Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 21:47:00 -
[1]
I realise this is likely to be met with lots of "stfu, we dont need more ships, please fit other problems with the game first" type replys but i still want to share my thoughs.
Ive recently become quite a fan of Destroyers, having previously dismissed them as being a useless bridge between frigates and cruisers. They are great ships which can achieve decent dps at great ranges and practacally instapop interceptors and the like. However tech 2 destroyers seam to completely betray their tech 1 routes. Tech 1 destroyers are slow, heavy hitting ranged ships where as tech 2 destroyers are close range speed tankers.
I would like to see a tech 2 destroyer which fullfilled the potential of the tech 1 counterpart. They would be slow, heavy hitting with decent range but still be very flimsy. They would have slot arrangements similar to their tech 1 counter parts. They would still be fitting smal guns so damage wouldnt be rediculous but they would significantly outdamage tech 1 destroyers and achieve much greater ranges. They would be great anti support ships but they would be slow enough and flimsy enough to make them extreamly vulnerable if not properly backed up. They could be comperable to a fixed artilery platform, warping into combat at range and picking off enemy tacklers and drones with ease and providing decent damage to trouble anything cruiser sized or smaller. They would, of course, not be able to fit dictor bubbles and they would be almost the polar oposite of Interdictors.
Problems (as i see them, you may well have more): I would be worried however about nulifying curret anti support sniper ships (the eagle springs to mind). I would hope the proposed tech 2 destroyers draw backs would be enough to not make it the end all be all of anti support, esp its flimsy tank.
I hope i might get some decent discussion and ill try to answer all coments and queries but these are just vague ideas so it will just be to the best of my ability.
If you can notice an obvious problem in all this rambling please feel free to point it out but if possible please try and avoit pointless flameing.
Thanks for your time
-Kat
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 21:56:00 -
[2]
T2 Destroyers are called Interdictors.
"They must find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather then truth as the authority." - Gerald Massey |
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 07:31:00 -
[3]
Originally by: MrTripps T2 Destroyers are called Interdictors.
Meh with crap resists, lower hitpoints and missing their t1 bonuses.
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 07:47:00 -
[4]
Originally by: MrTripps T2 Destroyers are called Interdictors.
Besides throwing bubbles around they are actually worse in the destroyer role (sniping frigs) then a t1 destroyer.
--- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 08:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: MrTripps T2 Destroyers are called Interdictors.
Besides throwing bubbles around they are actually worse in the destroyer role (sniping frigs) then a t1 destroyer.
Hence destroyer fans often stick with the destroyer and only sometimes use the interdictor. The dictor just doesn't fill the t2 role that people want for a t2 destroyer.
|
Sir Smash
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 08:32:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Sir Smash on 23/08/2007 08:32:30 -=Bloody alts=-
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 08:33:00 -
[7]
Originally by: MrTripps T2 Destroyers are called Interdictors.
Did you even read the thread? Interdictors are of course tech 2 destroyers but the similaritys end at the hull. Different bonuses, different roles etc etc
If you want a mid to long range anti inty and support ship sub cruiser sized are you going to take an interdictor or a tech 1 destroyer?
|
Trind2222
Amarr Celestial Pillagers Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 10:15:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Trind2222 on 23/08/2007 10:17:23 Like a af good resist and slow good tracing snipers good idea.
Amarr version shod at least have: 10% armor pr lvl 5% optimal pr lvl
Gallente: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Tracking Speed per level
Caldary : 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Minmatar: 10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage
+ destroyer bonus
I some thing like this you are thinking of?
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 10:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Trind2222 Edited by: Trind2222 on 23/08/2007 10:17:23 Like a af good resist and slow good tracing snipers good idea.
Amarr version shod at least have: 10% armor pr lvl 5% optimal pr lvl
Gallente: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Tracking Speed per level
Caldary : 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Minmatar: 10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage
+ destroyer bonus
I some thing like this you are thinking of?
Seam like good figures to work by, yes. However with a decent skill set backing it up i dont feel any of the destroyers should be limited in their role as anti tackler/support. They would have variation but for examplewith the gallentes bonuses im not sure if the tracking bonuses would make them too superior in their role.
Tech 2 resists are a good idea but as you say they should be more inline with an AF in terms of tank than anything else.
Prehaps their clunkyness would warrent a sturdyier tank but i havent thought this particular area through v thouroughly.
|
jefferton alive
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 11:14:00 -
[10]
Sounds like it already fullfills the roll you want it to. They instapop inties at mad range. Adding more dps or range or tracking to something that already has it in spades doesn't make much sense.
I'm for more variety though, but its difficult to find a roll that wont overlap other ships.
We don't need more slots, interdictors already have that.
One absolutely perfect change would be to give them a proper t2 shield/armor resist configuration and slightly more (instead of slightly less) hitpoints. That would go a long way towards making it feel more like a real t2 class ship.
Also how about something novel like a +1 warp core strength or a reduced signature radius? That would encourage them to be used more aggressively for sniping at gate campers. Plus many people think that destroyers have too large of a sig radius anyway, especially since they don't move extremely fast.
|
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 11:53:00 -
[11]
Originally by: jefferton alive
Sounds like it already fullfills the roll you want it to. They instapop inties at mad range. Adding more dps or range or tracking to something that already has it in spades doesn't make much sense.
I'm for more variety though, but its difficult to find a roll that wont overlap other ships.
We don't need more slots, interdictors already have that.
One absolutely perfect change would be to give them a proper t2 shield/armor resist configuration and slightly more (instead of slightly less) hitpoints. That would go a long way towards making it feel more like a real t2 class ship.
Also how about something novel like a +1 warp core strength or a reduced signature radius? That would encourage them to be used more aggressively for sniping at gate campers. Plus many people think that destroyers have too large of a sig radius anyway, especially since they don't move extremely fast.
This is all very true but destroyers are woefuly underussed despite this Tech 2 resists are a sound idea for these ships but i have been toying with different ideas for making them inovative rather than just improved versions of the tech 1 variants (though i would point out that some tech 2 frigates, esp AFs, vary little from their tech 1 variants, they are simply improved versions).
This may be a step too far but prehaps they could have a moderated siege module specifically for their class? Prehaps a 95% decrease on Max speed and manuverability in exchange for a substantial damage incremement and tanking augmentation. I am little (Read:no) experience with Dreads and their siege modules but this new siege module could have a 2 minute cycle time, meaning that it would need to be activated to reach the peak of its usefulness in combat but once activated they would be stuck in their weakened state for the 2 minute cycle time?
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 12:52:00 -
[12]
There are two problems: 1. if they become too good say bye bye to already underused AFs 2. if you dont make em too good even caracal will 1-2 salvo them thx to large sig radius and slow speed you want on them.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 13:02:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire There are two problems: 1. if they become too good say bye bye to already underused AFs 2. if you dont make em too good even caracal will 1-2 salvo them thx to large sig radius and slow speed you want on them.
1. People will have to ditch flimsy intercepters and start flying Assault frigates, properly setup, all but the most expensively fitted intercepters can be tracked by a destroyer. 2. Resist.
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 13:08:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire There are two problems: 1. if they become too good say bye bye to already underused AFs 2. if you dont make em too good even caracal will 1-2 salvo them thx to large sig radius and slow speed you want on them.
This is probably true (sorry for asking yet more questions but can a carcal reach out to 80km+ ranges?) but AFs are already so underused in combat i dont think this would have much affect on the game as a whole.
The AFs problem is, imo, purely down to its role and its inefficiencys at fullfilling it. They are ment to be heavily armorered frigates with a higher damage output but in this they even fall short of most cruisers. However i think the AFs issues are a different matter.
As for making them too strong or too weak i think its more of an issue of balencing their strengths against their weaknesses. I think that they should be able to hold their own against a long ranged cruiser but they would be reliant on their gang mates keeping flak and fire away from them. Prehaps the siege mod i sugested a couple of posts up would be a way of keeping this balence?
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 13:22:00 -
[15]
Hrm how about a siege mode idea like this.
Sentry Module
+150% turret/missile damage +100% targeting range +100% scan resolution +50% shield/armor hitpoints +XX%? to racial tanking bonus +200% signature radius +400% to turret signature radius +400% to missile explosion radius -100% velocity Immune to Ewar 10 minute activation.
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 13:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Nian Banks Hrm how about a siege mode idea like this.
Sentry Module
+150% turret/missile damage +100% targeting range +100% scan resolution +50% shield/armor hitpoints +XX%? to racial tanking bonus +200% signature radius +400% to turret signature radius +400% to missile explosion radius -100% velocity Immune to Ewar 10 minute activation.
