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)
AeonPhoenix Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.04.04 04:00:00 - [1] This would be a nice bonus, destroyers are rather fun ships to fly. Yet they are unbalanced across the races. The Amarr destroyer is complete crap for pvp. The Caldari destroyer is semi crap for pvp. The Gallente and the Minmatar frigates aren't too bad, but still most people think they were made to salvage their missions or something. As a suggestion, I think the slots need altering on them to something like this. Armor tankers Amarr destroyer : 2 mid, 4 low. Gallente destroyer : 2 mid, 4 low. Shield tankers Caldari destroyer : 3 mid, 3 low. Minmatar : 3 mid 3 low
AeonPhoenix	Posted - 2008.04.04 04:00:00 - [2] This would be a nice bonus, destroyers are rather fun ships to fly. Yet they are unbalanced across the races. The Amarr destroyer is complete crap for pvp. The Caldari destroyer is semi crap for pvp. The Gallente and the Minmatar frigates aren't too bad, but still most people think they were made to salvage their missions or something. As a suggestion, I think the slots need altering on them to something like this. Armor tankers Amarr destroyer : 2 mid, 4 low. Gallente destroyer : 2 mid, 4 low. Shield tankers Caldari destroyer : 3 mid, 3 low. Minmatar : 3 mid 3 low
Erotic Irony	Posted - 2008.04.04 04:49:00 - [3] Originally by: AeonPhoenix This would be a nice bonus, destroyers are rather fun ships to fly. Yet they are unbalanced across the races. The Amarr destroyer is complete crap for pvp. The Caldari destroyer is semi crap for pvp. The Gallente and the Minmatar frigates aren't too bad, but still most people think they were made to salvage their missions or something. As a suggestion, I think the slots need altering on them to something like this. Armor tankers Amarr destroyer : 2 mid, 4 low. Gallente destroyer : 2 mid, 4 low. Shield tankers Caldari destroyer : 3 mid, 3 low. Minmatar : 3 mid 3 low How about tripling their hull hitpoints and giving them a 5% hull resist role bonus--ideal for damage controls? ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
AeonPhoenix	Posted - 2008.04.04 13:13:00 - [4] Edited by: AeonPhoenix on 04/04/2008 13:14:53 Anything would help really, these are among the most neglected ships in eve online. They have no sense of themselves ingame, they are the are only ships I can find to point at that end up to have no real use, as said, the amarr coercer specifically, you'll never see anyone fly the amarr coercer that isn't someone that uses it to salvage missions, or a beginner player doing beginner missions. They are only as fast as a cruiser despite being smaller and a lot more fragile, they only have about the hitpoints of any frigate. At least they get too use the frigate mwd with their superior capacitor power. Sure there are interdictors, but interdictors aren't meant for casual pvp, they're quite expensive for what they are simply because of their warp jamming abilities. CCP are too busy fiddling with their Titans or some other goodies for the top 0.1% of the game population methinx.
Seth Ruin Galactic Exploration and Mining Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.04 15:03:00 - [5] I've always clung to my idea of making destroyers the anti-cloaker ship. Just like the destroyer-class vessels in World War II, which were designed to combat submarines, the destroyers of EVE should have some sort of cloaker-finding abilities.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.04.04 17:47:00 - [6] Originally by: Seth Ruin I've always clung to my idea of making destroyers the anti-cloaker ship. Just like the destroyer-class vessels in World War II, which were designed to combat submarines, the destroyers of EVE should have some sort of cloaker-finding abilities. Interesting thought. Maybe some bonus to fitting reqs for the "cloak scan module", whatever that might be. ...
maralt The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.04.04 17:55:00 - [7] Edited by: maralt on 04/04/2008 17:55:03 Its a touchy subject cos if you boost them too much you can expect a visit from a lot of interceptor pilots howling in fury about destroyers kicking there butt and looking for blood. But i do think they need summat cos all ive seen em used for is salvaging.
Batolemaeus Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.04.04 17:57:00 - [8] Originally by: Seth Ruin I've always clung to my idea of making destroyers the anti-cloaker ship. Just like the destroyer-class vessels in World War II, which were designed to combat submarines, the destroyers of EVE should have some sort of cloaker-finding abilities. Was thinking that too. Destroyers dropping something like depthcharges..
Gordon Red	Posted - 2008.04.04 18:00:00 - [9] The T2ones are bad, so why should the T1ones good? Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
iNsAn3 Team Rocket.	Posted - 2008.04.04 18:53:00 - [10] Originally by: Gordon Red The T2ones are bad, so why should the T1ones good? hahaha. This. --- The Cake Is A LIE?!?!
