something that can reduce the overall effectiveness of missiles might not be unbalanced, although it would call for a boost to missile damage, so that missiles actually start getting used more in PvP.
Missiles do low damange because they are extremely flexible, just like drones. They take time to get to their target but they do not require tracking nor do they require cap. These two factors will make it so that missiles will never be able to do the damage of turrets.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got" |
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tough Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Yeah, turret disruptors don't do jack to missile boats, so something that can reduce the overall effectiveness of missiles might not be unbalanced, although it would call for a boost to missile damage, so that missiles actually start getting used more in PvP.
Missiles do low damange because they are extremely flexible, just like drones. They take time to get to their target but they do not require tracking nor do they require cap. These two factors will make it so that missiles will never be able to do the damage of turrets.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got" |
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:15:00 -
[14]
/signed on OP
/signed on defender missiles destroyer
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |