EVE Search - Second T2 Destroyer

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Second T2 Destroyer

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.08.27 10:15:00 - [1] I'd like to see are real T2 destroyer for each race. The tech 1 versions are ok for what they do, but lets face it, they are tech 1. The T2 interdictor is a good ship for the job it does, but it's NOT a destroyer. I'd like to see a T2 version that really is a gunboat. We get 2 types of T2 interceptor based on the same hull. We get 2 types of covert ops based on different hulls (cov ops / stealth bomber). Why not 2 types of T2 destroyer based on the same hull? Interdictor and Gunship.
Toric Gaul	Posted - 2008.08.27 21:36:00 - [2] I'll bite. I'd like to see a real T2 version of the destroyers we have now. The dictor is nice and all, but it's not a Destroyer per se.
Blastil	Posted - 2008.08.28 02:03:00 - [3] I'd like to see them able to fit somehting like this - small guns + tank, or half as many med guns and some utility as well as a modest tank or speed fit.
Dar Qsyde Caldari End Game Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.28 06:31:00 - [4] Originally by: Blastil I'd like to see them able to fit somehting like this - small guns + tank, or half as many med guns and some utility as well as a modest tank or speed fit. This. Especially the Med Guns version. or Make a Med Gun using Destroyer a TIER 2 version, and a Torpedo firing boat based on the same hull the TECH 2 version, call it a Heavy Bomber or somesuch. "You don't know the power..." I post with my main...What about you?
Soeniss Delazur Gallente Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.28 07:11:00 - [5] Edited by: Soeniss Delazur on 28/08/2008 07:11:53 I am just afraid that a "combat t2 destroyer" would be outgunned by any t1 cruiser. You¦d better off finding out a new role for that ship and give it a bit of what the combat recons have to make it more resistant.
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.08.30 02:16:00 - [6] Destroyers are to frigates what battle cruisers are to cruisers. Medium guns wouldn't really fit the idea. Done right a T2 destroyer should be able to take on T1 cruisers.
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.30 04:02:00 - [7] Edited by: Quesa on 30/08/2008 04:03:26 Light gun platform with more med/lows, however, I wouldn't see the need for a Med Gun platform with more turret slots than the current cruisers.
TCL987 Gallente Hannibals Pirates	Posted - 2008.08.30 04:57:00 - [8] Make a T2 Ship on the Destroyer hulls that is a specialized salvage ship that gives some kind of bonus to salvaging chance as a role bonus, a bonus to tractor beam speed and range for the destroyer skill and a bonus to speed and cargo for the Salvage Ships skill or some combination of those bonuses.
Inara Subaka Caldari the united	Posted - 2008.08.30 07:02:00 - [9] I'd like to see a T2 destroyer that is similar to a Assault frig or a HAC in role. The full T2 resists, a small boost to HPs, a little faster, keep the 8 weapons slots (though I would like to see the Caldari one be rockets/light missiles) and add a few more mids/lows (+1/+2 for armor ships and +2/+1 shield tankers) for versatility. ex: a T2 Catalyst (8/3/5) Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed and 15% bonus to Shield and Armor Kinetic resistance and 10% bonus to Shield and Armor Thermal resistance per level T2 Destroyer Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Damage and 10% to Small Hybrid Falloff per level a T2 Cormorant (8/6/2) Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light Missile and Rocket velocity and 15% bonus to Shield and Armor Thermal resistance and 10% bonus to Shield and Armor Kinetic resistance per level T2 Destroyer Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage and 10% to flight time of Light Missiles and Rockets per level Etc... for each ship keep the T2 resists. These would be capable of standing on fairly equal ground with a T1 cruiser (it should be a close fight with all maxed skills) but be a strong challenge slightly in favor of the T2 destroyer for T2 frigs (completely annihilating T1 frigs and destroyers with a decent pilot).
Ezekiel Amann	Posted - 2008.08.30 07:55:00 - [10] Excellent Idea.
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:02:00 - [11] Originally by: Ezekiel Amann Excellent Idea. Thanks, glad you agree.
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.09.07 02:23:00 - [12] THIS is what a t2 destroyer should be.
Taniel Therapy. YTMND.	Posted - 2008.09.07 05:46:00 - [13] these would definitely be able to take a t1 cruiser because you can already do that w/ a assault frig if you have good enough skills and choose your fights wisely
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.09.08 11:32:00 - [14] Originally by: Taniel these would definitely be able to take a t1 cruiser because you can already do that w/ a assault frig if you have good enough skills and choose your fights wisely I suppose a T2 destroyer should at least have a chance to take on a T1 cruiser. That's not really what I'm looking for though.
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.09.14 17:40:00 - [15] I'd like a T2 verion of the T1 destoryers please. Why does everyone try to pervert the ship class?
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.14 22:30:00 - [16] t2 does not mean better it means it specialises in something. what would this destroyer specialise in that makes it different from the t1 version.
Sardukarr	Posted - 2008.09.15 07:14:00 - [17] Make them excel and Destroying the smaller faster targets like T2 frigs and ceptors. "no more damn DESERTS!"
Achran Dexx Caldari CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.15 07:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Sardukarr Make them excel and Destroying the smaller faster targets like T2 frigs and ceptors. Like the T1 version?
Andreya Direct Intent	Posted - 2008.09.15 08:06:00 - [19] make them mini command ships that bonus only frigate (and destroyer) class ships it will give them a role that way, and be fun as hell in frig gangs _________________________________________________________ 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])
Sardukarr	Posted - 2008.09.15 08:22:00 - [20] Better than the t1 with more yummy and knarley frig, drone, and ceptor destructory "no more damn DESERTS!"
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.09.15 17:41:00 - [21] Originally by: Typhado3 t2 does not mean better it means it specialises in something. what would this destroyer specialise in that makes it different from the t1 version. How about it specializes not dying in a matter of seconds? I don't think the destroyers in game are underpowered, but they definately aren't T2. Even with maxed skills, they have a hard time keeping up. How about some extra hp, cpu, and powergrid? An extra mid or low slot. Some resistances. Maybe a skill based reduction in ROF penalty. I'd like a T2 COMBAT version. We have Assualt Ships, Heavy Assault Ships (no such thing as a HAC), and Command Ships. While I'm not in favor of creating a BS with these types of resists, why is the the only T2 destroyer not a destroyer? Taken directly from the in game description: "Interdictors are destroyer-sized vessels built to fill a single important tactical niche..." I can recall when frigates feared destroyers. Not so much anymore with all the T2 versions out there.
Sardukarr	Posted - 2008.09.15 21:19:00 - [22] Some kind of rate of fire, dmage, or tracking bonus with some nice resists or some slot to fit a good tank....? /signed "no more damn DESERTS!"
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.10.08 13:10:00 - [23] I'd still like a real T2 destroyer please.
Calypso Nadie	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:52:00 - [24] Why not make T2 destroyers fill a niche not currently available... Let them fill the traditional role of destroyers, that of anti-aircraft boats. Give them a 5% bonus to tracking speed per lvl also perhaps a 5% boost per lvl to defender missle rate of fire Change the high slots to allow 3-4 missle rigs This would fill a role of a drone destroyer/missle interceptor, ideal for what destroyers are made to do.
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs	Posted - 2008.10.09 00:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Calypso Nadie also perhaps a 5% boost per lvl to defender missle rate of fire HA! She said defender missiles... that's just plain funny... Oh wait, were you serious? First they would actually need to make defender missiles work for players, and not just NPC's. New Prospector Class
Patrice Macmahon Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.09 02:45:00 - [26] T1 Destroyers run as long range snipers against frigs, but can be nuked by just about any clever pilot in anything t2 or cruiser sized or larger. The t2 destroyer is essentially a specialized tackler with a couple extra guns. So they definately have a tactical niche, but it needs to be fixed! So current roles filled by other craft: Ellectronic Warfare Command Scouting/recon Assult Repair/support (logistics) Personally, as it is, Interceptors (with their extreme speed) have no natural enemies but are limited in damage output but great at tackling/harrasment. A t2 Destroyer SHOULD be able to fill the tactical role of removing Interceptors effectively and consistantly. But they don't because they loose their range bonus when they get their extra goodies. So lets make a t2 version that doesnt loose it's range bonus inorder to effectively remove distance/speed tanking interceptors. Give it another name and another skill associated with it. +50% to optimal range Destroyer Bonus: +5% small hybrid damage, +7.5% Turrent falloff Tactical Destroyer bonus: +5/10% Optimal Range, +5% scanner speed per level -25% Turrent firing speed per level Set the maxed skill range of the Destroyer to 35K, 55K with modules... So essentially you get Quick lock and take down to inties wanting to get within 40K of the fleet. You'd have to limit the capacitor somewhat to prevent them from becoming pure long range dps gunboats... but as a surgical device against t2's.... heck yah. The Intakis have an obligatin to defend the Federation, but not to assult others on its behalf.
Pittsburgh2989 Dark Skullz Empire Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.10.09 02:48:00 - [27] A bomber destroyer would be sweet as hell. SB Dessy should be considered... --------------------------------------------- -In charge of the weekly "Royal Lottery" -I see fail everywhere, and it's like they don't even know they're failing
Tim Idaho	Posted - 2008.10.10 05:10:00 - [28] /signed. Either a fast T1 Dest (for anti-interceptor work) or a tanking T1 Dest (to counter Assault boats, especially the tanking assault boats) sounds great to me. Leave the existing bonuses in play, just add relevant low or high slots and relevant cap/cpu for the tanker (perhaps increase base resistances slightly) and increase the speed, drop resistance slightly for the speedboat.
Tehyarec Erasers inc.	Posted - 2008.10.10 09:27:00 - [29] I love the T1 destroyer concept, Catalyst is one of my favorite hulls! So a proper T2 combat version that's easier to fit (an extra slot or two) and can take a few hits would be awesome. As it is, I can't really go into a PVP fight with a Catalyst without getting laughed at (and probably getting shot by friendlies for my folly), and Eris on the other hand is a coffin in many fights in 0.0, not to mention useless in low/high sec. And I never liked crapping bubbles all over the place that much.
Mithfindel Gallente Gariushi Foundation	Posted - 2008.10.10 09:35:00 - [30] If we think about "missing" roles, there would indeed be a slot for a frigate fleet command platform. We do have Battlecruisers/Command Ships for battleship gangs (and possibly down as far as cruisers) and then capitals with Gang Assist modules, but all of those are too slow to follow fast frigate gangs. (Well, perhaps the Minmatar ones nanoed to hell and back could make it...) The T1 version of the Destroyer does all right the long-range sniping role (even if it may be more practical to use a cruiser). A Command variant would likely need to be T2 if we follow the philosophy that within a class of ships there's no one-off ship with special abilities no other ships have (such as fitting a Gang Assist module). Alternatively, we could consider a specialized anti-frigate sniper. The destroyers do already have range, most have tracking bonuses and all right alpha. For a fleet-specific application they indeed would need some added survivability, and when thinking about trying to catch small, fast targets they could use higher sensor resolutions. Opposed to Interceptors locking fast to catch and hold targets, these vessels would lock fast to kill targets (say, enemy tacklers or drones burning towards your fleet). To summarize, there would be two options I consider viable for "Aegis Ships" (T2 Destroyers): "Force Aegis Ship": Command Destroyer + Command Module (or some unique command bonus a la titans), survivability - Perhaps not the best fighter offset the command bonus (i.e. of the level of T1 Destroyers) "Combat Aegis Ship": Anti-frig Destroyer + Tracking, range, locking time, survivability - Limited electronic capabilities (long range anti-frigate platform: A group of these should be able to pick off targets well beyond tackling range - and if in a frigate gang, you'll have plenty of ships doing the tackling part a lot better than a destroyer)
Tim Idaho	Posted - 2008.10.10 11:43:00 - [31] Originally by: Tehyarec I love the T1 destroyer concept, Catalyst is one of my favorite hulls! Agreed, what I can't figure out is why the Battleship Models came out instead of Destroyer models! IMHO, the Destroyers of all races have a better aesthetic design than the BSs, and I agree that the Cat is the best looking hull in the game. For that matter, it's the best destroyer in the game to boot. Personally, I pretty much skipped the cruiser class thanks to the cat. It outperformed the cruisers I tried to fit out in several key aspects at the time and it wasn't until I got into Battlecruisers that I put my Battle Cat out to stud for mission running. I still fly the occasional L3 in the cat just to keep her on her toes, but I digress. CCP, Release destroyer models next! (oh, and T2 cats would be a great Xmas present from CCP also) Tim. PS: I understand you didn't want to effect game balance or anything which is why on 5th birthday we got shuttles, but to be frank, it would've been nicer to get frigates. Or for that matter, in the same vein as the rest of this thread, perhaps a new form of destroyer. Perhaps for those of us around for the 10th anniversary? Just a thought.
Jach Wong	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:00:00 - [32] Reading the ideas already in this thread, I'd like to flesh out two ideas that have already been presented. Heavy Assault Destroyer (or more appropriate name) A bit of a cross between destroyers and AFs, trading some of the AF tank for speed. Figure +2 slots to match. 8 turret hardpoints -25% ROF +50% optimal range Racial shield and armor resists equivalent to Marauders. +5% tracking speed and velocity per level of Destroyers. +5% racial turret damage and +7.5% repair amount per level of Heavy Assault Destroyers (or more aptly named skill) High Speed Gunship The equivalent of a fast, ultra-light cruiser sacrificing cruiser ROF and durability for speed and sig. Figure +1 mid or low slot by race. 4 turret hardpoints, 6 high slots -25% ROF -95% powergrid usage of medium turrets Racial shield and armor resists equivalent to Interceptors. +5% tracking speed and optimal range per level of Destroyers. +5% racial turret damage and medium turret powergrid per level of High Speed Gunship (or more aptly named skill) "This is not the boot you're looking for."
Anubis Kerberos	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:01:00 - [33] I'm gonna go ahead and say that they should make the T2 Destroyer the oft-asked for "Heavy Bomber." Torpedo's might be too much, but the ability to fit 2-4 bomb launchers would be pretty friggin' sweet....
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.10.16 05:55:00 - [34] Originally by: Anubis Kerberos I'm gonna go ahead and say that they should make the T2 Destroyer the oft-asked for "Heavy Bomber." Torpedo's might be too much, but the ability to fit 2-4 bomb launchers would be pretty friggin' sweet.... Nope. Everyone and thier brother wants to use the destroyer hull as the catch all bastard ship for whatever idea they think needs to be added to eve. I say go pawn your garbage off on the cruisers. We still don't have a real T2 destroyer.
swisher The Magnificents Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.10.16 08:13:00 - [35] Name: Enzyme Hull: Catalyst Class Role: Heavy Destroyer Developer: Duvolle Labs Destroyers Skill bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage, 15% bonus to Shield and Armor Kinetic resistance and 10% bonus to shield and armor Thermal resistance per level Heavy Destroyers Skill bonus: 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount of armor repair systems, 25% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield per level. Role bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small hybrid turrets. Capacity: 450m3 Drone Capacity: 25m3 Mass: 1,850,000 Inertia Modifier: 3.76 Armor: 875 50 / 10 / 83.75 / 67.5 Shield: 500 recharge: 625 0 / 50 / 85 / 60 Capacitor: 415 Recharge: 195 Targeting: 55km. 6 targets, 525mm res, 17 magnetometric, 45m radius Propulsion: 275 m/s Warp speed 6 au/s Heavy Destroyers Level 1: ?assault ships? lvl 2? Destroyers Level V, Gallente Frigate level V 8 highs, 8 turrets. 4 mid. 5 low. 185 cpu, 85 powergrid.
Torothanax	Posted - 2008.12.31 09:01:00 - [36] I's still like an actually t2 Destroyer.
Xinala Breez	Posted - 2008.12.31 11:07:00 - [37] maybe make destroyers mimic muraders... half the guns but double damage remove 2 high slots and trade them for 3 slots total added to med or low race related. with a sig radious reduction per level like interceptors and a bonus to speed per level and this ship would be usesed in many small fleets im sure.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2008.12.31 11:36:00 - [38] Originally by: Anubis Kerberos I'm gonna go ahead and say that they should make the T2 Destroyer the oft-asked for "Heavy Bomber." Torpedo's might be too much, but the ability to fit 2-4 bomb launchers would be pretty friggin' sweet.... I imagine something similar to stealth bombers could be very nice, same bonus on cloaked velocity and locktime and maybe 4 siege launchers + 2-4 turret slots.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.05 15:57:00 - [39] I thank you for the bump, but I'm not looking for a "heavy bomber", an "anti stealth ship", or any other bastardized idea people keep tryin to force on the destroyer class. I'd like an honest t2 destroyer. IE a gunship with some hp and resists.
SpawnSupreme	Posted - 2009.01.06 10:16:00 - [40] just about any desi idea is better than no idea
12433412 Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.01.06 10:38:00 - [41] Edited by: 12433412 on 06/01/2009 10:38:54 i don't think making another purely dps t2 ship would make the game any more interesting, if you want a t2 destroyer, give it a unique function such as immunity to e-war and have an anti-recon ship which is not a recon. _____________________________________________________ Beware of what you want, it might want you more!
Alpha Wolfgang Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.06 11:42:00 - [42] i definatly sign this... frigates are overpowered... theyre pesky, we need some real frigate killing destroyers. thats it. frigate killing. they specialize in killing frigates... did i mention they specialize in KILLING FRIGATES. ok, the next t2 destroyers should KILL FRIGATES ONLY, thats all, nothing fancy. live longer and kill frigs. doesnt sound like much to ask.
Randgris The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.01.06 13:40:00 - [43] the way i see t2 destroyers t2 resists, slightly more cpu and grid, slightly more targeting range and scan resolution Destroyer bonus: normal t1 bonus T2 destroyer bonus: 10% damage per level, -5% rof penalty per level Penalty: -25% rate of fire Bonus: range bonus which will make it a sort of fleet defense vs smaller ships and slightly more tank due to t2 resists ------------------------------------------ Yes I know how my face looks like :D
Lythandros	Posted - 2009.01.06 13:55:00 - [44] Not sure if it's possible but can a ship be designed with a bonus that works on a specific hull type? eg bonus against frigate hull types?
Master Entreri Wildcat Federation ALLIANCE UNKNOWN	Posted - 2009.01.06 15:24:00 - [45] awesome idea. /signed
Severice Crushed Ambitions	Posted - 2009.01.06 16:38:00 - [46] So far there are three ideas for another t2 destoryer 1. mini command ship. Solid idea. BC's are the destroyer version of cruisers. I like the idea of giving bonuses, it gives them a nice role bonus, but not a purpose. Roll it into the frig killer. 2. Assault (frig killing) Frigs aren't really that threatening. The heavier ship classes can eliminate them with drones, sniper figher, webs, neuts ect. They have so many drawbacks introducing a frig killer almost seems mean. However, the role is open and available. A t2 destroyer should be able to tear up a t2 frig. My current ishkur build can take down any t1 ship up to and including the Harbinger, IF it can eliminate the drone DPS. A T2 destroyer would only build on this. 3. Heavy SB I'll be honest. I do not like this idea. There is allready a SB, there is no need or call for a heavy SB except in the minds of SB players that want an upgrade. While cool, the heavy SB will just eliminate the SB from the face of eve. The chassy upgrade isn't large enough. 4. (my idea) Treat these ships according to their races. T2 Gallente Drone boat, (A true drone frig with drone bonuses popping medium drones with a drone speed bonus.) T2 Caldari, Standard missile launcher boat, with explosion velocity bonuses. T2 Minmatar, speed bonuses, and range bonuses, 2 mid slots. T2 Amarr, this ship should be a monster armor tanker, with good DPS, it's the amarr way. Tank for each ship should be in the 100-140 range, all V's with 200 dps average.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.07 23:46:00 - [47] Originally by: Alpha Wolfgang i definatly sign this... frigates are overpowered... theyre pesky, we need some real frigate killing destroyers. thats it. frigate killing. they specialize in killing frigates... did i mention they specialize in KILLING FRIGATES. ok, the next t2 destroyers should KILL FRIGATES ONLY, thats all, nothing fancy. live longer and kill frigs. doesnt sound like much to ask. See? This guy here know's what I'm talkin about.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:03:00 - [48] Mini command ships please!
Kenraz Silvinte Pagan Whispers Research and Development	Posted - 2009.01.09 05:34:00 - [49] Originally by: Torothanax Destroyers are to frigates what battle cruisers are to cruisers. Medium guns wouldn't really fit the idea. Done right a T2 destroyer should be able to take on T1 cruisers. Little FYI from a long time Dictor Pilot. A Flycatcher; Formerly known as the king of dictors, can throw enough DPS at 30 km to pop a cruiser in under 3 minutes. I've done it a number of times... ~~~~~~~ Join WHP We are a miner/production Corp.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.09 08:28:00 - [50] Originally by: Kenraz Silvinte Originally by: Torothanax Destroyers are to frigates what battle cruisers are to cruisers. Medium guns wouldn't really fit the idea. Done right a T2 destroyer should be able to take on T1 cruisers. Little FYI from a long time Dictor Pilot. A Flycatcher; Formerly known as the king of dictors, can throw enough DPS at 30 km to pop a cruiser in under 3 minutes. I've done it a number of times... I prefer the Sabre, but there's nothing wrong with the Flycatcher. I still want a real T2 destroyer.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.18 02:56:00 - [51] Still waitin for a real T2 destroyer.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.01.18 03:06:00 - [52] Erm, up until this quote I'd support this idea: Quote: I'd like a T2 COMBAT version. We have Assualt Ships, Heavy Assault Ships (no such thing as a HAC), and Command Ships. While I'm not in favor of creating a BS with these types of resists, why is the the only T2 destroyer not a destroyer? If we're going to be that pedantic, all you'll get from me is a bump back up to the top
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.18 03:26:00 - [53] Edited by: Torothanax on 18/01/2009 03:33:34 I'm actually not looking for more damage, just better resists and/or more HP, maybe an extra slot or some power grid. The T1 versions just don't hold up in pvp long enough to be useful.
Silent Sins Deliciously Vicious	Posted - 2009.01.18 08:47:00 - [54] Originally by: Cedric Diggory Erm, up until this quote I'd support this idea: Quote: I'd like a T2 COMBAT version. We have Assualt Ships, Heavy Assault Ships (no such thing as a HAC), and Command Ships. While I'm not in favor of creating a BS with these types of resists, why is the the only T2 destroyer not a destroyer? If we're going to be that pedantic, all you'll get from me is a bump back up to the top This ------------------------------ ******************** ------------------------------
Rathverg Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2009.01.18 10:38:00 - [55] how about halving the high slots and letting them fit battleship turrets, think a turret equivalent of a stealth bomber?
cucac	Posted - 2009.01.18 11:04:00 - [56] I personaly would like to see a whole new ship based on destroyer ideas. Glass ship with huge dmg, but also cruiser or even bs sized.
Shaka Quatuic	Posted - 2009.01.18 16:37:00 - [57] Originally by: Torothanax Edited by: Torothanax on 18/01/2009 03:33:34 I'm actually not looking for more damage, just better resists and/or more HP, maybe an extra slot or some power grid. The T1 versions just don't hold up in pvp long enough to be useful. hey Toro!!! long time no see! I gotta agree here... we dont need an uber destroyer - we need one that can survive in PvP for more than 3 seconds.
Roozu Valentine Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.01.18 21:47:00 - [58] Edited by: Roozu Valentine on 18/01/2009 21:47:30 Originally by: Alpha Wolfgang i definatly sign this... frigates are overpowered... theyre pesky, we need some real frigate killing destroyers. thats it. frigate killing. they specialize in killing frigates... did i mention they specialize in KILLING FRIGATES. ok, the next t2 destroyers should KILL FRIGATES ONLY, thats all, nothing fancy. live longer and kill frigs. doesnt sound like much to ask. Try fit a BS with sensor boosters, six small long ranged weapons, one large Smart Bomb, one large Neutralizer, some damage mods, one large repair system and a light tank and a ton of light drones. You have yourself the anti frigate battleship.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.21 07:57:00 - [59] Originally by: Shaka Quatuic Originally by: Torothanax Edited by: Torothanax on 18/01/2009 03:33:34 I'm actually not looking for more damage, just better resists and/or more HP, maybe an extra slot or some power grid. The T1 versions just don't hold up in pvp long enough to be useful. hey Toro!!! long time no see! I gotta agree here... we dont need an uber destroyer - we need one that can survive in PvP for more than 3 seconds. Hello Shaka, good to see ya. Glad to see you agree as well . And thanks to everyone for the feed back so far.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.23 04:54:00 - [60] Destroyers need love. Real destroyers that is.
Kessiaan Minmatar Army of One	Posted - 2009.01.23 06:56:00 - [61] I really can't see a role for a T2 combat destroyer - I can't see how any ship that tries to straddle being halfway between an AF and a HAC would ever work - it'd still have a huge sig radius for what it is, and it would still be underpowered compared to a cruiser (which can hit it for full damage). If you want a ship that can shred AFs and inties well-flown T1 destroyers can do that already. My T2 destroyer ideas... Salvager - No weapon slots, but has a big hold and bonuses to tractor / salvager range and speed. E-War Support - Immune to ECM, gets bonuses to remote ECCM and sensor boosters, can drop a special probe to find cloaked ships. Skirmisher - Instead of a 'heavy' destroyer, this would a 'fast' destroyer. Low mass, high speed, immune to webs. Point Defense - 8x launcher slots, has bonuses to defenders to make them not suck (as well as go after drones as well). Would also have a TD bonus.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.23 14:54:00 - [62] Originally by: Kessiaan I really can't see a role for a T2 combat destroyer - I can't see how any ship that tries to straddle being halfway between an AF and a HAC would ever work - it'd still have a huge sig radius for what it is, and it would still be underpowered compared to a cruiser (which can hit it for full damage). If you want a ship that can shred AFs and inties well-flown T1 destroyers can do that already. It's role would be what it's always been: Destroyers - Anti-frigate gunboats. The middle ground between a frigate and a cruiser. Since the speed changes, t2 frigates have become the ships of choice for small scale pvp. Nothin wrong with that but... T1 destroyers used to handily take out 'ceptors and AS's. While it's still possible, not so much the case anymore. Not to mention if a cruiser so much as looks at a destroyer, it's dead. So again I say destroyers need looking at, and I'd still like a t2 version with resists/hp/pg/slots to match.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.27 01:55:00 - [63] Bump for a better destroyer.
Nox Virago Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.01.28 13:13:00 - [64] Good idea. Currently there's no point training destroyers except if you want to be a dictor pilot, while with frigates for example you can go either AF, inty or EA ships pilot. I'd love to see another use for this skill... -------------------------------------- I'm only happy when it rains.
DrDooma	Posted - 2009.01.28 14:20:00 - [65] nice idea. I do think tho that this ship should also be a threat to figs and t1 cruisers but not anything bigger. So what if this new ship had 'special' damage type that would apply to T1 ships but not T2 ships. One way this would work is if all t2 ships would get additional resistance eg 20% per ship type level to this 'special' dmg type. This way, it will do standard lethal damage to small ships and lethal damage to cruisers but not anything bigger.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.08 13:00:00 - [66] We need a better destroyer.
Kalia Masaer Rosa Castellum	Posted - 2009.02.08 14:51:00 - [67] We need the equivelant of a torpedo boat destroyer, something capable of droping fast ships once thye have closed range.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.09 21:17:00 - [68] Did I mention I like destroyes?
libertarian cole	Posted - 2009.02.09 22:31:00 - [69] Originally by: Torothanax Did I mention I like destroyers? There have been plenty of good ideas. What other bonuses could you give to a destroyer to help it kill frigates? The cat has: Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed and 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret falloff per level Penalty: -25% rate of fire for all turrets Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small hybrid turrets It is given both the range and DPS to be a pain in the ass to frigates. What else do you want?
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.25 02:46:00 - [70] Edited by: Torothanax on 25/02/2009 02:47:08 Originally by: libertarian cole Originally by: Torothanax Did I mention I like destroyers? There have been plenty of good ideas. What other bonuses could you give to a destroyer to help it kill frigates? The cat has: Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed and 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret falloff per level Penalty: -25% rate of fire for all turrets Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small hybrid turrets It is given both the range and DPS to be a pain in the ass to frigates. What else do you want? Some more hp would be cool. Maybe some resists. Another slot. Some PG/cpu. Ya know, the stuff other T2 ships get. As for bonuses, since most t2 ships have 3 or 4, maybe drop the -25% rate of fire. Or reduce it by 2-5% per lvl.
UnseenChaos Gallente b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.02.25 08:52:00 - [71] Be nice to see a T2 destroyer take on a similar setup as a marauder, take some gun hardpoints out add a fair damage bonus, remove the RoF penalty and free up some utility slots in highs for salvaging ect, extra mid/low slot depending on the race and you got a decent ship to mess around in =)
Falun Assad Caldari Shadows of the Dead	Posted - 2009.02.25 11:57:00 - [72] Edited by: Falun Assad on 25/02/2009 11:58:29 t2 destroyer anti frig: can mount assault launchers signature decrease per destroyer skill level 50% velocity bonus to missiles per t2 skill + amarr: resist bonus gallente: armor hitpoint bonus caldari: resist bonus minmatar: shield hp bonus
Reven Cordelle Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.02.25 13:22:00 - [73] T2 Destroyers.. Oh what you mean... Destroyers that cost 30m and can STILL get one-shotted by a well placed volley of Arties because the sig radius is so ****ing massive on Dessies in comparison to their defenses? Harhar. Seeing a bunch of sturdy mini 8-guns would be fun though, so I wouldn't mind... They're probably avoiding making destroyers any stronger for the reason that - if they became sturdier, and faster.. they'd kill the frigate in general, no one would fly frigs because people would swoop in with a T2 destroyer and just 2-volley every frigate around. Then again - that is the idea behind destroyers...
Chaos Hellbreth Caldari Dark Skullz Empire Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.02.25 14:21:00 - [74] my idea for T2 destroyers has always been the "Heavy Bomber/Torpedo Bomber"concept or what I like to call a counter-ordnance or force protection ship. The Heavy bomber/Torpedo Bomber is self explanatory, but I would really like to see a force protection craft. In my mind, a force protection ship would provide fleet defense vs. drones and missiles (of course that would require missiles to get a boost of some sort, as it stands they are ineffective enough at pvp). I imagine a Caldari Force Protection craft would be able to be loaded to the brim with defender missiles with suitable bonuses (bonuses/ability vs. drones as well). A new module would have to be implemented for the other races. Lets call them "point defense batteries" for the short range versions and "Anti-Ordnance Artillery batteries" for the long range version. Basically extra-small turrets, that come in the usual hybrid, projectile, and laser flavors, that get all sorts of bonuses vs. things like drones and missiles (they would function in a manner similar to defender missiles. A point defense battery would have a range of say 15km +10km falloff whereas a anti-ordnance artillery battery would have a range of say 50km +50km falloff(but a much much much slower rate of fire to compensate). These weapons should do mediocre(if any dps) to any sort of vehicle that isn't a drone etc. Also, fun idea, a new type of drone for the Gallante version, call it an "interceptor drone" which again, gets bonuses vs. enemy drones and missiles and autotargets etc. I think that would go a long way to making the game more tactical. It would also go a long way to alleviate the capital vs. subcapital issue that is currently developing. Dropping a carrier on an enemy would become much less of a no-brainer if the carrier pilot knew that there were ships in the enemy fleet that were capable of easily countering fighters. You would need to send in a sub-cap fleet in that case to neutralize that threat before a carrier could come in (which if you cant tell would bring much more thought into the process of engaging a non-npc enemy. Dropping drones instantly upon arrival at a gate etc. would also become less of a no-brainer, because there would be increased risk of losing your drones etc. Likewise, it would still be pretty balanced, because lets face it, destroyers are paper-tigers, they aren't exactly thick-skinned. They would still require support from larger ships for protection, as well as to actually deal dps to an enemy. In some ways this kind of mimics modern naval warfare(for the US anyway). Where fleets are composed of a carrier + an escort screen. The carrier is the heavy hitter, you have cruisers/frigates for the close-defence/offense role + a further screen of AEGIS ships to provide support vs. anti-ship missiles and enemy airpower which might otherwise destroy the carrier.
arbiter reformed Minmatar Shut Up And Play	Posted - 2009.02.25 14:38:00 - [75] give it a sig rad reduction bonus and the same 7 slot gun / cool too see caldari have 7 missiles. tank bonus and t2 resists and lots of speed (basicly bring back nano)
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.26 06:26:00 - [76] Originally by: arbiter reformed give it a sig rad reduction bonus and the same 7 slot gun / cool too see caldari have 7 missiles. tank bonus and t2 resists and lots of speed (basicly bring back nano) A sig reduction bonuse might be cool. Destroyers are gun boats though. I'd like to see a T2 version stay true to the idea of the T1 destroyer.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.03.20 15:20:00 - [77] I'd still like a real T2 destroyer.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.03.29 06:54:00 - [78] Did I mention I'd like a real T2 destroyer? I really would.
Unit ADA	Posted - 2009.04.01 05:19:00 - [79] Hmmm I was thinking about a destroyer than gives up mobility for durability and firepower. (Something like assault frigs) They would be called Corvettes. Corvettes Destroyer Skill: +10% turret range and +5% turret damage per level. Corvettes Skill: +7.5% tracking and +5% rate of fire per level 99.5% cpu reduction on special racial small turret type They should have a special type of small turret that only they can use. A concept similar to Strip miners for a mining barge. (high 9000 cpu costs reduced by 99.5% when fit on corvettes) The new destroyer will have only 4 turrets, but for a good reason. The new turrets are Gatling types(True Gatling fire - continuous stream, not short pathetic burst) with a high rate of fire, but less damage per shot compared to the normal small turrets. The shots will however will not be influenced as much by resistances of the target ship. The rate of fire will offset the weaker hits with a sheer number of hits. Not to mention the tracking on the guns are higher than their conventional counterparts. All frigs (including Assault Frigs) will fall apart quickly under barrage of fire from these guns. To compensate for the high dps it produces, the ammunition is depleted fairly quick and requires a longer time to reload. This applies to projectile and hybrid types. For energy types since they don't have a a reload time or have a limited ammunition, the lasers as in normal tradition will consume much more energy than their counterparts, forcing the pilot to turn off his guns while waiting for the caps to recharge. In exchange for less high slots the corvettes will have more med and low slots. +2 for each. High -4. The corvettes will be slower than their t1 cousins. speed of between: 200-220 m/s. However their signature size will be lower around 50. Which is more than 50% larger than a frigate's 30, but only about a third of the cruiser's 135. They will have higher resistances and points like other assault ships. They have around the same cost as interdictors.
Fille Balle TachyonTubbies Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.04.01 14:50:00 - [80] YES PLEASE! Destroyers aren't used much apart from being cheapo salvage mobiles. Make Destroyers useful! A fast one and a sturdy one would be perfect. But tbh the hard hitting massive tank seems more interesting to me. As for role: anti AS boat or counter tackle. Maybe even have a new module for this ship alone: "remote warp core stabilizer". There's a role for you. Me, I just want a destroyer that can open up a can of whoppa! T2 resists, maybe a bit more speed, more slots, more pg more cpu. Perfect. More bonuses? DIVINE! I'd use it, wouldn't you? He, I'd pay up to 50mil for one of those! /signed
Martineski	Posted - 2009.04.02 04:26:00 - [81] the term corvettes would be a good name, but as far as making them uber ships of doom for frigates is a little extreme. agreed they should be good at killing frigate class ships but one volley is bad. why not, as mentioned before, give them more survivability? giving them a speed boost would be good but not faster than frigates. since the destroyer class was meant for long range bombardment, to better aid them in the destruction of frigates give them bonuses similar to the racial marauders, such as webbing bonuses and target painter bonuses respectively. an alternative could also be a close range tackler type of destroyer tuned for using short ranged weapons. but i will have to do some thinking on that one before i post. :)
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2009.04.02 05:36:00 - [82] Destroyers are supposed to be the anti frigate ship. Why not give the man what he asks for?
Kal'Panda	Posted - 2009.05.08 19:05:00 - [83] Why not consider the role of Commerce Raider for the Destroyer, make the T2 a little stronger (CPU, Power) to take damage with lots of guns to take out escorts, cargo space to haul the goodies. And able to run away from anything bigger. It could also be used to escort freighters, capital ships, bombers, etc. Now adding a dual mount small gun as a T2, would make the Destroyers super frigate killers but soft enought to be in real danger one on one (PVP) with a crusier. The Frigate Command ship would be a nice touch, one Destroyer and five Frigates would make a force that could not be ignored. My two cents for what it's worth.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.05.10 07:06:00 - [84] We need a t2 destroyer that can hold up on today's battle field. The t1 hulls fold too quickly in real combat.
E villMonkeigh SPORADIC MOVEMENT	Posted - 2009.05.10 10:02:00 - [85] Destroyers are great fun as they are. Boosting them too much could remove viability of other classes and make it the new noob FOTM a la the stealth bomber. Best idea so far: T2 Destroyer: Command Ship for Frig Gangs -99.99% on Mind Links; bonuses maybe to Skirmish (speed) mindlinks, and gunnery ones... Should only boost ships 1 size above (cruiser) or all below, similar to BC Potential problem: T2 Combat Destroyer (anti-frig): The T1 already does what it is intended to do, and improving the T2 version would unbalance matters if not done right. Gun bonuses for T1 are already good. Increase resists to AF-level, adding +1 mid/low slot or an extra gun risks unbalancing things. A web bonus for catching inties might be useful, though What I would prefer as less 'major' changes: reduce sig radius closer to frigate size radius (keep the paper tank, but make it somewhat harder to lock/hit) Add a 5-10% speed boost(7.5%?) per level of destroyers (make it easier to run down inties and frigs) *(perhaps) web bonus - to give a 15-20km web; kinda a mini-rapier; or have web with standard range bur that has -90% speed like old web At all costs the destroyer should not become a heavy tackler and usurp the AF and standard frigate role. It is there to SWAT tacklers, not be the ubertackler. I'd even support a -50% to warp disruptor/scram optimal range... this would have to happen if it got a web bonus to stop it becoming OP Potential Problem: Decloaking Destroyer Yes why not make 0.0 gatecamps impossible to run. Nice idea -too unbalancing to the cloaking dynamic.
E villMonkeigh SPORADIC MOVEMENT	Posted - 2009.05.10 13:26:00 - [86] I saw another topic titled 'Web Bubbles' As these would primarily inconvenience fast ships (20km bubble slowing ships 50%), this could also be a T2 destroyer function and fits with existing Interdictor mechanics/classes.
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.10 13:51:00 - [87] how about: role bonus: can mount assault launchers destroyer bonus: 40% to light and defender missile velocity per level 20% to racial light and defender missile damage t2 destroyer bonus: 20% assault launcher ROF increase per level and a racial tanking bonus (amarr, caldari = resists, gallente, minmatar efficiency bonus)
ShadowDraqon The Quantum Company	Posted - 2009.05.10 15:02:00 - [88] I'd like to see the T1 destroyers themselves get buffed. Many good ideas here, we need destroyers that actually "destroy", or at least do less of "get destroyed". ~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious
E villMonkeigh SPORADIC MOVEMENT	Posted - 2009.05.13 06:08:00 - [89] Well if you compare sig radius to HP; a destroyer would need 4000-4500 EHP to be comparable to frigs and cruisers. A simple HP increase could be all that is needed. Increasing resists marginally and bringing sig radius down to more frig size would be good; the rist of excessive buffing would be to negate the role of an AF and make the dessie the tackler instead of frigs. Add 5-10% speed boost per level would make them more useful without being gamebreaking.
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.05.13 10:44:00 - [90] Edited by: McEivalley on 13/05/2009 10:46:45 It should've been a short reply, but I found myself ninja-ign on yet another t2 dessie thread with some input of my own. Here we go - wall of text inbound: T1 destroyers are crap. Seeing one in PvP is a plain comedy killmail. The only one that might cut it is a thrasher. The rest are just plain sadness to use, and completely pointless to hold, except for salvaging lvl 4 missions in empire. OP, making a t2 destroyer is basically asking ccp to make a t1 destroyer better, a subject I'm completely supporting. But the fact is that the role of the destroyer is already secured by the assault frigate, which does better than what I would expect from what a t1 destroyer should be. Hence, ccp has no urge to change t1 destroyer at all. A t2 ship with a destroyer hull should have a purpose that is different than a destroyer's. A destroyer is an anti-frigate ship. To be exact - anti t1 frigate ship. A t2 ship with a destroyer hull, with a purpose different than that, that I can forsee would be: 1) Up to T2 Cruiser killer - Big guns, less hi slots, more grid, more cpu, more meds/lows (racial dependent) for the sig/speed/tank/damage game. Would probably be able to kill smaller ships as well, including t2 AFs with more ease. Should provide a small sniper role for all races in fleets. Even after the speed nerf, the only good counter for a t2 cruiser is another t2 cruiser, especially HACs. While no other ship can effectively counter them without gimping its natural role, the UTT2CK () will be born to do just that. 2) Mine layer - A new weapon will be created along with the ship. Basically a mine is a cloaked bomb, that decloaks on proximity to targets. It can be programed to decloak andengage due to standings (Ranging from any but self to only -7.51 and below). Would be less powerful than a bomb, and with a smaller AEO. Mines can be locked and shot at, much like drones. Basically, they will be stationary cloaked drones, that will decloak and act as bombs do once they sense a target around them. Decloaking mechanics will apply to it (so trying to deploy one next to another will require them to be 2501m apart or more for their cloak to work). A friendly ship (i.e. one the mine would not decloak to attack) approaching in decloaking range will decloak a mine. Mines can be anchored, which will make them more resilient and powerful, as well as magnify their proximity activation range. However, anchoring time will compensate for the added power, maybe requiring the mine layer dessie to linger near it for a penalty calibration time to make it so. The ship itself will sport a covert ops cloak as well as the ability to warp cloaked. Once again, less hi slots, and a bit more med/lows and PG/CPU enhancements in order to bring it into the t2 game. However, tank/speed should not be much better than the t1 version. Faction bonus to mine type/damage should apply rather than an all around bonus. It will be able to mvoe via covert jump portals. 3) Covert interdiction ship - basically we're talking about a HIC infy-point - no bubble - with a super specific racial resist based on opposing faction (i.e. 95-99% resistant to EM for minmatar ships), covert cloaking ability and very little tank otherwise. Besides intelligence gathering as a secondary role, this ship is made to first tacklers of super-capitals. it should have the smallest of signature radii, and should be able to move quickly while using the super-point. In all other aspects it should be out-performed by ships of its class or better. It should be able to survive the opposite faction DD and it should have enough sensor strength to resist more than not a mothership's AEO jammer. It will be able to mvoe via covert jump portals. Insert clever remark where??