Sounds good but 10 minute activation? sounds abit steep. Would rule out the ships role in small gang skirmishes (prehaps a good thing?) and limit it to fleets. I think a 2 minute to 5 minute activation time would prehaps be fairer. This would mean it would have to comit to engagements but wouldnt be limited to fleet support
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 13:53:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Katrina Coreli
Originally by: Nian Banks Hrm how about a siege mode idea like this.
Sentry Module
+150% turret/missile damage +100% targeting range +100% scan resolution +50% shield/armor hitpoints +XX%? to racial tanking bonus +200% signature radius +400% to turret signature radius +400% to missile explosion radius -100% velocity Immune to Ewar 10 minute activation.
Sounds good but 10 minute activation? sounds abit steep. Would rule out the ships role in small gang skirmishes (prehaps a good thing?) and limit it to fleets. I think a 2 minute to 5 minute activation time would prehaps be fairer. This would mean it would have to comit to engagements but wouldnt be limited to fleet support
Hrm how about a skill for it that reduces the weapons signature/explosion radius negative by 10%/lvl and its activation time by 15%/lvl
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 14:26:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Nian Banks
Originally by: Katrina Coreli
Originally by: Nian Banks Hrm how about a siege mode idea like this.
Sentry Module
+150% turret/missile damage +100% targeting range +100% scan resolution +50% shield/armor hitpoints +XX%? to racial tanking bonus +200% signature radius +400% to turret signature radius +400% to missile explosion radius -100% velocity Immune to Ewar 10 minute activation.
Sounds good but 10 minute activation? sounds abit steep. Would rule out the ships role in small gang skirmishes (prehaps a good thing?) and limit it to fleets. I think a 2 minute to 5 minute activation time would prehaps be fairer. This would mean it would have to comit to engagements but wouldnt be limited to fleet support
Hrm how about a skill for it that reduces the weapons signature/explosion radius negative by 10%/lvl and its activation time by 15%/lvl
Sounds good. Given after all this is a tech 2 destroyer should the skill for the siege mod be directly liked to flying the ship in the first place or should there be a seperate skill set.
Imunity to EWAR is interesting. Im not sure if it would make it too overpowered but it does make sense. This whole ship class would be completely pointless with Sensor Damps in the state they are now.
Even with the mod active i think their tanks should still be weak enough to be taken down with relative ease should the enemy manage to close one down. Prehaps with a tank somewhere between that of a cruiser and a BC, any higher and these ships would inevitably be overpowered.
|
EvilSpork
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 18:34:00 -
[19]
that siege module idea is neat. i also would LOVE the idea of a second T2 destroyer.
so far all the ideas here are very viable.
that siege mod wouldnt be too overpowered. it would turn into a large sig radius sitting target, with just a bit more HP and still a weak tank. it would however pwn the hell out of anything small.
i kind of like the glass-cannon style ships, great dps, but if you get targeted, thats GG haha. i find them fun. i would use either the siege destroyer or the T2.. hunter?? class destoyers a lot.
great thread. A++. i hope this gets seen!
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 19:03:00 -
[20]
Originally by: EvilSpork that siege module idea is neat. i also would LOVE the idea of a second T2 destroyer.
so far all the ideas here are very viable.
that siege mod wouldnt be too overpowered. it would turn into a large sig radius sitting target, with just a bit more HP and still a weak tank. it would however pwn the hell out of anything small.
i kind of like the glass-cannon style ships, great dps, but if you get targeted, thats GG haha. i find them fun. i would use either the siege destroyer or the T2.. hunter?? class destoyers a lot.
great thread. A++. i hope this gets seen!
Actually it wouldn't be too uber against small targets, it has a 400% negative to its weapon signatures. Actually even I think thats an extreme negative, probably more reasonable at just 100% to turret signature
|
|
Panch0Villa
Caldari AFK
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 20:37:00 -
[21]
I'd like the idea of enhancing destroyers, as too I feel they are underused.
First, doesn't only having one t1 destroyer per race create difficulty for using that hull as a t2 base?
As to what role, I definitely feel that there should be some discussion as to what its role should be.
Per wiki:
Quote: In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range but powerful attackers
That fits their current role well, anti-frig platform.
But for a t2?
Again, Wiki:
Quote: Modern destroyers, also known as guided missile destroyers
Well, we have big missile boats, as for the small, stealth bombers currently take that role.
Perhaps, since it specializes in frigate warfare, some sort of Command ship for frigates? Say, bonuses to rockets/turrets/light missiles and maybe some limits to keep it using less gang mods, or maybe some weaker or frigate oriented mods? Idk much about command ships or gang mods tbh, so flame away.
Re vera, potas bene. |
RC Denton
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 21:06:00 -
[22]
I think a t2 AF type destroyer would be a good idea. Right now destroyers can be blown away by almost anything and so it's really risky to fit the t2 guns on them that allow you to insta pop frigs, etc at long range. Having a destroyer with t2 resists and say a booster bonus as the t2 bonus along with the regular t1 destroyer bonus/disadvantages (faster tracking, lower rof) would bring more pilots out in them since they would become at least somewhat more survivable.
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 07:45:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Katrina Coreli on 24/08/2007 07:50:49
Originally by: Panch0Villa I'd like the idea of enhancing destroyers, as too I feel they are underused.
First, doesn't only having one t1 destroyer per race create difficulty for using that hull as a t2 base?
I dont see why, we have 2 AFs based off one hull, 2 Interceptors and the same can be said for Comand Ships. Or have i mis read your query?
Also when it comes to the same i dont think there is any naval term or ship class that can aptly define what i have in mind (Semi fixed artilery at sea anyone?) but when it comes to a name "Corvette" seams the obvious choice though in RL warfare corvettes are smaller and slightly lighter armed than both destroyers and frigates.
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 07:46:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Katrina Coreli on 24/08/2007 07:51:30
Originally by: RC Denton I think a t2 AF type destroyer would be a good idea. Right now destroyers can be blown away by almost anything and so it's really risky to fit the t2 guns on them that allow you to insta pop frigs, etc at long range. Having a destroyer with t2 resists and say a booster bonus as the t2 bonus along with the regular t1 destroyer bonus/disadvantages (faster tracking, lower rof) would bring more pilots out in them since they would become at least somewhat more survivable.
Exactly I would also hope that if such a shipwere to be released it would infact increase use of the Tech 1 variants, though that may not be true at all.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 08:47:00 -
[25]
I quite like your idea- ultra-long-range sniping with frigate guns. Starting form T1 destroyers, I'd swap the tracking bonus for a range bonus, add a slot or two and increase the base targeting range. Perhaps semi-T2 resists?
My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 08:52:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Katrina Coreli Edited by: Katrina Coreli on 24/08/2007 07:51:30
Originally by: RC Denton I think a t2 AF type destroyer would be a good idea. Right now destroyers can be blown away by almost anything and so it's really risky to fit the t2 guns on them that allow you to insta pop frigs, etc at long range. Having a destroyer with t2 resists and say a booster bonus as the t2 bonus along with the regular t1 destroyer bonus/disadvantages (faster tracking, lower rof) would bring more pilots out in them since they would become at least somewhat more survivable.
Exactly I would also hope that if such a shipwere to be released it would infact increase use of the Tech 1 variants, though that may not be true at all.
Actually the reason for destroyers having a bad name is that people don't use them when they have the high sp they need to make them the monsters they can be, so if there was a t2 combat af style destroyer then with more people training for them the more chance that the t1 will get more support and friends, if your training destroyer V you will probably give the t1 a whirl.
Anyway I just hope for tier2 and more tech2, more = better.
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 08:58:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I quite like your idea- ultra-long-range sniping with frigate guns. Starting form T1 destroyers, I'd swap the tracking bonus for a range bonus, add a slot or two and increase the base targeting range. Perhaps semi-T2 resists?
I think AF tech 2 resists would make sense. They dont need to be a ***** to break but something which tanks slightly better than the wet paper bag tank of tech 1 destroyers would be nice.
|
Dreadpilot Roberts
New Balkan Mafia Circle 0f Two
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 09:07:00 -
[28]
if u want something to pop ceptors that bad just train for huginn and 1 volley them sheesh
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 10:40:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dreadpilot Roberts if u want something to pop ceptors that bad just train for huginn and 1 volley them sheesh
Cool great idea. Thank you for your genius.
Now back to Destroyers.
Has anyone ever seen CCP comment once in any destroyer related thread? I haven't
|
Katrina Coreli
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 10:46:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Nian Banks
Originally by: Dreadpilot Roberts if u want something to pop ceptors that bad just train for huginn and 1 volley them sheesh
Cool great idea. Thank you for your genius.
Now back to Destroyers.
Has anyone ever seen CCP comment once in any destroyer related thread? I haven't
We would need to mention beer alot more to get any sort of response tbh Or atleast thats how it seams to work
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |