EVE Search - Detailed tier 2 Destroyer plan

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Detailed tier 2 Destroyer plan

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Minigin Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.16 22:54:00 - [1] Proposition: Tier 2 destroyers At this point each race has only one destroyer. This is odd considering that they are so widely used by old an new, and that their heritage class of ships was by far more crowded. Battlecruisers, the other intermediate class, now has 8 variants, leaving destroyers in a field filled only by titans, freighters and dreadnoughts (of tech 1 variants), and of these candidates destroyers are the most widely used. Thus I submit that the next logical choice of a class expansion be destroyers. It becomes apparent that each of the races has a general proficiency in the use of one kind of warfare. The CaldariÆs death from afar railgun platform in its cormorant, and yet their love of missiles goes unfulfilled. The catalyst uses blasters well, but with a drone bay of 5 the Gallenteans can hardly call it a harbinger. The Minmatar love of wreckless damage is fulfilled, not so their love of wreckless speed. And the Ammar similarly have their energy turret boat, but no high armoured tank. And do not pretend that such advantages do not exist, for in your battlecruisers you have admitted these aspects critical to the races, the Drake has 7 missile slots and the Ferox turret range bonuses, the Myrmidon has 125 drone bay and the Brutix 7 turret slots, The Harbinger has a range bonus while the Prophecy an armor bonus and the Cyclone and Hurricane both equal fastest and armed to the observation deck. Thus in your own designs you have allowed new destroyers to be created, the CaldariÆs must be a missile site, the GallenteÆs must be a drone hangar, the MinmatarÆs must be a rocket and the AmmarÆs a rock. At this juncture the specifics are discussed which are intended only as ideas for the designs you must inevitably fulfill. - Scyptnex Maior with this in mind... we set out to create the following ships. The ôPriorö Amarr tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 0 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 2 Low slots: 3 Named for its ability to engage multiple targets at one time. Its strength is in the fact that it can utilise small nos from a great range. We recommend a RoF penalty be placed on this ship. Potential bonus: +2km to small nos range per level The ôTaipanö Caldari tier 2 destroy High slots: 8 Missile: 6 Turret: 1 Medium slots: 4 Low slots: 1 Named for its rapid and deadly strike the Taipan is the CaldariÆs tier 2 destroyer. It obviously becomes a bit overpowered if it is allowed to launch a full volley of missiles at its opponent (killing instantly most frigates) and therefore must have a restriction to its missile damage. We recommend that a penalty for this ship be imposed in its explosion radius. Potential bonus: 5% RoF bonus per destroyer level The ôLegionö Gallente tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 0 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 2 Named for the legion of drones that are unleashed from its 25m¦ drone bay. We fear that the use of nos in conjunction with this ship may be an I win button. We recommend that a reduction in nos amount be placed. Or perhaps a reduction in turret damage. Potential bonus: 5% dmg to light scout drones The ôSquallö Minmatar tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 2 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 1 Low slots: 4 Named for its speed. It does not do much damage on the battlefield but provides immense advantage to its fleet through its ability to catch extremely fast targets and provide warp in points in battle. Recommended draw back would be to range of turrets. Potential Bonus: additional 15% to MWD boost. Now we know that there are some big gaps in this. We would like your input into this idea. Please reply to this thread with comments on any changes or additions you recommend and the reasons behind them. - Minigin Your signature <----- My awsome Sig Real men PVP on the Forums.
EadTaes Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2007.05.17 05:55:00 - [2] Overall I like the new destroeyr Idea and some ofve the concepts. How ever I don't think giving each destroyer fewer HIGH DEATH then their teir 1 conterparts. They should all have 8 high slots and 8 turret/missile depending on their race. The onyl excepting beign galente if you give them a drone bay. If not it will need a draw back like fewer mid/low slots then other races. 2nd thing is giving the amarr a NOS bonus. For 2 reasons, NOSs are corrently over powered and if you give 1 Ewar to one race you need to give it to the otehr races as well. EI give Minmatar tracking disruption, galente sensor damp, and caldary jammer. If we give each that then it should work out. The ôPriorö Amarr tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 1 or 2 Turret: 8 Medium slots: 2 Low slots: 3 Named for its ability to engage multiple targets at one time. Its strength is in the fact that it can utilise small nos from a great range. We recommend a RoF penalty be placed on this ship. Potential bonus: +1km to small nos range per level (2k to long) +5% Laser turretcapacitor use The ôTaipanö Caldari tier 2 destroy High slots: 8 Missile: 8 Turret: 2 Medium slots: 4 Low slots: 1 Named for its rapid and deadly strike the Taipan is the CaldariÆs tier 2 destroyer. It obviously becomes a bit overpowered if it is allowed to launch a full volley of missiles at its opponent (killing instantly most frigates) and therefore must have a restriction to its missile damage. We recommend that a penalty for this ship be imposed in its explosion radius. Potential bonus: 5% Missile damage bonus per destroyer level (RoF over powered) 5% jammer capacitator use (dunno if 5% will eb enought since jammer use alot) The ôLegionö Gallente tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 0 Turret: 6 Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 2 Named for the legion of drones that are unleashed from its 25m¦ drone bay. We fear that the use of nos in conjunction with this ship may be an I win button. We recommend that a reduction in nos amount be placed. Or perhaps a reduction in turret damage. Potential bonus: 5% dmg to light scout drones 5% Damnpner effectiveness. The ôSquallö Minmatar tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 2 Turret: 8 Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 2 Named for its speed. It does not do much damage on the battlefield but provides immense advantage to its fleet through its ability to catch extremely fast targets and provide warp in points in battle. Recommended draw back would be to range of turrets. Potential Bonus: additional 5% to Ship velocity. (MWD boost is a gallente trademark) 5% to traking disruptor effectivenss. somehting like this to me would sound and work better. BTW if your reason for so few turrent was to allow them to equip medium sized weapong I'll just say thta Destroyers shoudl always keep their small sized weapons and nver go into mediums. :P
Minigin Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.17 07:08:00 - [3] cool thanks for your input. i think the reason we where limiting slots was that we felt the destroyers we where building where already a little overpowered. but lets see what people think. again, thanks for taking the time to do this Your signature <----- My awsome Sig Real men PVP on the Forums.
BluOrange Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.05.17 09:34:00 - [4] I like the original list - it's 'different' and not automatically 'better'. Aligning things to the races makes it good too, I think. Missile destroyers for the Caldari, a nice nos bonus for the Amarr, drones for Gallente and speed for the Minmatar. As a former Gallente noob, I'd have loved to have a 25m drone bay available to me without having to buy a cruiser. And as a Gallente PVPer, I'd say that the Legion does look like a winbutton at the moment. Take away a couple of high slots, that should balance it a bit. ------ Agony Unleashed is recruiting.
Minigin Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.17 11:14:00 - [5] Originally by: BluOrange I like the original list - it's 'different' and not automatically 'better'. Aligning things to the races makes it good too, I think. Missile destroyers for the Caldari, a nice nos bonus for the Amarr, drones for Gallente and speed for the Minmatar. As a former Gallente noob, I'd have loved to have a 25m drone bay available to me without having to buy a cruiser. And as a Gallente PVPer, I'd say that the Legion does look like a winbutton at the moment. Take away a couple of high slots, that should balance it a bit. sweet. glad you liked it, and i agree with the win button. i think a heavy nerf is due for PG or CPU to limit this ships power Your signature <----- My awsome Sig Real men PVP on the Forums.
Garat Mant Minmatar Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2007.05.17 14:25:00 - [6] /signed. Quote: The ôSquallö Minmatar tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 2 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 1 Low slots: 4 Named for its speed. It does not do much damage on the battlefield but provides immense advantage to its fleet through its ability to catch extremely fast targets and provide warp in points in battle. Recommended draw back would be to range of turrets. Potential Bonus: additional 15% to MWD boost. Definitely change the MWD boost to a 5 or 10% speed boost. Initial max speed somewhere in the low 300s? Similar resists to the Wolf. No drone bay. Keep the 2 sec targeting from the Thrasher but maybe reduce the max locked to 4. Maybe borrow the Huginn's stasis webifier bonus? That would fit with the low-damage role and allow other more powerful ships to take out the pesky intys. Keeping in with the "little battlecruiser" motif, make it look like a miniature Hurricane
Yamichi Wiggin Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.17 20:14:00 - [7] /signed Loves it! Where can I get my Taipan?? I'll take three. I agree that this is a good starting point. There would have to be some tweaks. Give the nos range bonus a percent instead of flat distance. As for uber damage, I'd suggest opening up all 8 high slots (or at least 6) and giving a decreasing RoF bonus. Something like a 50%-25% depending on level of destroyer skill perhaps? I'm not a fan of the ewar abilities. Leave those off. Regardless. Agreed. Signed. seconded. whatevered. I never even trained destroyers because the comorant is a gunboat and my guy has pretty horrible gunnery skills. ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body. There is no love in fear
dragonofearth	Posted - 2007.05.18 04:49:00 - [8] I would buy a legion
EadTaes Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2007.05.18 07:49:00 - [9] The thing witht he Ewar is that if you give 1 ofve them an ewar option then for balancing issues youll need to give to all the other their ewar equivilent. So far Ewar bonuses already used by each race. Amarr: 5% bonus to tracking disruptor effectiveness: used by 3 ships 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range: used by 1 ship 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount: Used by 2 ships NOS bonuses are recon only bonuses Caldari: 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use: used by 3 ships 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range per level: used by 4 ships 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength: used by 4 ships 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength: used by 1 ship als ships including recon used prety much the same bonuses Gallente: 5% remote dampner effectiveness: used by 4 ships 20% bonus to warp disruptor range: used by 2 ships 100% bonus to tracking link rnage. 3.5 bonus to tracking link effectiveness. Links are logistical mor ethen ewar. Warp disruptor rnage is the recon bonus. Minmatar: 5% to target painter effectivenss 7.5 to target painter effectiveness: used by 2 ships 3,5% bonus to tracking links Flat 500% bonus range to tracking links 60% bonus to range of stasis webifier: used by 2 ships 5% to trackign link effectiveness Once again links are logistical and the webifier range bonus in the recon. So if you give the ammar destroyer a NOS bonus to the range then youll need to give Caldary, Gallente and Minmatar their respective matching recon bonuses. Because the NOS is that powerfull. If you give amarr the disruptor bonus instead it is and ewar but can be weived as a defensive mod. wicht hen to caldary you still give and ECM bonus but to Gallente and Minmatar you can then give their MWD and velocity bonuses instead. And if these ships do get an ewar bonus it shoudl be only 1 each. afther that teh otehr bonus can be. Amarr: 5% reduction in capacitator need for small enegy turrents Caldary: 5% RoF to rocket and standar missile lunchers Galente: 5% something to drones (dunno drones that well so you tell me what would be most balanced) Minmatar: 5% RoF to small projectile guns
Minigin Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.18 21:32:00 - [10] well tbh we would rather avoid ewar on destroyers. the reason we put the nos bonus was cos neither me or scyptnex fly amarr so we have no clue. so hopefully one of you more experianced amarrians could help us out there. Your signature <----- My awsome Sig Real men PVP on the Forums.
Yamichi Wiggin Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.18 22:05:00 - [11] As I said, leave e-war off the bonus list. Drop the Nos bonus completely. Fitting bonus for the amarr ship would be cap-related. Give it a reduced energy turret cap consumption or an increased cap/cap charge rate per level. That would fit nicely into them. ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body. There is no love in fear
Riddick Valer	Posted - 2007.05.18 22:13:00 - [12] I'd want missiles for a new caldari destroyer, but how about something completely different. Caldari Destroyer -20% Fitting requirements for Standard Missiles/Rockets +20% RoF for missiles/rockets This could rapidfire missiles or rockets, perfect for a ship designed to attack frigs. Gallente Destroyer 20m Drone Bay +5m Drone Bay per level +5% Light Scout Drone Damage low grid/cpu This ship could fly several drones, and eventually fit 5 lights and 4 in backup, but never 5 mediums. The low grid is to prevent topping the highs off with all nos or T2 Neutrons.
EadTaes Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2007.05.18 22:20:00 - [13] Giving a fittign bonus is a No No. Would make it very easy to fit the high with all the death and then for the mids and lows fittign a tank would become much to easy. Not to mention 20% bonus per lvl is much to high. 5% bonus are sufficent. For the gallente drone bay you realy can no let it exced 25m3 because at 30m3 you can fit in 3 medium drones wich will just over power the other destroyers.