Bronson Hughes Knights of the Wild Visions of Warfare	Posted - 2008.04.04 18:54:00 - [11] I see two problems with destroyers: 1. They don't have enough hit points. Battlecruisers have at least twice as many HPs across the board compared to their respective tier 3 criuser, some of them closer to two and a half. This makes sense because they are easier to hit (roughly double signature radius) and slower (lower base speed and higher mass). Destroyers all have less than twice as many HP as their respective tier 3 frigate. 2. They don't have enough low/mid slots. They currently have fewer lows/mids than their corresponding tier 3 frigate whereas Battlecruisers have at least one more, not fewer. They do all have 8 high slots, which helps offset this somewhat, but they all also suffer from the -25% RoF penalty. My solutions to this problem are simple: 1. Buff Destroyer hitpoints. Make them more like Battlecruisers in terms of where they lie hitpoint-wise between frigates and cruisers (i.e. more in the middle, not closer to frigates like they are now). 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. This would apply to Interdictors as well, but their bonuses may have to change to accomodate the reduced number of high slots. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
AeonPhoenix Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.04.04 20:33:00 - [12] Ok what about, buffing the t1 destroyer, and buffing the t2 destroyer, but incur heavy penalties when fitting the interdiction sphere launcher to reverse the t2 destroyer buffs? I say this because, interdictors are a thorn in the side for a lot of people, any buff to normal interdictors would cause allsorts of problems and would negate somewhat on the role of the heavy interdictor.
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.05 01:37:00 - [13] Meh, I wouldnt turn away a coercer that wanted to come roaming. Good enough to KO ceptors dps out to 35km, great tracking. Can fit mwd. So what if it doesnt have a point - it's not going to live long. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
Seth Ruin Galactic Exploration and Mining Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.05 04:55:00 - [14] Originally by: Razin Interesting thought. Maybe some bonus to fitting reqs for the "cloak scan module", whatever that might be. Originally by: Batolemaeus Was thinking that too. Destroyers dropping something like depthcharges.. Whatever the devs decide to do to make cloaked ships find-able, I honestly believe it would be best for the game if it were done with a destroyer. They have no current role in combat, and they're vulnerable enough to allow a small gang of cloakers to wipe them out and return to hiding. ... I'm tempted to start my own thread on this idea, however. Just need to find the time to write a well thought-out proposal.
0raven0 Point-Zero SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.05 04:59:00 - [15] Edited by: 0raven0 on 05/04/2008 05:00:32 Are you kidding me? Amarr destoyer owns, its an inty instapopper. 8x Medium Pulse laser II with scorch 1x sensor booster 2x tracking enhancer II 2x heat sink II the ships do need more hp, but other than that they are good. Amarr one is only one that really fits this role of anti-ceptor which is what dessies were designed for. No other dessies are any good at being dessies. ------ Quote: tuxford: AT LEAST ITS SPEELED CORRECTLY tuxford: spelled* Oveur: rofl
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.05 05:15:00 - [16] I like the range of DLP more, but same thoughts on the ship its self. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
Captain Spectacular Minmatar Freight Hauling Service	Posted - 2008.04.05 06:14:00 - [17] Originally by: 0raven0 Edited by: 0raven0 on 05/04/2008 05:00:32 Are you kidding me? Amarr destoyer owns, its an inty instapopper. 8x Medium Pulse laser II with scorch 1x sensor booster 2x tracking enhancer II 2x heat sink II the ships do need more hp, but other than that they are good. Amarr one is only one that really fits this role of anti-ceptor which is what dessies were designed for. No other dessies are any good at being dessies. I agree wholeheartedly with this, I LOVE the coercer as it is really, sure the 1 mid sucks, but fly in tandem and your golden. This thing really tears stuff up.
Siigari Kitawa The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2008.04.05 06:56:00 - [18] It's not so much their HP (though it is a TAD low) but more of their sig radius. Their sig radius is HUGE. 86 on a Catalyst. That makes them like a prime target for almost any gun. Medium guns tear their selves to shreds, while light guns are almost a sure hit. That's their issue, but that won't be tweaked at all, because it is indeed fair.
Alex Medvedov Soliders Of Eve The Church.	Posted - 2008.04.05 10:39:00 - [19] I my opinion properly fitted Thrasher can even threaten AFs. How many of you who are calling for destroyer buff have Destroyer skill learnet to lvl 5 and flying them with fully t2 fit???
Irn Bruce Rentboyz	Posted - 2008.04.05 11:58:00 - [20] A Catalyst with T2 blasters and a T2 drone, along with 3 magstabs and good skills can get nearly 400 DPS. That's pushing BS level.
AeonPhoenix Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.04.05 15:17:00 - [21] Yes the Gallente and Minmatar destroyers are pretty good. I can imagine all sorts of kickass setups with them. As for the Amarr and Caldari: The coercer is an intercepter killer? With a sensor booster? Damn, I bet a intercepter pilot would literally crap himself if you turned up by yourself truddling along at 200 odd m/s, with no scrambler. I know a lot of minmatar pilots in particularly that have a blast solo in their dessy, and its annoying because I can't do it.
