EVE Search - Destroyers - an indepth suggestion

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Destroyers - an indepth suggestion

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 12:20:00 - [1] 1. INTRODUCTION As we all know, Destroyers right now are more or less cannon fodder. They can be quite nasty against frigs, but that role fits Afs and Cruisers too, so why not give them a really unique role? So what role would that be? A dedicated hunter of stealth ships ofcourse. The Destroyer would be able to find and kill cloaked Frigates alone, but would need support for bigger targets. And that would work how? 2. THE TACTICS OF HUNTING AND ESCAPING The Destroyer would need to get a complete overhaul. I will describe it more detailed further below, but simply said the Destroyer would get a scanner that only works for cloaked targets. This scanner gets more accurate the closer the destroyer gets to the target. Two new skills would boost that somewhat. Ok, now a Destroyer tracks down his prey, but what prevents his target from just warping away? Solution: The Destroyer sends out a signal which prevents cloaked warping within 30km of the destroyer (first rolebonus). That would mean that the cov-ops pilot either has to outmanoeuver the Destroyer while being cloaked to get out of scrambling range or give up his cloak for the moment to be able to warp away. This ofcourse would give the Destroyer the chance to lock and scramble with a regular scrambler if he is in range. And how does the Destroyer find his cloaked prey when he tracked it down? Pure luck? No, ofcourse not. The cloaked ship will be somewhere within a 20km sphere from the point where the Destroyer leaves warp. The sphere is shown on tactical overview and will not move with the Destroyer. From here on the scanner used to track down the prey will show a dot within the sphere which is the position of the cloaked ship with an offset of 3 to 5km within a random direction. The scanner will update every 5 seconds, so the Destroyer pilot has pay very close attention to the blips an factor in the offset to pinpoint the cloaked ship. As soon as the cloaked ship leaves this sphere it will disappear from tactical overview and no more blips will be shown. Even tho the cloaked ship might not be able to warp away immediately due to the 30km cloaked-scrammer, this round is most likely over and the Destroyer has to start from scratch. But how will the Destroyer get to his target now? Is it even possible for him to catch up? Yes, because now the DestroyerÆs boni come into play.. Destroyerbonus: +600m small smartbomb range per Destroyer level and 10% reduction in small smartbomb activation cost per Destroyer level. Rolebonus: Prevents cloaked warping within 30km of the Destroyer (as stated above) and 100% bonus to small smartbomb damage. Can use Cloaked Signal Scanners This means each fitted small smartbomb has the damage of a medium smartbomb and a range of 6km at level5 with the activation cost of roughly a micro smartbomb. Enough firepower to give frig-size ships a hard time when fitted a full rack (more about this later). For larger ships the Destroyer would rely on support. But how is the Destroyer supposed to survive against a Stealthbomber or a Recon for example? 3. SURVIVABILITY The Destroyer needs to get more survivability ofcourse. While still using small modules he needs to get cruiser-HP and slightly buffed resist (more about this further below). Also the slot layout needs to be changed.. 4. TECHNICALS Right now the slot layout looks as follows: Coercer: 8H, 1M, 4L Cormorant: 8H, 4M, 1L Catalyst: 8H, 2M, 3L Thrasher: 8H, 3M, 2L This needs to be swapped as follows: Coercer: 4H, 4M, 5L (3 turret-HP, 15 dronebay, 10 bandwidth) Cormorant: 4H, 8M, 1L (3 missile-HP, 25 dronebay, 20 bandwidth) Catalyst: 4H, 5M, 4L (0 turret-HP, 80 dronebay, 50 bandwidth) Thrasher: 4H, 6M, 3L (1 turret-HP, 1 missile-HP, 40 dronebay, 30 bandwidth) (hardpoint/dronebay-layout for each Destroyer equals roughly 40-45dps without any skills and no-name T1 modules)
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 12:21:00 - [2] Edited by: Knoppaz on 09/02/2008 12:23:26 This would allow any of the Destroyers to use all 4 modules needed for hunting down targets (AB, Web, Scram, Cloaked-Scanner) and still use some tank. The Coercer could field the strongest tank with 5 slots available followed by Cormorant and Catalyst with 4 tank slots. The Trasher would have the flexibility to either use shield tank or armor tank. Every destroyer has the choice to either use a full rack of smartbombs to kill his prey (if itÆs a frig ofcourse) or use the bomb(s) for uncloaking his prey and finish it with his standard weapons and drones, which in total have a higher dps (around 100 to 110 using T2 modules with T1 ammo and without damage enhancers) than a full rack of smartbombs (75dps max. with a 560 volley using T2). 5. SHIPSTATS IN DETAIL The resist got a flat 10% increase across the board plus additional 5% on both racial resists. Coercer Slot-layout: 4H, 4M, 5L (3 turret-HP, 15 dronebay, 10 bandwidth) Shield / Armor / Hull: 1000 (1250s) / 1600 / 1400 Shield EM / TH / KI / EX: 10 / 30 / 55 / 75 Armor EM / TH / KI / EX: 70 / 45 / 40 / 35 Cap: 562.5 / 375s Targeting: 30km / 525mm Speed: 220m/s Signature: 83 CPU / Power: 260 / 60 Cormorant Slot-layout: 4H, 8M, 1L (3 missile-HP, 25 dronebay, 20 bandwidth) Shield / Armor / Hull: 1600 (1250s) / 1100 / 1300 Shield EM / TH / KI / EX: 10 / 35 / 55 / 70 Armor EM / TH / KI / EX: 70 / 60 / 40 / 20 Cap: 475 / 333.3s Targeting: 36km / 475mm Speed: 210m/s Signature: 90 CPU / Power: 280 / 40 Catalyst Slot-layout: 4H, 5M, 4L (0 turret-HP, 80 dronebay, 50 bandwidth) Shield / Armor / Hull: 1100 (1250s) / 1400 / 1500 Shield EM / TH / KI / EX: 10 / 35 / 55 / 70 Armor EM / TH / KI / EX: 70 / 50 / 50 / 20 Cap: 469 / 312.5s Targeting: 33km / 500mm Speed: 225m/s Signature: 86 CPU / Power: 265 / 55 Thrasher Slot-layout: 4H, 6M, 3L (1 turret-HP, 1 missile-HP, 40 dronebay, 30 bandwidth) Shield / Armor / Hull: 1350 (1250s) / 1350 / 1300 Shield EM / TH / KI / EX: 15 / 35 / 50 / 70 Armor EM / TH / KI / EX: 85 / 50 / 35 / 20 Cap: 437.5 / 292s Targeting: 27km / 550mm Speed: 240m/s Signature: 75 CPU / Power: 270 / 50 6. Modules The scanner works together with the system scanner and the tactical overview (see above). When the Destroyer enters a system, the pilot opens the system scanner and activates the cloaked scanner. This costs a small portion of cap and has a specific cycle depending on the tech level of the module. If there is a cloaked ship in the system the pilot getÆs a message about the signal strength (which ranges from 1 for low strenght to 5 for high strength). The pilot now has to warp to different points within the systems (planets, belts, etc.) to try to get the signal strenght to 5. Reaching a strength of 5 means the scanner can now produce a dot on the system scanner to which the Destroyer can warp. Obviously this is easier in smaller systems. Upon getting a strength 5 signal the following table comes into effect: Distance to target / Accuracy of warp point 25AU to 15AU / 10AU 15AU to 7.5AU / 5AU 7.5AU to 2.5AU / 1 2.5AU to 1AU / 500000km 500000km or less / 20km (see above) The module should have the following stats: Cloaked Signal Scanner I 20CPU / 2Power Activation Cost: 20cap Cycle time: 20seconds Skill needed: Cloaked Pinpointing speed level 1 ôSeekerö Cloaked Signal Scanner I 20CPU / 2Power Activation Cost: 20cap Cycle time: 15seconds Skill needed: Cloaked Pinpointing speed level 1 ôDetectorö Cloaked Signal Scanner I 22CPU / 2Power Activation Cost: 20cap Cycle time: 10seconds Skill needed: Cloaked Pinpointing speed level 1 Cloaked Signal Scanner II 25CPU / 2Power Activation Cost: 20cap Cycle time: 10seconds Skill needed: Cloaked Pinpointing speed level 5
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 12:22:00 - [3] Edited by: Knoppaz on 09/02/2008 12:25:18 7. SKILLS Obviously some additional skills are needed, so here we go.. Cloaked signal pinpointing speed Reduces the cycle time of Cloaked Signal Scanners by 1 seconds per level Cloaked signal pinpointing accuracy Improves the accuracy of Cloaked Signal Scanners by 5% per level 8. DISCLAIMER I hope I didnÆt forget something, but you know, nobodyÆs perfect Even tho I play EVE quite a while now (on and off actually, but I know EVE from beta) I wouldnÆt call me an expert. I did put some thoughts into the numbers based on my experience, but that doesnÆt mean there isnÆt room for some tweaks by people who now more about the mechanics of the game (especially for the distance/accuracy part of the scanner). Feel free to make suggestions for improvement or balancing, but please spare everyone comments like ôthis suxö or ôthis will never workö. Be constructive or please donÆt post at all, since this thread is about making Destroyers something unique and usefull. Thanks
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2008.02.09 13:28:00 - [4] Ridiculous idea. Go away please.
EadTaes Minmatar Veni Vidi Vici. Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:17:00 - [5] I'll be honest i didn't read it all i just rapidly went over it. But i don't like it because destroyers are supposed to be gunboats and you complete toke them way off track here. I personally believe that destroyer only need a tweak by fixing their signature radius, the RoF penalty and by giving them more low and med slots. You seem like a smart guy so i would like to see what you can come up with by simply adjusting them and not changing them from top to bottom. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents
Serathii	Posted - 2008.02.09 16:13:00 - [6] i like destroyers now, a little crap, but cheap maybe an tech 2 version of this can be used to track the cloaked ships, and what about the cloaked ships in a safespot? i think that if your going to introduce a ship to take down cloakers, you need it to be able to find them too
Kiki Arnolds Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.09 16:47:00 - [7] I think the destroyer plays its role nicely as is, and that role is anti-frigate support. Destroyers can mount alot of small guns with high tracking, and will own any tech 1 frigate if fitted properly (as well as many tech 2). People don't like them because they have weak defense, which was the tradeoff for all that firepower. If you take away the firepower its no longer a destroyer... Also why do you want to take the guns from my cormorant? Missles are useless against high speed frigates... ç¦
Schani Kratnorr Internal Revenue Service	Posted - 2008.02.09 16:55:00 - [8] This is just another "omg nerf cloaking"-thread, mislabelled as a discussion on destroyers.
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 17:13:00 - [9] Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Ridiculous idea. Go away please. Very constructive, really Either come up with at least some tiny suggestion that benefits this thread or quit posting at all.. Originally by: Serathii ... and what about the cloaked ships in a safespot? i think that if your going to introduce a ship to take down cloakers, you need it to be able to find them too This is what this thread is all about. Let me point at "6. Modules" to answer your question (I take it you read "2. the tactics..") Originally by: EadTaes I'll be honest i didn't read it all i just rapidly went over it. But i don't like it because destroyers are supposed to be gunboats and you complete toke them way off track here. I personally believe that destroyer only need a tweak by fixing their signature radius, the RoF penalty and by giving them more low and med slots. You seem like a smart guy so i would like to see what you can come up with by simply adjusting them and not changing them from top to bottom. While I still stand behind my above suggested change in the role of Destroyers, I'm open for alternatives. If it's just about tweaking them a little, your suggestion is right on track imho.. A slight increase in PG and CPU plus 1 additional low and mid-slot would make them more versatile while still keeping them stuck with small modules. Keep the sig radius, but give them cruiser HP with ordinary T1 resists so they still have a small tank, but a bigger buffer to work with. Personally I'd give them a bigger difference in the racial layout.. Amarr: 5% Laser-damagebonus and 10% optimal-bonus per level Caldari: 5% RoF-bonus and 10% Missile-damagebonus per level Gallente: 5% MWD-bonus and 10% Hybrid-falloffbonus per level Minmatar: 5% Projectile-damagebonus and 10% falloff-bonus per level Role: 50% tracking bonus (Amarr, Gallente, Minmatar) / 50% explosion velocity bonus (Caldari) Anyway, I still think the cov-ops hunter is more interesting, if people prefer damage-machines I'm not the one to say "screw you guys"
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 17:18:00 - [10] Originally by: Schani Kratnorr This is just another "omg nerf cloaking"-thread, mislabelled as a discussion on destroyers. Umm.. nope I never had any problems with cloaking. I even think stealthbombers should be able to warp cloaked too It's just that there is no dedicated Cov-Ops hunter and this role sounds real fun..
Kiki Arnolds Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.09 17:23:00 - [11] Why add missles to the caldari destroyer? Missle launchers have much higher fitting requirements to get the same DPS at almost the same ranges (or much higher dps at close range)... this is very bad for a ship with lots of highslots and low pg/cpu. Missles are also totally unable to damage ships moving at beyond a certain speed, where high tracking turrets still will do some damage... The caldari are not the missle only race, they also use hybrids, and hybrids make alot more sense on a destroyer... ç¦
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2008.02.09 17:31:00 - [12] Edited by: Takeshi Yamato on 09/02/2008 17:33:04 Quote: Very constructive, really Either come up with at least some tiny suggestion that benefits this thread or quit posting at all.. Confused I don't want to benefit this threat, it's simply full of fail. Cov-ops, recons, bombers and black-ops are supposed to be undetectable. At the moment these ships work perfectly fine. You want to force an unneeded and overpowered buff on destroyers just to make them useful while destroying cov-ops, recons, bombers and black ops? You truly have no idea what you are doing. I'll apply harsh criticism where it is due, and here it is due.
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 17:42:00 - [13] Originally by: Kiki Arnolds Why add missles to the caldari destroyer? Missle launchers have much higher fitting requirements to get the same DPS at almost the same ranges (or much higher dps at close range)... this is very bad for a ship with lots of highslots and low pg/cpu. Missles are also totally unable to damage ships moving at beyond a certain speed, where high tracking turrets still will do some damage... The caldari are not the missle only race, they also use hybrids, and hybrids make alot more sense on a destroyer... Standard Launcher II 28CPU / 9PG 250mm Arti II 13CPU / 9PG Dual Light Beam II 13CPU / 8PG Light Ion Blaster II 13CPU / 7PG 125mm Rail II 17CPU / 8PG Rocket Launcher II 17CPU / 4PG In my last suggestion I had standard launchers in mind. The Cormorant would just need it's CPU increased. Small and fast ships shouldn't be much of a problem due to the suggested role bonus for Caldari, since light missiles are already pretty effective in this regard. Besides, a missile destroyer is more in line with Caldari imho..
Kiki Arnolds Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:53:00 - [14] still though, there is no way to EVER hit a properly fitted/skilled inteceptor with a light missle. A light missle has a speed of 3750M/S... with Missle projection (rank 4) trained to level 5 that can reach 5625M/S... An unrigged T2 fit interceptor can easily exceed 6000M/s How is the missle ever going to catch it? Supposing the missle ever did make contact, your still dealing with a missle explosion velocity of 1750 vs a speed of 3000M/S (with Target Nav level 5) In fairness, I don't really know if a turret would do very well with the tracking and all, but at least there would be a chance. There is no chance to damage a target you missle can't catch... ç¦
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.09 19:05:00 - [15] Originally by: Kiki Arnolds still though, there is no way to EVER hit a properly fitted/skilled inteceptor with a light missle. A light missle has a speed of 3750M/S... with Missle projection (rank 4) trained to level 5 that can reach 5625M/S... An unrigged T2 fit interceptor can easily exceed 6000M/s How is the missle ever going to catch it? Supposing the missle ever did make contact, your still dealing with a missle explosion velocity of 1750 vs a speed of 3000M/S (with Target Nav level 5) In fairness, I don't really know if a turret would do very well with the tracking and all, but at least there would be a chance. There is no chance to damage a target you missle can't catch... Ok, how about a missile velocity bonus then. The missile would reach 8437.5m/s. Any ship faster than this wouldn't be hit by a turret either, would it?
Sanity Lost	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:31:00 - [16] My only concern offering my verbal support of this idea is that it might give people the impression that it is now a good idea to make cloaked ships probable. This would be a very bad idea. Cloaking devices were designed to make you completely undetectable by any means and i feel it should stay that way. If this idea was modified so that the destroyer could fit a destryoer only module that emmited a decloaking pulse that would decloak a cloaked ship and a close range for example 30km it may be more viable. This way cloaked ships dont get an unecessary nerf by making them probable. Cloaks keep their value by remaining undetectable and yet you get a ship specific method for possibly finding and uncovering one. I really cant see any justified reason to make cloaked ships possible to be detected. This has been covered many times before.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:55:00 - [17] Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Ridiculous idea. Go away please. Unfortunately, this post hits the nail on the head. What you propose could perhaps be another T2 ship on the destroyer hull, but the idea of so radically changing Destroyers is patently absurd. Destroyers currently fill a very good niche role when moving from Frigates and these changes would destroy (no pun intended) that role whilst adding one specialised role for them. Your proposal would mean that we'd see even less of these ships than we currently do. So in summary, as a T2 variant it's a nice idea - but there's no need to go messing with the Destroyers in such an extravagant manner.
Xindi Kraid Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.10 06:28:00 - [18] Sorry but I like my guns. If you want a covert ops hunter make a new ship. Don't break mine --Bird of Prey: Forum God 1. War 2. 3. Profit
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.10 07:45:00 - [19] @ Sanity Lost Yes, ofcourse Destroyer only and even they shouldn't have it easy. If the Cov-Ops pilot knows his job, the Destroyer will have a hard time.. @ everyone suggesting to keep Destroyers as gunboats As I said a few post above, I understand you and therefore made another suggestion which keeps Destroyers as gunboats, but with some survivability and diversity between the races..
Salpad	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:35:00 - [20] Originally by: Knoppaz Personally I'd give them a bigger difference in the racial layout.. Amarr: 5% Laser-damagebonus and 10% optimal-bonus per level Caldari: 5% RoF-bonus and 10% Missile-damagebonus per level Gallente: 5% MWD-bonus and 10% Hybrid-falloffbonus per level Minmatar: 5% Projectile-damagebonus and 10% falloff-bonus per level Role: 50% tracking bonus (Amarr, Gallente, Minmatar) / 50% explosion velocity bonus (Caldari) What point is there in giving a missile damage bonus to the Caldari destroyer? -- Salpad
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.12 11:44:00 - [21] It would need it's turret hardpoints swapped to launcher hardpoint ofcourse Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII
Osmodious Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.02.12 15:53:00 - [22] I like this idea, it makes cloaking a hunter/hunted role like everything else, not just straight hunter. Most recons and (maybe) bombers would laugh at getting found by a T1 destroyer though, 5 seconds and its dead anyways. I don't think the added armour is wise though, maybe a total 10% resist split between normal resists (60% shield exp resist say going to 65%, and an added 1.25% added to the others or something) just to make it more like an ewar ship and not a solo pwnmobile against cloakers. Also, big fan of the smartbomb idea. An extra 3km at lvl 5 seems pretty tame, but have its cycle time increased by 50%, just so everyone has a chance to actually get away if they're skilled. I don't see why everyone is so defensive about their 'gunboat' being changed, its not like it wouldn't be there in tier 1, this new one could be tier 2 or 3, have way less dps, slightly better survivability, a new role, and likely be packed with high cost mods. Seems win-win to me.
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.12 17:50:00 - [23] I will not comment on whether I like or dislike the idea. But I took a look on a few of the suggestions, and here is the result: Your suggestion: Give the destroyers enough bonus to use small smartbombs like they are med smartbombs with less activation Your suggestion: Give the destroyers enough bonus to make them have cruiser-esque hitpoints, et.c. In which case, I must say that although you want to give another role to the destroyer, it is obvious that you picked the wrong hull for the job. I'd say just start with a cruiser hull if you want to be realstic at your proposal. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.12 19:40:00 - [24] The reason behind this was to give them a cruiser-like buffer, but less than cruiser tank due to small modules and limited cpu/pg. I could have left the tank as it is now, but then they would be easy prey for stealth-bombers and cannon-fodder for recons. They should be able to give a stealth-bomber a good fight and should at least withstand some fire from recons so the backup might be able to warp in.. Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.02.12 19:50:00 - [25] Edited by: Knoppaz on 12/02/2008 19:51:09 Originally by: Osmodious ... I don't think the added armour is wise though, maybe a total 10% resist split between normal resists (60% shield exp resist say going to 65%, and an added 1.25% added to the others or something) just to make it more like an ewar ship and not a solo pwnmobile against cloakers. ... About the reasoning for the increased armor, see above post (guess you already read it) They're not meant to be solo pnw-mobiles against cloakers. If the balancing is done right, a cov-ops has a good chance to escape if the pilot knows what he's doing. A stealth-bomber is a threat, but manageable and a recon means you either warp out in time or have some backup be there quickly, otherwise you're dead.. Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII
Han Purple	Posted - 2008.02.13 00:54:00 - [26] Eve ships are effectively the space equivalent of their naval namesakes and their roles are similar. To this end I like your suggestion about the cloak detection as it would be the equivalent of their anti submarine role. In the real world they are lightly armoured, carry lighter weapons and only work well in convoys. In Eve they could also be able to hunt cloaked vessels but not necessarily be able to destroy them one on one. In current configuration but with the ability to fit anti cloaking scanners (and perhaps have bonuses for scanning range, CPU/powergrid usage for these devices) they would fit your proposed role but not be significantly different. Obviously this would be Tech II and could be produced by a new Eve corp that specialises in cloaking / anticloaking technology (if one doesn't exist already) Catalyst is one of my favourite ships
Bahhs Deep	Posted - 2008.02.29 16:12:00 - [27] Hmmm....destroyers as they are now only need some resistance loving...maybe and extra slot or two. Your idea is interresting. I came up with similar ideas that I posted in my Tier2 Stealth Bomber thread. This may work for a T2 Destroyer. I like the idea of "submarine" warfare :D Imagine if we had some kind of area effect weapons for trying to blow up cloaked ships :D

Pages: [1] :: 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.