Minigin Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.19 11:17:00 - [14] hmmmm i dunno about the giving the rof for rockets... perhaps a tad overpowered. Your signature <----- My awsome Sig Real men PVP on the Forums.
HuGo87 Caldari Princeps Corp YouWhat	Posted - 2007.05.20 21:54:00 - [15] imo, i'd consider the negative bonuses being skill dependant; if t2 destroyers require "Destroyers V", then a the ROF bonuses are A LOT of penalization. i'd limit the firefower though CPU/PG, and NOT negaive bonuses (or even +PG% usage for the type of weapon that ship uses in any case :P) if t2 destroyers DO NOT require "Destroyers V", then the bonuses would penalize those wih higher skills, duh i'd go for limiting firepower though pg/cpu, and, btw, make the NOS bonus percentage-like, not X km.
EadTaes Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2007.05.21 02:25:00 - [16] Well right now ia m trying to five a concept for a teir 2 destroyer that wont take the teir 1 job around. I also don't wanna make the teir 2 any ofve the following types. Anty-cloack Anty-Missile Medium Assault Ship Mini-Command Ship Since all those concept would do best as T2 and not Teirs. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents
Torothanax	Posted - 2007.07.13 22:20:00 - [17] I'd like to see a true T2 destroyer, but I can get behind this as well. Not sure what the bonuses should be though. I'd be happy with a little more power grid and/or hp.
Yamichi Wiggin Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.13 22:59:00 - [18] I've been thinking about the tier 2 amarr destroyer some more... I don't really like the NOS bonus. I don't consider it an ewar tactic so part of me says go for it. But I'm also against an armor bonus for these ships as destroyers are supposed to chew through frigates but not be a very sturdy tank. So.... Rather than an amarr nos boat, I think I'd like to see it get a damage and tracking bonus. Reasoning: Destroyers are basically meant to be anti-frigate platforms. They carry frigate-sized weapons and have frigate-level tanks. Because Frigates tend to move quickly and be relatively short-ranged, a tracking bonus will make this ship better at its job without making it overpowered. The damage bonus is because amarr have cap issues already and a bonus to ROF would simply make this small ship's cap drain significantly faster. But perhaps a cap recharge bump could be added? ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body. There is no love in fear
Max Essen	Posted - 2007.07.24 23:43:00 - [19] Being Gallente ... I'd buy the Legion the minute it is available. In any incarnation. Great ideas all of you!
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2007.07.25 06:24:00 - [20] Tier 2 Destroyers? Yes please! If it were me, all the ships would keep the standard destroyer bonuses (-25% ROF, +50% Range). Quote: The ôPriorö Amarr tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 0 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 2 Low slots: 3 Named for its ability to engage multiple targets at one time. Its strength is in the fact that it can utilise small nos from a great range. We recommend a RoF penalty be placed on this ship. Potential bonus: +2km to small nos range per level I like this, but the nos range bonus is probably too much, and probably too powerful a tool especially in numbers. I love the idea of giving the Amarr destroyer an EW bonus though, so how about upping the turret slots and instead giving it an effective role: High slots: 8 (7 turrets) Medium slots: 2 Low slots: 3 Drones: 0m3 Bonuses: 10% to warp scrambler range per level and 10% reduction in warp scrambler cap use per level With the incredibly restrictive midslot configuration, you'd see most people using either two scramblers (with an effective max range of 36km with T2, as I really can't see anyone fitting faction or officer mods to a ship with a three slot tank) and poor speed capabilities, or an MWD and scram. From a lore perspective, this would tie in nicely: A ship designed to stop those pesky minmatar slaves from running away! Quote: The ôTaipanö Caldari tier 2 destroy High slots: 8 Missile: 6 Turret: 1 Medium slots: 4 Low slots: 1 Named for its rapid and deadly strike the Taipan is the CaldariÆs tier 2 destroyer. It obviously becomes a bit overpowered if it is allowed to launch a full volley of missiles at its opponent (killing instantly most frigates) and therefore must have a restriction to its missile damage. We recommend that a penalty for this ship be imposed in its explosion radius. Potential bonus: 5% RoF bonus per destroyer level Here, I'm really not sure. I'd try a different configuration: High slots: 8 (7 missiles) Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 2 Drones: 0m3 Bonuses: 10% to missile velocity & 10% explosion radius per level Note that the standard destroyer bonus/penalty should be 'translated' for missiles: -25% rate of fire and 50% bonus to flight time. The premise here is that a destroyer's primary function is to take out smaller ships, and with the bonuses applied here it would perform this admirably. Like the Amarr ship this would be more gank, less tank. Quote: The ôLegionö Gallente tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 0 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 2 Named for the legion of drones that are unleashed from its 25m¦ drone bay. We fear that the use of nos in conjunction with this ship may be an I win button. We recommend that a reduction in nos amount be placed. Or perhaps a reduction in turret damage. Potential bonus: 5% dmg to light scout drones Gallente use nos and drones, and given the speculation about nos nerfing it might be prudent to evade the issue of nosferatu entirely. How about applying the destroyer penalty/bonus to drones and upping it's damage capabilities: High slots: 6 (5 turrets) Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 3 Drones: 25m3 Bonuses: 10% to drone hitpoints/damage and 10% to small hybrid damage per level. Like with the Caldari equivalent, the destroyer bonus/penalty should be applied to drones. In this case: -25% to drone rate of fire and 50% to drone control range. Quote: The ôSquallö Minmatar tier 2 destroyer High slots: 8 Missile: 2 Turret: 4 Medium slots: 1 Low slots: 4 Named for its speed. It does not do much damage on the battlefield but provides immense advantage to its fleet through its ability to catch extremely fast targets and provide warp in points in battle. Recommended draw back would be to range of turrets. Potential Bonus: additional 15% to MWD boost. I'm not much of a minmatar pilot, so I'll leave this one alone!
Valharu	Posted - 2007.08.21 06:22:00 - [21] Being a Min fan I will stick with it. I think the next class of T2 Destroyers should be a Assualt Class, they can't use a Dictor bubble so they need to be able to take some hits. Increase Hit Points of all T2 Assualt Destroyers by 50%. 8 High Slots 6 Turrents 2 Missiles 3 Mid Slots 3 Low Slots Base speed 400 Usual T2 resists bouns but make shields 35% Destroyer Bonus 5% Per Damage per level 10% Tracking bonus per level Assualt Bonus 10% to Falloff per level 20% to Afterburner speed per level I believe that being a destroyer they suffer from lower speeds and a much higher sig therefor a MWD is out of line for them. I think it would be much more in line that a Min Assualt Destroyer would get a bonues to Afterburners speed. While not being able to reach the speeds of its MWD counter parts, it would not suffer the sig pen of MWDs either and still retain a decent speed. The perfect blend of Tankage and Speed.
ChuMak	Posted - 2007.08.21 08:18:00 - [22] Guys, you suggestions and fears about nosf are already 100 years old. U need to read devblogs more often, then you would know, that days of nosf power are almost gone. After the next nosf nerf, they will not be capable to suck cap from enemy if he has less cap than you (in percent). So the main idea is - u wanna kill enemy cap - use neutralizer, u wanna suck a little bit for your self - use nosf, but it will not make dry your enemy. Im still crying. R.I.P. my nosfs.. I dont see any reason to waste a high slot for you if my cap booster do same job better.
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.21 12:34:00 - [23] Originally by: BluOrange I like the original list - it's 'different' and not automatically 'better'. Aligning things to the races makes it good too, I think. Missile destroyers for the Caldari, a nice nos bonus for the Amarr, drones for Gallente and speed for the Minmatar. As a former Gallente noob, I'd have loved to have a 25m drone bay available to me without having to buy a cruiser. And as a Gallente PVPer, I'd say that the Legion does look like a winbutton at the moment. Take away a couple of high slots, that should balance it a bit. increase the drone bay on the gallente one to 50m3. there are gallente FRIGATES than can attain a bay of 50m3.... I think one of the assault frigates gets that. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.08.21 14:48:00 - [24] The ôPriorö Amarr tier 2 destroyer High slots: 7 Missile: 1 Turret: 6 Medium slots: 2 Low slots: 5 Potential bonus: 5% to Armour resistances per level. All that's needed tbh... Your design seemed somewhat lacking in slots, like, less than the Coercer :s, one more slot over the tier 1 seems fair for the tier 2s, remember, number of slots stays consistent over the classes and tiers. A new tool in the fight for balance?
Azbel	Posted - 2007.08.21 17:40:00 - [25] Originally by: Cornucopian increase the drone bay on the gallente one to 50m3. there are gallente FRIGATES than can attain a bay of 50m3.... I think one of the assault frigates gets that. No way. First of all this is not meant to be a T2 ship. Secondly flying 5 med drones is way to much fire power for a destroyer. It should have a bay not less than 25 and not more than 45. I like the 20m3 with +5m3 per skill level idea posted earlier.
halykon	Posted - 2007.08.24 09:06:00 - [26] I dunno, Destroyers are sort of a misnomer in what they are. I agree there needs to be more in theory.. but in practice.. not so much. Not unless the whole class gets a grand revamp. They are sorta outdated and outmolded. For instance: T1 frig - 50k-200k; Destroyer - 1mil(ish); Cruiser 3mil(ish); T2 Frig - 10-20 mil(ish); BC - 30mil(ish), BS- 100mil(ish). Destroyers fall in line in cost buildup, T2 destroyers.. where in that progression would you put them, yet not knock anything on that list out of its place? Ideally, I think another T1 destroyer needs to be added for each race, and then hand mold each ship toward a specific goal for T2. What those goals may be, I don't know. But there are enough other ship type ideas out there in gameplay land that T2 destroyers could become viable like T2 Frigs did, by being specialist ships hand tailored to do one job, and one job only very well. And yet, they won't outdate any of the current ships, as alot of the T2 stuff did with destroyers. If I had to choose what I would want a T2 Destroyer to do though, out of my own selfish desires.. someone gimmie Torp SB's!!!
CT Tarantula Caldari	Posted - 2007.08.24 10:24:00 - [27] Hi all, awesome ideas , being a caldari char, while using gall ships i love the Legion idea the most ;) but indeed a dronebay over 45 does seem a bit too big. On the otherhand, The Ishkur T2 assault frigate has at max already a 45 m3 dronebay... meaning 4 meds+ 1 lht as max is a LOT of frigate firepower , especially if u using T2 drones + all drone skills at max... Therefore i'd say let the destroyer hav a bigger bay to counter the assault frigate... The Eris T2 Destroyer / Interdictor is now ( at least by my point of view and experince) still better as its T1 counterpart the Catalyst, yet underpowered in a lot due to its insane small dronebay, considering its race is dronebased... Only thing is im afraid it will be like the folowing thing i found out: the selling of my Dominix BS coz my HAC Ishtar overrules it by many things big time ,first of all, the dronebay is the same capacity (at max HAC Skill) as the dominix, yet way better resists,less sig radius and faster lock , i find myself flying my HAC almost everytime in every mission, which means for as far as my exp goes it seems the cruiser puts a bs out of play... which i think is not very handy... Maybe in pvp its a different story, havent done those much, 1 to be exact in my myrmidon bc vs a cruiser with t2 equipment... i was at that time very low with all my skills, but my drones saved my ass big time ... Just my 2 cents tho... Signing off, CT Tarantula Gallente ship are the best :P Evil Taranis :P
Salpad	Posted - 2007.08.24 12:05:00 - [28] I don't know anything much about Amarr or Minmater, but as a Caldari I'm endlessly surprised by the fact that the Caldari destroyer doesn't do missiles (or at least not well), and I also know that the Gallanteans are fond of drones, so it makes no sense to me that they don't have a Drone Destroyer. However, why should these be t2? Why not introduce a second t1 destroyer for each race, one better geared towards their preferences (for the Caldari), or their perhaps ideas (the others)?
Killer Raccoon Free Market Enterprizes Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.09.17 23:59:00 - [29] love it. i would buy a seven of the caldari ones and two of the gallente. PLEASE CCP do this (also i think there should be another tech II variant as well, to fill a combat purpose vs. a bubble purpose).so yeah
Elipsis Gallente The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.18 00:02:00 - [30] I'd like to see something that gets a bonus to salvaging. The destroyer would be the perfect ship for it. -... CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.