Abrazzar Equilibrium Inc. FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.04.05 16:14:00 - [22] I have made a thread in the features forum about how destroyers could be changed to make them more fun to fly: Linkage I made a new thread as posting the stuff here would be kind of a derail but, as they are somewhat related, I link it here. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Andreya	Posted - 2008.04.06 01:52:00 - [23] actually cormorant is probably the best PVP destroyer out there.... it hits like a harpy, just as far, but tracks way better. we still screw around in cormys from time to time. _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected])
Corstaad	Posted - 2008.04.06 02:40:00 - [24] There not bad ships they'll pretty much destroy everything smaller then a AF. I haven't flown one since I got heat but I'm pretty sure I'd kill any of the AFs at 1/20th the cost. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Julius Romanus Fatalix Inc. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.06 02:50:00 - [25] Originally by: AeonPhoenix Yes the Gallente and Minmatar destroyers are pretty good. I can imagine all sorts of kickass setups with them. As for the Amarr and Caldari: The coercer is an intercepter killer? With a sensor booster? Damn, I bet a intercepter pilot would literally crap himself if you turned up by yourself truddling along at 200 odd m/s, with no scrambler. I know a lot of minmatar pilots in particularly that have a blast solo in their dessy, and its annoying because I can't do it. So you're mad that you cant solo, put that coercer in a gang and rock face. And honestly, your comment about the point is worthless. Half the inties wouldnt even be in your scramble range w/ a t2 disruptor. Your range, your tracking, and the sigrad of your guns is what makes a destroyer good at what it does. Tackling has nothing to do with it. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only.
Niffetin Omni Research	Posted - 2008.04.06 07:23:00 - [26] They are just fine and do what they are meant to do, anti-frigate/inty. I still havent found a frigate/interceptor/another destroyer to beat my Coercer. (50m to whoever beats me in a Destroyer 1on1, topic should be in the first few pages of Events -forums) --- Teeheee! mematar's Video Archive
Ugly Character	Posted - 2008.04.11 11:13:00 - [27] How about Heavy Destroyers? :p
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.04.11 13:05:00 - [28] Originally by: Irn Bruce A Catalyst with T2 blasters and a T2 drone, along with 3 magstabs and good skills can get nearly 400 DPS. That's pushing BS level. at this, any thorax I'll fly does more DPS than this without as many magstabs... A blaster BS is closer to 1k DPS, wake up! Now, back to destroyers... The catalyst isn't bad, but it's hell to fit it for long range. Either you will lack tons of PWG to fit 150mm, or you will lack CPU a lot to fit weapon upgrades. And it seems that there are similar issues with coercer on beams and thrasher on artys. Improve the fitting of destroyers, it will improve them a lot. I couldn't make a good catalyst until I reach AWU 4... -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Korvin Gallente VooDoo Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.11 13:53:00 - [29] Originally by: Niffetin They are just fine and do what they are meant to do, anti-frigate/inty. I still havent found a frigate/interceptor/another destroyer to beat my Coercer. (50m to whoever beats me in a Destroyer 1on1, topic should be in the first few pages of Events -forums) 1. To kill the inty - you have to catch the inty. (unless its 1 shot kill for a stupid frig) 2. Good assault ship will probably kill any destroyer/dictor and can kill all the stuff destroyers suppose to kill better. Destroyers are useless, unless for salvaging and gank noob frigs, admit it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.11 14:05:00 - [30] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/04/2008 14:07:11 Originally by: Korvin 1. To kill the inty - you have to catch the inty. (unless its 1 shot kill for a stupid frig) Which is entirely possible with a Thrasher tbh. Originally by: Korvin 2. Good assault ship will probably kill any destroyer/dictor and can kill all the stuff destroyers suppose to kill better. A good assault ship is probably going to die to some of the more deadlier dictors (Sabre + 200mm AC IIs = Lots of pain). Any assault ship will do inferior to a destroyer for sniping small ships. Take the Wolf vs Thrasher comparison: the Thrasher has more alpha, more optimal (ok, Wolf has a falloff bonus, which works well for arties too), and way way more tracking (50%), and same DPS assuming equal number of gyrostabs. As for killing Assault Ships, it's problematic to do in a Destroyer but can be done; it's not nearly as clear cut a fight as you make it out to be. For killing interceptors and frigates, destroyers win hands down. To add insult to injury, destroyers are more agile That said, as a pilot with Destroyers V, I fully endorse and support +1 med/low on all the destroyers + fitting for the extra slot naturally. It'd make it a more pronounced step up from frigates (naturally, if the AF buff fails to materialize this would horribly break Destroyer vs AF balance). All that said, Destroyers are in fact high-SP ships (fittings, gunneries and so on) and are very useful in capable hands. 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
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]

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.