Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 03:05:00 -
[31] - Quote
Well just like the Tier 3 BC have shown that they can be useful couldnt Tier 3 Destroyers with Cruiser guns be fun to fly as well, chep hull with good DPS that can gank larger ships. To mee it could be a fun roaming ship. Disposable PVP FTW |
Agustice Arterius
Couch Athletics
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 20:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
Wouldn't a destroyer with medium guns stop being a destroyer?
Unless EVEs idea of a destroyer is different than what they are usually thought of as... |
Leto Aramaus
Grimm Hounds
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 21:53:00 -
[33] - Quote
mxzf wrote:The problem is that you're still not listing any actual need for them in the game. Your reasoning pretty much boils down to "Why not? I want them" without actually suggesting any role where they're needed to fill.
And destroyers are, intentionally, a stepping stone from frig to cruiser, they're not designed to be their own full set of ships. So comparing their numbers to anything other than BCs is misleading. And BCs might have some more T1 hulls, but they still only have one class of T2 hulls (with two variations for each race). See the similarity there?
Destroyers: 1 tier of T1 hulls 1 group of T2 hulls
BCs: 3 tiers of T1 hulls 1 group of T2 hulls
And, as I said in the beginning: there's simply no role missing in the game right now for your suggested hulls to fill.
What's wrong with the proposing something "just because I want it"
Isn't that what the "features and ideas" discussion is for?
He DID give a reason for putting them in the game, there's not enough destroyers and he would like to see more. Instead of deciding that this is a stupid idea because he didn't suggest what role they would fill, why not attempt to brainstorm said possible roles for more destroyers? |
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 22:40:00 -
[34] - Quote
Agustice Arterius wrote:Wouldn't a destroyer with medium guns stop being a destroyer?
Unless EVEs idea of a destroyer is different than what they are usually thought of as...
Would a Battlecruiser with large guns stop being a Battlecruiser?
"Unless EVEs idea of a destroyer is different than what they are usually thought of as..." " a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers." (Naval terminologi from wiki) ?
Dont see a reason here why a Destroyer with 425mm Autocannon and flying in space would haveto be renamed somthing else cause he is not using the 200mm Autocannons!
If it makes you feel better we could call them:
Tier 3 Battlecruiser = Pocket Battleship Tier 3 Destroyer = Pocket Cruiser
Im thinking a lot of pilots would love Tier2 and Tier3 Destroyer. Now we have: Tier1 Destroyer; role as a Anti Frig Platform. Tier1-Tech2 Destroyer (Interdictor); role is to tacke people in 0.0 (But their special ability is useless in lowsec and empire).
What we need: Tier2 Destroyer (I have suggested some roles in this thread); Role as a Close range Brawler with a good tank or EW Drone specialist etc. etc. Tier2-Tech2 Destroyer (Covert Hunter); role is to hunt down and decloak cloaking ships (afaik this is a newish idea and a new role). Tier3 Destroyer; role is to kill stuff, all out dps. Well it can be used as a close range or long range vessel but like the tier3 BC it is just a cheap platform to supply heavy dps (High dps/isk ratio).
Why dont new ships unless they have a very special new (unicorn) role that no other ship in game has? If thease same people had anything to say tey would never have allowed the Tier3 BC ingame. But it looks as they are used quite a lot now tbfh.
Im pretty shure that new pilots and FW guys would love this, not to mention the increasingly popular rvb crowd o7
With changes to Destroyer and BC skill requirements then it would even be more important to have tier2-3 Destroyers. I dont mind you bashing my ideas but howabout coming up with some more ideas yourselfs |
Asudem
Asen of Asgard
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 00:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
bump |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
103
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 04:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Destroyers are one of the few ships I'm really happy with, please keep CCP away from them, even if it is to make new ships!
I <3 my Thrasher. Time to-áCOMPLETELY REDESIGN THE U.I. FROM SCRATCH: - End the click fest & Multiple Window fest - Streamline and Simplify it-á - Improve scalability-á |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
152
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 07:07:00 -
[37] - Quote
Rommel Rottweil wrote:Is there a role for Assault frigs and Electronic attack ships? Good question. Here's another: are there balance issues with those ships? Are they used often? Are they useful? Do they move in the market or show up on loss/killmails often? Are they asked for by FC's? The answers will vary to be sure.
We really don't want the design philosophy that created them coming back. They have created (are still creating) a huge balance headache precisely because of their loyal pilot base clamoring for them to be useful, when there is no real purpose for them to fill. How often do you see an industrialist say "I need some quick cash.. I think I'll do a Keres manufacturing run." Right. We don't need more ships like these.
So I'll say what I always do to these "add new destroyers" threads that seem to pop up twice a day: name a role that needs filled. Here's one, just to show I'm fair: Anti-cloakie hunter killers. Think WWII anti submarine boat style, dropping depth charges and sounding out the u-boat so bigger ships can make the kill. Nobody ever seems to suggest that, and it would be awesome twice by solving the AFK cloakie problem and adding more destroyers.
edit: Ah. I see somebody did suggest it in a wall of text up there. Good to see it catching on somewhat. |
Zombo Brian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 08:36:00 -
[38] - Quote
Montevius Williams wrote:Destroyers alreay have a role. Beat the **** out of frigates.
sadly, assault frigates do extremely better at this (ishkur for example)
at least, i would say balance the interdictors so not only the minmatar one has a decent highslot layout |
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 23:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Here is one more nutty idea from me
>Tech2 Destroyer Type name: "Thunderbird" or maybe "Ultra Bomber" (U-Boat lol)
Special Ability: Can fit ONE (1) Citadel Launcher 99.95% Reduction in Powergrid need of Citadel Launcher (Torpedo & Cruise). 50% Reduction in the CPU need of Citadel Launcher.
Ultra Bomber Skill Bonus: +20% ROF Citadel Launcher 97-100% Reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level.
Destroyer Skill Bonus: Amarr: 6/3/5 +5% Armor resistance per level. +5% EM damadge per level Caldari: 3/6/5 +5% Shield resistance per level. +5% Kinetic damadge per level Gallente: 5/4/5 +5% Armor resistance per level. +5% Thermal damadge per level Minmatar: 4/5/5 +5% Shield resistance per level. +5% Explosive damadge per level
I would like to see Dredds boosted a little tbh. Here are 3 suggestions, pick one :) 1# Change Dredd ROF bonus to +10% Damadge Bonus. (The 2 with +5% damadge bonus get this changed to ROF bonus). 2# Give capital weapons a 20% boost (That would boost Titans as well, do we need that?). 3# Give them x8 or even x10 damadge in siege instead of x6.25. I think 8 would be nice, a 28% boost to their DPS.
For people thinking OMG...
One Phoenix is 1.75b. They can fit 3 Launchers, in sige (& max skills) they can shoot what equals to 24 Launchers. To equal this then you would need 12 Destroyers. Since these would be T2 Destroyers they would cost around 50m each. 12x50= 600m. Still only 1/3 of what Dredd costs. Well The Dredd has quite a bit larger tank and he can Jump. Out of Siege the Dredd does **** damadge, I agrea but its power is in the Siege. To equal Dredd in siege DPS you would need 12 Pilots. There are many ships that can equal the DPS of my proposed Destroyer type but how many can Cloak and how many can go that fast.
This is a specialty ship and it would probably only be useful in attacking poorly defended Structures like POS, TCU, SBU etc. or capitals without support.
This ship could be bridged with Black Ops behind enemy lines. |
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 22:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
Here is another new "Role"... for you guys.
Im not fleshing this one out as it would be a no brainer tbh.
Tier somthing or another, Tech2 Destroyer.
"Covert Logistic" It would be designed around fitting Medium Shield/Armor/Cap transfer/rep modules.
Skills and stuff is almost self explanitory. Basically the same as Logistics exept drop Drone Bonus for a CovOps Bonus.
With similar ammount of Slots they would probably be doing app. 50% repps compared to normal Logistics (-drones ofc), and they would have a much smaller tank. However their price is only 1/3 of a full size logistic.
Black Ops would never leave home without a couple or 5 :) |
|
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
Might be a good idea for a Tech 1 Platform for the Tech 2 Citadel Destroyer.
Torp/Cruise Destroyer. Role Bonus: Reduced requirements for Torp/Cruise PG and CPU usage. Destroyer skill: 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 15% bonus to torpedo Racial damage per level
Edit: Tech 1 Could allso be just a Non-cloaking version of the Tech 2 Citadel Destroyer, with less bonuses |
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
Logistic Destroyers: Ship Skills are probably going to change and Destroyer skill will be a racial skill. Only skill that might need to be added is "Light Logistics Skill", ofc it would be possible to just use the regular Logistic skill for these ships.
Tech1
Amarr Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to armor hitpoints and 15% bonus to capacitor need of remote armor repair system per level. Role Bonus: 400% bonus to range of remote armor repair systems.
Caldari Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to shield hitpoints and 15% reduction in Shield Transport capacitor use per level. Role Bonus: 400% bonus to range of shield transporters.
Gallente Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to armor hitpoints and 15% bonus to capacitor need of remote armor repair system per level. Role Bonus: 400% bonus to range of remote armor repair systems.
Minmatar Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to shield hitpoints and 15% reduction in Shield Transport capacitor use per level. Role Bonus: 400% bonus to range of shield transporters.
Tech 2 Covert Logistics Destroyer
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Cloak CPU Use 100% cloak reactivation delay (60sec before able to cloak again). Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators
Amarr Destroyer Bonus: 100% bonus to Energy Transfer Array and Remote Armor Repair System range -12.5% power need for Remote Armor Repair Systems and -10% power need for Energy Transfer Arrays per level
Light Logistics Skill Bonus: 20% reduction in Energy Transfer Array and Remote Armor Repair System capacitor use per level
Caldari Destroyer Skill Bonus: 100% bonus to Shield Transport and Energy Transfer Array range per level -10% CPU need for Shield Transporters and -10% power need for Energy Transfer Arrays per level
Light Logistics Skill Bonus: 20% reduction in Shield Transport and Energy Transfer Array capacitor use per level
Gallente Destroyer Skill Bonus: 100% bonus to Remote Armor Repair System and Tracking Link range per level -12.5% power need for Remote Armor Repair Systems per level
Light Logistics Skill Bonus: 20% reduction in Remote Armor Repair System capacitor use and 10% bonus to Tracking Link efficiency per level
Minmatar Destroyer Skill Bonus: 100% bonus to Tracking Link and Shield Transport range per level -10% CPU need for Shield Transporters
Light Logistics Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Tracking Link efficiency and 20% reduction in Shield Transport capacitor use per level
Role Bonus: -50% CPU need for Shield Transporters |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |