EVE Search - Make T1 Destroyers more PvP able.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Make T1 Destroyers more PvP able.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Korvin Gallente VooDoo Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.11 14:23:00 - [31] Edited by: Korvin on 11/04/2008 14:23:48 Originally by: Cpt Branko I've been known to use a AC Thrasher for disposable DPS in gangs - pulling out 200 perfectly tracking DPS with a 3M loss cost ship is quite useful. Once again Can you catch 7k+ speed inty with your destroyer? If you cant catch it - you cant kill it in proper hands. DPS - is the last thing your gang mates need to catch inty ) once it is webbed - any trash fitted cruiser can hit it and do more damage than your destroyer does. And btw - stabber can go faster than your destroyer in a proper setup, not to mention vagabond. So what we have here is - destroyer is bad tackler, and bad damagedealer in gang.
Alex Medvedov Minmatar Soliders Of Eve The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.11 15:18:00 - [32] Originally by: Cpt Branko ...if the AF buff fails to materialize this would horribly break Destroyer vs AF balance... Thats preciselly what am i afraid of if you are talking about makeing destroyers stronger...
Karentaki Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.04.11 18:53:00 - [33] So far in eve there are ships specialised for every weapon system, except SMARTBOMBS!!! I propose to give destroyers the following bonuses: 15% reduction in fitting requirements for smartbombs per level 50% bonus to range of smartbombs per level 20% bonus to damage of smartbombs per level Imagine the lulz of flying one of these with 8 smartbombs into the middle of a frigate battle On the other hand... Would you trust something with teeth but no eyes!?!?! Drainpipe of Doom pilot!
Korvin Gallente VooDoo Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.14 02:26:00 - [34] Edited by: Korvin on 14/04/2008 02:33:28 Edited by: Korvin on 14/04/2008 02:30:18 The only way i see to make destroyers they are suppose to be is a new highslot web module with a high range for destroyer class ships. + more scanres. That way destroyers will be effective in gangs and minmatar will loose their webbing monopoly. But to prevent this new webs being used on big ships - make them less effective depending on mass... The destroyers will be real small ship catchers, and will not web big ships so efficiently. and 1 high-web per ship limit needed i guess. the anticloacking idea is nice too, working like ECM Burst in a range 5-8 km decloacking all in radius. That may even bring us a new class of t2 destroyers... like assault one, with more hp, no bubble, but web and anticloack bonuses...
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.04.14 04:15:00 - [35] Destroyers are underpowered. Supposedly their function is to kill frigates. However, one of them has only 1 midslot, which means that the enemy can disengage at will, and they all carry a ROF penalty - which as far as I know is the only instance of this in the game, where a shipclass has a penalty to it's use. In addition, they're fairly slow, only being slightly faster than cruisers, and have few HP. The simple way to address these is to address these issues. First, they should be faster. They should not be as fast as frigates but definitely faster than cruisers. Second, address the penalty issue and the slot layout issues. Currently one of the big issues with these ships is they are large enough to not be able to effectively avoid fire, but don't have the slot layout to tank damage. The way to fix this is to simply remove highslots and add them to either mid or lowslots, and adjust the CPU and PG of these ships as necessary to balance them. At the same time, remove the ROF penalty on these ships. For example: Catalyst: -3 Highslots, +1 lowslot, +1 midslot, +5m3 drone space Coercer: -2 highslots, +1 midslot, +1 lowslot Cormorant: -2 highs, +1 mid and low Thrasher: -2 highs, +1 mid and low This could be considered to be a "nerf" to the thrasher because it reduces it's alfa, however, overall the other destroyers are much improved. In addition, a look at the bonuses of these ships is useful. Currently all of these ships have bonuses to tracking. For long range weapons this makes sense, however, the catalyst has a bonus to falloff which suggests that it is supposed to be a blaster ship. Tracking is not a useful bonus when your target is in web range. Bonuses should be changed therefore to +50% falloff instead of the optimal bonus, and the tracking should be changed instead to small hybrid damage. Overall these changes make the class more survivable, and more effective.
Udoshi Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.14 11:36:00 - [36] In my opinion, the raw stats are fine. The main problem with them, however... Fitting is tight. Really tight. Tight enough that you don't see any varieties like you do with the other ship classes, like plates vs damage modules. That and your lack of slots. Here's what I think. Each hull needs one slot added to its lowest slot bank. So the cormorant goes from 8/4/1 to 8/4/2. Coercer to 8/2/4, and both the Thrasher and catalyst to 8/3/3. This fixes some tackling problems for 'supposedly dedicated PVP boats'. +10 or so power to each ship. So there's room to throw on something besides guns. Like an afterburner or a repairer. Instead of buffing the raw stats(hp, speed, etc) you now actually have some room to play with your equipment. Change the range role bonus to be both optimal and falloff, making close-range guns more viable.
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.04.14 21:00:00 - [37] destroyers are used for something other then salvaging? interdictors are paper airplanes that drop warp disruptors. Not so bad they have a point... But my idea was a t2 destroyer that is the "scissors to the paper" of t2 frigates.
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.04.14 21:08:00 - [38] The intended role of destroyers is fleet/gang defence against interceptors and frigates. As such, they don't need to tackle - if the interceptor disengages, then job done. But their sig does seem to be unnecessarily big.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.04.15 00:43:00 - [39] Originally by: Gypsio III The intended role of destroyers is fleet/gang defence against interceptors and frigates. As such, they don't need to tackle - if the interceptor disengages, then job done. But their sig does seem to be unnecessarily big. They used to be this, but they removed the optimal range bonus, or at least they did for the Coercer. A fully T2 fitted destroyer was deadly to inty's, but not the case any longer, the range just isn't enough to handle them being so fast.
Roidpwning101	Posted - 2008.04.15 02:04:00 - [40] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Originally by: Gypsio III The intended role of destroyers is fleet/gang defence against interceptors and frigates. As such, they don't need to tackle - if the interceptor disengages, then job done. But their sig does seem to be unnecessarily big. They used to be this, but they removed the optimal range bonus, or at least they did for the Coercer. A fully T2 fitted destroyer was deadly to inty's, but not the case any longer, the range just isn't enough to handle them being so fast. Are you high? Or work for fox news? The coercer still has its optimal range bonus.
AeonPhoenix	Posted - 2008.04.15 03:25:00 - [41] Edited by: AeonPhoenix on 15/04/2008 03:31:34 I'd settle for making some minor slot adjustments right now (specifically to the caldari and amarr destroyers, fixing their single slot problems), increase their speed by about 25%, possibly make them all lose a highslot or two across the board to compensate. Possibly also do something about the ROF penalty Then Hopefully add either a new more expensive class of destroyer (2 million isk base?), or a new tech 2 variant that has more of a role for either anti cloaking or anti interceptor or something with the 8 highslots again.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.04.15 04:29:00 - [42] Originally by: Roidpwning101 Originally by: Christari Zuborov Originally by: Gypsio III The intended role of destroyers is fleet/gang defence against interceptors and frigates. As such, they don't need to tackle - if the interceptor disengages, then job done. But their sig does seem to be unnecessarily big. They used to be this, but they removed the optimal range bonus, or at least they did for the Coercer. A fully T2 fitted destroyer was deadly to inty's, but not the case any longer, the range just isn't enough to handle them being so fast. Are you high? Or work for fox news? The coercer still has its optimal range bonus. I assure you I am niether high, or a broadcaster, but you are correct to say that it has an optimal range bonus, just much less than it used to have. It used to be a bonus per level, and now it's just an overall 50% bonus.
AeonPhoenix	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:58:00 - [43] Edited by: AeonPhoenix on 15/04/2008 12:00:17 Nah wait, reducing high slots would make them rubbish salvage ships and would wreck what people use them a lot for right now, so I change my previous statement to getting rid of 2 or 3 gun mounts rather then any high slots slots. Let then get used as little nos boats or smartbombers or something.
Dani Leone Gallente A Dark Cloud Unaffiliated	Posted - 2008.04.15 12:51:00 - [44] As a pilot that does a lot of pvp in destroyers (Thrasher and Cormorant mainly but can fly all) I disagree that the ship type needs any kind of buff or change. The role bonuses are excellent (maybe excepting the rof penalty but that's balance for having 7 or 8 turrets plus the fantastic tracking bonuses) Blaster destroyers are perfect for grabbing and holding fast ships like inties as they undock and ripping them apart in a couple of salvos. A small group of destroyers can flay cruisers alive. As for not being able to kill inties in combat, a lot of that depends on how good the inty pilot is. Careless and poor ones get full Thrasher 280mm Alpha. ;) If you want to criticise the ships, fine, but fly them and not eft first. You are trading DPS for Tank or vice versa and a destroyer can be remarkably effective in either configuration. Some of the ideas above would make a dessie into nothing more than a light cruiser. Imho, you have to be willing to adapt to what it can do and you will find that you have a fantastically effective ship.
Stahlgiest	Posted - 2008.05.13 07:42:00 - [45] Wow how did this thread get highjacked or what... I am still working on my Cruor set up...looks like I need more skills energy management needs to go to 5. But I still cannot figure out how to get the two primary weapon systems to work together in this ship. Any suggestions for rogs on the Cruor please. And I know polycarbs arent' the answer I cannot beet the Inty at it's game. I need to make him play mine. Please help...Must WIN at ANY cost...
Ania Tsaluan	Posted - 2008.05.13 13:41:00 - [46] For the most part, I agree that some of the destroyers could use a change, but not necessarily a boost. My one big pet pieve is the fact that the cormorant is a rail boat, and not missiles. I've always thought it should fit assault missile launchers (the ones that use light missiles) and keep most of its bonuses, just change them to missile related things. my slightly off-the-wall cormorant idea: 8 high (8 missile hardpoints) 4 Mids 1 low 10% bonus to explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to light missile and rocket flight time per level -25% rate of fire for all launchers -35% cpu requirements for assault missile launcher batteries and -95% powergrid requirement for assault missile launcher bays. just a crazy idea, but anti-frigate launchers on a caldari destroyer?
Foak Invalesco Callide The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.05.13 21:57:00 - [47] Originally by: Dani Leone As a pilot that does a lot of pvp in destroyers (Thrasher and Cormorant mainly but can fly all) I disagree that the ship type needs any kind of buff or change. The role bonuses are excellent (maybe excepting the rof penalty but that's balance for having 7 or 8 turrets plus the fantastic tracking bonuses) Blaster destroyers are perfect for grabbing and holding fast ships like inties as they undock and ripping them apart in a couple of salvos. A small group of destroyers can flay cruisers alive. As for not being able to kill inties in combat, a lot of that depends on how good the inty pilot is. Careless and poor ones get full Thrasher 280mm Alpha. ;) If you want to criticise the ships, fine, but fly them and not eft first. You are trading DPS for Tank or vice versa and a destroyer can be remarkably effective in either configuration. Some of the ideas above would make a dessie into nothing more than a light cruiser. Imho, you have to be willing to adapt to what it can do and you will find that you have a fantastically effective ship. This is right on. Leave destroyers alone please.
Boran Tisk Wise Guys	Posted - 2008.05.14 04:07:00 - [48] Edited by: Boran Tisk on 14/05/2008 04:07:55 7x 75mm Gaitling Rail II 1x Rocket Launcher 2x Web 1x Painter 1x 20km 1x DC Cormorant You would be surprised at how many stupid inty pilots "lolz destroyer" and come blundering into web range Victim: xxxxxxx Alliance: xxxxx Corp: xxxxxx Destroyed: Crow System: MHC-R3 Security: -0.0 Involved parties: Name: Boran Tisk (laid the final blow) Security: -2.3 Alliance: NONE Corp: The Acrimonious Knights Ship: Cormorant Weapon: 75mm Gatling Rail II Victim: xxxxxxxx Alliance: xxxxxxx Corp: xxxxxxxx Destroyed: Claw System: MHC-R3 Security: -0.0 Involved parties: Name: Boran Tisk (laid the final blow) Security: -2.3 Alliance: NONE Corp: The Acrimonious Knights Ship: Cormorant Weapon: 75mm Gatling Rail II
Boran Tisk Wise Guys	Posted - 2008.05.14 04:17:00 - [49] Another setup I use. Chases Interceptors off the field in no time 8x 125mm Rail Gun II (Iron Charge S) 1x Sensor Booster II 1x Tracking Computer II (Tracking Speed) 1x Tracking Enhancer II 2x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Paper Thin. But a DC only buys you a couple more seconds so I opted for more damage instead Some might be hesitant to put so much isk into such a paper thing ship but I love it
Dristra Amarr Shadows of the Dead R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.05.14 08:10:00 - [50] More than a single destroyer for each race will help alot... Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions! I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them.
Solostrom	Posted - 2008.05.14 15:53:00 - [51] Originally by: Bronson Hughes 2. Re-arrange their slot layouts. Remove the -25% RoF penalty and drop the number of high slots to 6 or 7 and add at least one more low/mid where needed, maybe two. Adjust fitting accordingly. Do this and you will hose thousands and thousands of salvageCats, including mine. This will make me very unhappy.
Boran Tisk Wise Guys	Posted - 2008.05.14 16:27:00 - [52] Originally by: Solostrom Originally by: Bronson Hughes 2. Re-arrange their slot layouts. Remove the -25% RoF penalty and drop the number of high slots to 6 or 7 and add at least one more low/mid where needed, maybe two. Adjust fitting accordingly. Do this and you will hose thousands and thousands of salvageCats, including mine. This will make me very unhappy. So? It's not what the ship is meant to do
BugxEarl Amarr Izanagi Orbital Fleet Izanagi Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.14 23:31:00 - [53] I'd think a slight reduction in signature radius, and boost in agility would help quite a bit too. Slot layout adjustments are definetly in need, but that wouldn't make this class too much better in term of survivability. (Destroyers' main weakness is not only that it's role is very niche, but they are too fragile). A sig radius reduction and agility boost would help in avoiding some damage from larger ships, while no bonus in speed means it won't be zipping around catching inties.
Erik Legant	Posted - 2008.05.27 11:03:00 - [54] Originally by: BugxEarl ... A sig radius reduction and agility boost would help in avoiding some damage from larger ships, while no bonus in speed means it won't be zipping around catching inties. This ! but then, destroyers will become harder to lock, so harder to remote repair. Destroyers are nice because they help you during your beginnings as a pod pilot and help you later when you have millions of SPs. Then, they are very useful to do lv1 missions at lightspeed or to brush interceptors, within a gang. Like IRL, destroyers are not intended to cruise alone. The only destroyer that I'd like to see changed is the catalyst with its bonus to falloff and optimal on the same hull, and the T2 variant, the Eris, which is an epic fail too.
Kitoba Legion of Dynamic Discord	Posted - 2008.05.27 12:07:00 - [55] I bet CCP could provide us with statistics about what percentage of all destroyers on TQ are fitted with tractors and salvagers. Somewhat around 85%, I guess.
Letrange Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.05.27 12:29:00 - [56] sigh All I see is people who don't understand how to fly a dessy wanting to change it. Fly it like it's meant to be flown and they rock. Get the skills to fit them full tech 2 and they are just scary. These are rather specialized ships. If you try to use them unorthodox ways they just aren't happy ships. I'm only AWU5 and the skill that allows tech 2 targeting computers away from a full on gank Thrasher. Even with less skills, these are the pod killers of gate camps. If you've got a gang that can all fly dessies, you've got the makings of a wolf pack. Anti-tackle/Anti-drone support in a fleet. Like anything else in this game - if you've got the skills to use it right all of a sudden it sucks a lot less than you thought. But dessies as a whole are rather more skill intensive than they first appear to be. The main reason you see a lot of salvager dessies is due more to the mechanics of salvaging and to the fact that you can fly a cruiser more effectively than a dessie with less skill points. These are fit sensitive beasts. Unless you intentionally get the skills necessary to fit/fly them correctly they will suck. But then again they are hardly the only ships in eve with that problem. The real tricky ones are the Interdictors - they get primaried so fast it's almost obscene. I wish there was a T2 dessy variant without the bubble launcher so we'd have a T2 dessie that wasn't primary bait.
Guns nButter The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:29:00 - [57] i fly a destroyer fit with t2 250mm artillery, tremor s. i have small arty spec 4, destroyers 4, and i can nearly 2 volley most t1 frigs, 1 volley if they arent tanked. i can beat any assault frig with relative ease, including an ishkur, because i can 1 volley his drones. all of this, with a t1 MWD and a scram on. once i get acceleration control 4 or 5, i can probably hit 2km/s (currently 1700 m/s with a t1 mwd). yeah i have cap issues with the disruptor and the mwd running, but that typically isnt a problem vs a ceptor at range, because transverse will be too low

Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.