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.13 11:52:00 - [91] Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 11:53:15 Originally by: McEivalley ... 2) Mine layer - A new weapon will be created along with the ship. Basically a mine is a cloaked bomb, that decloaks on proximity to targets. It can be programed to decloak andengage due to standings (Ranging from any but self to only -7.51 and below). Would be less powerful than a bomb, and with a smaller AEO. Mines can be locked and shot at, much like drones. Basically, they will be stationary cloaked drones, that will decloak and act as bombs do once they sense a target around them. Decloaking mechanics will apply to it (so trying to deploy one next to another will require them to be 2501m apart or more for their cloak to work). A friendly ship (i.e. one the mine would not decloak to attack) approaching in decloaking range will decloak a mine. Mines can be anchored, which will make them more resilient and powerful, as well as magnify their proximity activation range. However, anchoring time will compensate for the added power, maybe requiring the mine layer dessie to linger near it for a penalty calibration time to make it so. The ship itself will sport a covert ops cloak as well as the ability to warp cloaked. Once again, less hi slots, and a bit more med/lows and PG/CPU enhancements in order to bring it into the t2 game. However, tank/speed should not be much better than the t1 version. Faction bonus to mine type/damage should apply rather than an all around bonus. It will be able to mvoe via covert jump portals. .... i like the idea but i would do it a bit different: role bonus: can mount assault launchers 99% reduction for mine layer destroyer bonus: 40% to light and defender missile velocity per level 20% to racial light, defender missile and mine damage per level t2 destroyer bonus: 20% assault launcher ROF increase per level 10 additional mines per level the mines would basically be like probes with bombs attached that are remotely detonated. most probe rules apply, they have a time out, they stay, when left behind but they are not cloaked and can not be moved around. the idea is that the mines require remote detonation by an operator in the system. an enemy fleet would send in its scout and its t2 dessie in to clear the minefield with defender missiles, which slows them down, unless there is no one in local. it is ideal for laying traps, but always requires an operator. and also has a counter in form of t2 dessies clearing minefields...
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:09:00 - [92] Originally by: silken mouth Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 11:53:15 Originally by: McEivalley ... 2) Mine layer - .... i like the idea but i would do it a bit different:... the idea is that the mines require remote detonation by an operator in the system. an enemy fleet would send in its scout and its t2 dessie in to clear the minefield with defender missiles, which slows them down, unless there is no one in local. it is ideal for laying traps, but always requires an operator. and also has a counter in form of t2 dessies clearing minefields... I think most of the bonuses you placed there are way over powered, but exact stats are irrelevant at this point of the discussion. What you're suggesting is a claymore layer. I believe that's a nice idea but it's too over-powered. Part of the charm - and danger - of AEO weapons is your inability to control who will they hit. With smartbombs/DDs, you pay for it by being there, sacrificing a mod and cap and damaging FoF alike. With bombs, its just a mod and the risk of being hurt by your weapon, as well as hurting FoF. Mines are a cross between the two, inclined more towards the bomb. Claymores would be a cross more inclined to SBs/DDs, but not needing cap and reduce the chance of self infliction significantly. Mines should still be powerful enough to alpha a frig - something SBs can't do (unless you're going disco on a BS, but its more lol than a serious role). Claymores, on the other hand, will reduce the chance of fck-ups (wrong standing settings, mutual decloaking on deployment, activation when a cloaked hostile moves near one just as you finished deploying one etc), reduce the deployment time significantly (you don't need to set anything for it), and are much dumber, thus potentially should do a lot more damage over a larger area (they don't need sensors and a brain to decide when to activate = more space for bang powder). Their inability to cloak and being stationary are definite cons as well as the need for an operator around... but as I mentioned, the fact that the operator can basically avoid any damage from his own claymores offsets everything, except them being totally obsolete due to price etc... being bombs as they used to be. I didn't think about clearing them out - that's a good one on your side. I believe a certain module fit on a med slot should be created to jam a mine till one can scoop it to the cargo hold (at which point it is neutralized). Obviously, only the t2 mine layers should be able to equip it, though one could argue to extend it to any COCD ship. I was just thinking about it. The pilot should be able to choose both proximity of detonation and detonation activation timer. Insert clever remark where??*
rodensteiner	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:19:00 - [93] I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for. Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe) Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets. Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps. Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other. This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well. I'm also sorry if I re-hashed what has been said, I only read the first page and a half, don't have that much time to read forums at work
ShadowDraqon The Quantum Company	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:31:00 - [94] Originally by: rodensteiner I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for. Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe) Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets. Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps. Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other. This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well. This. Very much. I want a mini-marauder. ~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:33:00 - [95] Originally by: rodensteiner I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for. Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe) Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets. Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps. Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other. This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well. I'm also sorry if I re-hashed what has been said, I only read the first page and a half, don't have that much time to read forums at work i dont know.... HACs would do better at ratting and its questionable if a salvager/tractor beam bonus legitimizes a new t2 ship class.... id prefer salvager and tractor beam rigs on a t1 dessie
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.13 15:08:00 - [96] Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 15:09:36 Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 15:08:58 Originally by: McEivalley ..., but exact stats are irrelevant at this point of the discussion. agreed Quote: What you're suggesting is a claymore layer. I believe that's a nice idea but it's too over-powered. Part of the charm - and danger - of AEO weapons is your inability to control who will they hit. With smartbombs/DDs, you pay for it by being there, sacrificing a mod and cap and damaging FoF alike. With bombs, its just a mod and the risk of being hurt by your weapon, as well as hurting FoF. well you cant really control who they hit, you can only only control when they blow... Quote: Mines are a cross between the two, inclined more towards the bomb. Claymores would be a cross more inclined to SBs/DDs, but not needing cap and reduce the chance of self infliction significantly. Mines should still be powerful enough to alpha a frig - something SBs can't do (unless you're going disco on a BS, but its more lol than a serious role). Claymores, on the other hand, will reduce the chance of f*ck-ups (wrong standing settings, mutual decloaking on deployment, activation when a cloaked hostile moves near one just as you finished deploying one etc), reduce the deployment time significantly (you don't need to set anything for it), and are much dumber, thus potentially should do a lot more damage over a larger area (they don't need sensors and a brain to decide when to activate = more space for bang powder). Their inability to cloak and being stationary are definite cons as well as the need for an operator around... but as I mentioned, the fact that the operator can basically avoid any damage from his own claymores offsets everything, except them being totally obsolete due to price etc... being bombs as they used to be. I didn't think about clearing them out - that's a good one on your side. I believe a certain module fit on a med slot should be created to jam a mine till one can scoop it to the cargo hold (at which point it is neutralized). Obviously, only the t2 mine layers should be able to equip it, though one could argue to extend it to any COCD ship. I was just thinking about it. The pilot should be able to choose both proximity of detonation and detonation activation timer. well you could always make them proximity detonated, but that would always trigger them on the scout... best option would be to implement a delay between trigger and actual detonation this way a fast scout gang could lure the minelayer to trigger the mines and warp off, before they blow.
Teras Menac Gallente Action Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.13 16:11:00 - [97] Just removing the rate of fire penalty right off gives a destroyer 25% extra damage. Make it capable of fitting eight turrets, give it another low so that it can fit a nano/armor/damage mod if it needs to. You wouldn't need to do a whole lot to make a destroyer much more lethal, giving it a little more HP and resists would go a long way. Also, trying to make the materials cost bring the price into around 30-40m instead of the 60m an interdictor costs would be great.
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.13 18:30:00 - [98] Originally by: Teras Menac Just removing the rate of fire penalty right off gives a destroyer 25% extra damage. Make it capable of fitting eight turrets, give it another low so that it can fit a nano/armor/damage mod if it needs to. You wouldn't need to do a whole lot to make a destroyer much more lethal, giving it a little more HP and resists would go a long way. Also, trying to make the materials cost bring the price into around 30-40m instead of the 60m an interdictor costs would be great. QFT
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.05.15 09:01:00 - [99] I'm likin some of the idea's I'm seein here. Others not so much, but I'm kind of a purist. Lets keep the ideas going.
Yeomanmeister VIII	Posted - 2009.05.16 05:05:00 - [100] The one thing that I find frustrating about 0.0 (from my little experience) is the complete and utter lack of a way to stop covops, i wouldn't like recon to be removed from the game, but way to stop them at gates and stalking large fleets. I like many people started the game missioning in a destroyer and i still find them enjoyable ships to fly and would like to see them in pvp (as stated, interdictors are useful, but nothing like destroyers in use). so: Counter-Recon Destroyers role bonuses: -25% Weapon ROF +50% Turret range/missile velocity -99% cpu cost fitting cloak disruption sphere launcher* destroyer skill bonus: %5 bonus turret damage %10 bonus turret tracking speed %5 to armor/shield resists 8 high slots, 7 turrets (maybe 6 for Caldari missile boat to conform with other ships) Amarr: 2 mid, 6 low. Gallente: 3 mid, 5 low. Minmatar: 5 mid, 3 low. Caldari: 6 mid, 2 low. I think you would have to be generous with the mids/lows since they need all the help they can get with survivability. ( frig PG on cruiser ) *not so much like a warp disruption sphere, more like an anti-cloak SB, with maybe a 50-70km range: "sends an electromagnetic surge through the cloaked ships systems leaving them unable to warp or cloak again for (30 seconds? 1 minute?)", wouldn't kill covops usefulness but at least theres a counter. The resists, damage and tracking bonuses should give them respectable combat abilities Thought it'd be a good idea, new to the forums and all, so if its a repost of another idea I apologize.
Tagami Wasp	Posted - 2009.05.18 01:00:00 - [101] I find the mini marauders very appealing also. What I'd propose is to give the T2 destros 6 high slots, of those only 4 turret capable with 100% damage bonus, keeping the rest of the bonuses as are now. For the other 2 high slots, I'd let those be a general utility slot or launcher slots. These should fit only frig class modules. CCP can sort the PG and CPU requirements so that you won't be able to fit bigger mods. For mid and low slots I'd increase the existent ones by 1 and add role bonuses, as race related as possible: Ammar: T2 Armor resists/ Armor rep bonus or better tracking (not too much) Caldari: T2 Shield Resistances/ Shield boost bonus or hybrid damage (yes, railguns need more dmg) Gallente: T2 Armor Resists/ Stasis Web Range bonus or afterburner bonus (more speed out of one) Minmatar: T2 Shield Resists/ MWD cap usage bonus or falloff bonus I general, I think getting the marauder slot setup and respective slot bonuses combined with HAC role bonuses, is the way to go. Also I'd give them sig radius and agility of 1.25 of an AF.
Halycon Gamma Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.18 07:26:00 - [102] I say NOOOO to the mines idea. Image hitting a gate of stealth mines packed in a 25km^3 cube around the gate that are 2.5km away from each other on a side, or taking up a volume of 5km^3 of space for their 5km^3 explosion diameter. 125 mines. Lets give them about a third of what bombs have for damage.. 2k. Thats a 250,000 hp base alpha if you wait till the fleet translates over before detonating them, also assuming each mine only hits a single ship. Not a single ship has tried to target another ship yet. Just 250k damage. Sure, its not going to take out anything but the most crappy of crappy ship. But you'll also run into instances where a single ship could be in the blast radius of up to 8 mines, for 16,000 base damage to a ship single ship. We're now talking about a system which has the ability to end gate battles at the fleet level before they even start by the amount of softening they're going to do to a target. We do not need another way to make defending space from attackers easier. The POS mechanic how it currently stands is bad enough as is.
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.05.18 10:05:00 - [103] Originally by: Halycon Gamma I say NOOOO to the mines idea. Image hitting a gate of stealth mines packed in a 25km^3 cube around the gate that are 2.5km away from each other on a side, or taking up a volume of 5km^3 of space for their 5km^3 explosion diameter. 125 mines. Lets give them about a third of what bombs have for damage.. 2k. Thats a 250,000 hp base alpha if you wait till the fleet translates over before detonating them, also assuming each mine only hits a single ship. Not a single ship has tried to target another ship yet. Just 250k damage. Sure, its not going to take out anything but the most crappy of crappy ship. But you'll also run into instances where a single ship could be in the blast radius of up to 8 mines, for 16,000 base damage to a ship single ship. We're now talking about a system which has the ability to end gate battles at the fleet level before they even start by the amount of softening they're going to do to a target. We do not need another way to make defending space from attackers easier. The POS mechanic how it currently stands is bad enough as is. Don't say "NOOO"... but you have pointed out a problem. Allow me to retort... First, the gates are pretty big. Even non-regional gates will not allow you to set such a mine field so easily. Second, to lay such a perfect mine field you'll need an amount of coordination that cannot be achieved in this game. Hypothetically speaking - yeah. Practically - no. Now think of this - blues will decloak a blue mine if they move less than 2500m from it. Cans will do it as well. I would reckon that mines will have a shorter activation radii than their explosion radii (makes sense - to insure they go boom when the target is in optimal). I was actually thinking about the same as bombs. However, much like bombs, they could be destroyed. So lets say that their activation radius is 5km, an explosion radius of 15kms etc... a couple of mines will destroy the whole field if an interceptor buzzez through it, and no one gets harmed by them. Would be a hell of a run for the inty pilot, looking back over his nozzles... What I'm trying to say with this ship, is that its going to bring NEW tactics and new strategy into the game, instead of yet another PWNmobile like the proposed marauder-dessie or HAD (heavy assault dessie) etc. Also, think of the risk a mined gate will be for some of your allies, that are only blue to you but not alliance members? Putting mines will not be a trivial thing just thanks to that. tactically, light support and close range heavy support will not be able to sit on such a gate either. Plus, if it will get a go from CCP, I reckon that much like bombs there's gonna be quite an interval thanks to reloading time... perhaps some priming time... so settign down a field will be a taxing job. Insert clever remark where??
E villMonkeigh SPORADIC MOVEMENT	Posted - 2009.05.18 11:14:00 - [104] Pleeeeease no Marauder dessie. There's enough carebear stuff around as it is. I do think, for balance, there should be another T1 destroyer, AND another T2 destroyer. Rather like the BC class has two T1 and two T2 versions. T1. (Tier 2 destroyer) Add slight resists, reduce sig radius; basically an upgraded T1. Maybe no -25% ROF penalty. Increase EHP. To Tier 1 ship as to Hurri is to Cyclone, or Harbie is to Prophecy. Maybe reduce sig radius (PLEASE!) Much as it would pain me, I could also see a specialist salvage version being made with bonuses to salvage/tractor etc. But I'd rather it was a T1 version than a T2 ship wasted for carebear stuff. T2. Mini Command Ship. Warfare link bonus, helps roaming gangs. Would encourage frig gangs. "Web" Interdictor. A 20km bubble with -30 to -50% to speed would be murderous to light ships. Perhaps bonuses to artillery too in true 'destroyer' style. Extra slot version; with also extra resists, EHP etc; the Heavy Assault Destroyer. Would have be balanced so not to take over AF role. Perhaps a tackling penalty.
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.18 11:46:00 - [105] New proposal: T2 Destroyer: T1 Destroyer as it is right now T2 Destroyer skill: 5% increase in refire rate 20% signature reduction it would have T2 resists.
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2009.05.18 15:29:00 - [106] Originally by: E villMonkeigh Pleeeeease no Marauder dessie. There's enough carebear stuff around as it is. I do think, for balance, there should be another T1 destroyer, AND another T2 destroyer. Rather like the BC class has two T1 and two T2 versions. T1. (Tier 2 destroyer) Add slight resists, reduce sig radius; basically an upgraded T1. Maybe no -25% ROF penalty. Increase EHP. To Tier 1 ship as to Hurri is to Cyclone, or Harbie is to Prophecy. Maybe reduce sig radius (PLEASE!) There is the slight problem with this is that you would make the Tier one destroyers as obsolete as the Cyclone and the Harbinger. The Prophecy and Cyclone aren't bad ships, they just suffer from having a ship that is equal or better in every respect. Originally by: silken mouth New proposal: T2 Destroyer: T1 Destroyer as it is right now T2 Destroyer skill: 5% increase in refire rate 20% signature reduction it would have T2 resists. The problem with a destroyer with no ROF penalty is that it can outdamage a cruiser, with better tracking, more speed (for the most part) and a lower sig rad (for all that it matters) The only way to add in Tier/Tech 2 destroyers would be to add in extra roles. Otherwise you end up with the same situation as the Battlecruisers are in: one being substantially better than the others. But I definitely agree that Destroyers need a boost to get them back up to par with AFs and Interceptors. They need about 1.25x as much HP as now, and then they become about as tough as AFs, but have a higher sig rad and are slower than the AFs. They could also do with a extra mid and low slot each, and maybe a boost to scan res. That should definitely help with the Destroyers problems ________________________________________________ Check out my ideas! New Destroyers
Yawgmoth Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.05.21 18:53:00 - [107] Originally by: Torothanax Originally by: arbiter reformed give it a sig rad reduction bonus and the same 7 slot gun / cool too see caldari have 7 missiles. tank bonus and t2 resists and lots of speed (basicly bring back nano) A sig reduction bonuse might be cool. Destroyers are gun boats though. I'd like to see a T2 version stay true to the idea of the T1 destroyer. I don't understand the freaking about the GUN boat part of the description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer Maybe a t2 dessie could use 8 rocket launchers with a high range, taking the rockets out to 30km with an extremely high velocity and explosion velocity. and penalty to ROF, giving it very high alpha damage but less in the way of sustained dps. Of course rather than give it a straight damage bonus for rockets which would make it equally effective against everything give it a damage bonus against ships that have a smaller signature radius than it does. "So how did you survive this long in 0.0 with no MWD?" 'I didn't. I died. Alot'
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2009.05.21 19:05:00 - [108] Originally by: Yawgmoth Originally by: Torothanax Originally by: arbiter reformed give it a sig rad reduction bonus and the same 7 slot gun / cool too see caldari have 7 missiles. tank bonus and t2 resists and lots of speed (basicly bring back nano) A sig reduction bonuse might be cool. Destroyers are gun boats though. I'd like to see a T2 version stay true to the idea of the T1 destroyer. I don't understand the freaking about the GUN boat part of the description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer Maybe a t2 dessie could use 8 rocket launchers with a high range, taking the rockets out to 30km with an extremely high velocity and explosion velocity. and penalty to ROF, giving it very high alpha damage but less in the way of sustained dps. Of course rather than give it a straight damage bonus for rockets which would make it equally effective against everything give it a damage bonus against ships that have a smaller signature radius than it does. Destroyers could do with variety. No other ship class has such a narrow focus, and destroyers really need a second look and update from CCP. No other ship class has failed as spectacularly at its intended role, as many frigates, and frigate hulled vessels can easily SOLO kill a destroyer. See the link in my signature for more details. It is basically me trying to fix most of the current destroyers problems, such as low EHP, too low scan res, and others. ________________________________________________ Check out my ideas! New Destroyers
MrHarryCanyon	Posted - 2009.05.21 19:07:00 - [109] Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:10:50 Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:08:52 right now an AF can take out a destroyer without too much of a problem. Why not just make a T2 assault destroyer. Keep the HP low and similar to frigs and just ramp up the resists and guns. That way a T1 cruiser would still be able to outlast an assault destroyer if fitted properly. And maybe have the assault destroyer get 1 more low and a bunch more energy grid so it can immediately fit 8 of the largest small weapons for that race. And! possibly when people get advanced wep upgrades they could fit 1-2 med weapons or get the tank up. It would make the assault destroyer a much better frig killer and by keeping the weapons to the small group still maintain a balance for the class of ship. If caldari destroyer had 7 missile slots it would be much too over powered. Without the need for tracking, a 100% hit rate and ability to dictate range....
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2009.05.21 20:11:00 - [110] Originally by: MrHarryCanyon Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:10:50 Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:08:52 right now an AF can take out a destroyer without too much of a problem. Why not just make a T2 assault destroyer. Keep the HP low and similar to frigs and just ramp up the resists and guns. That way a T1 cruiser would still be able to outlast an assault destroyer if fitted properly. And maybe have the assault destroyer get 1 more low and a bunch more energy grid so it can immediately fit 8 of the largest small weapons for that race. And! possibly when people get advanced wep upgrades they could fit 1-2 med weapons or get the tank up. It would make the assault destroyer a much better frig killer and by keeping the weapons to the small group still maintain a balance for the class of ship. If caldari destroyer had 7 missile slots it would be much too over powered. Without the need for tracking, a 100% hit rate and ability to dictate range.... If we take the destroyer from my thread, you will see that with a similar penalty to rof(damage is better otherwise there is a massive alpha strike) 8 missile slots will actually deal less damage than 8 turret slots on a destroyer. I really do advise anyone who is interested in improving destroyers now, has a look, as there are ideas there by both me and others that would really help with destroyers and their problems. As I see it, there should be a similar level of descision between flying a AF and a destroyer as there is between flying a HAC and a BC. You should have the option of trading speed, sig rad and resists for raw HP and DPS. Which is unfortunately not the case at the moment, as you have shown by the AF V destroyer situation. ________________________________________________ Check out my ideas! New Destroyers
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.05.22 06:27:00 - [111] Edited by: Torothanax on 22/05/2009 06:29:51 Originally by: Bibbleibble If we take the destroyer from my thread, you will see that with a similar penalty to rof(damage is better otherwise there is a massive alpha strike) 8 missile slots will actually deal less damage than 8 turret slots on a destroyer. I really do advise anyone who is interested in improving destroyers now, has a look, as there are ideas there by both me and others that would really help with destroyers and their problems. As I see it, there should be a similar level of descision between flying a AF and a destroyer as there is between flying a HAC and a BC. You should have the option of trading speed, sig rad and resists for raw HP and DPS. Which is unfortunately not the case at the moment, as you have shown by the AF V destroyer situation. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop hi-jacking my thread. The topic is "True T2 destoryers". If it doesn't have a gun related role bonus, it isn't a destroyer. Go peddle your missile whatever it is somewhere else.
silken mouth	Posted - 2009.05.22 16:27:00 - [112] Originally by: Bibbleibble Originally by: silken mouth New proposal: T2 Destroyer: T1 Destroyer as it is right now T2 Destroyer skill: 5% increase in refire rate 20% signature reduction it would have T2 resists. The problem with a destroyer with no ROF penalty is that it can outdamage a cruiser, with better tracking, more speed (for the most part) and a lower sig rad (for all that it matters) why is it a problem that a T2 Destroyer outdamages a T1 cruiser? after doing some math, no, they wouldnt outdamage....
Galen Gallente Gallente	Posted - 2009.05.22 17:33:00 - [113] I would like to see a T2 Destroyer that would be like the Skipray Blastboat from the old Star Wars d6 system by west end games. Slightly larger than an X-Wing or C. Corvette (Millennium Falcon) but packed 1 or 2 Capitol (Imperial Start Destroyer) scale weapons. Give it about 3 high slots only 1 or 2 of which are turrets. Give it a gigantic cap and power grid for the powerful weaponry. Now in Eve terms it would be a frigate/destroyer signature ship that was highly manuverable but could fit 1-2 Large (Weapon Type). Give it bonuses such that it can target Frigates and Destroyers as normal. So some bonus to scan resolution, tracking speed ect. ect..
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.05.24 06:33:00 - [114] Originally by: Galen Gallente I would like to see a T2 Destroyer that would be like the Skipray Blastboat from the old Star Wars d6 system by west end games. Slightly larger than an X-Wing or C. Corvette (Millennium Falcon) but packed 1 or 2 Capitol (Imperial Start Destroyer) scale weapons. Give it about 3 high slots only 1 or 2 of which are turrets. Give it a gigantic cap and power grid for the powerful weaponry. Now in Eve terms it would be a frigate/destroyer signature ship that was highly manuverable but could fit 1-2 Large (Weapon Type). Give it bonuses such that it can target Frigates and Destroyers as normal. So some bonus to scan resolution, tracking speed ect. ect.. I'm not sure a gun based stealth bomber is the way to go, but it's kinda interesting.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.05.26 11:40:00 - [115] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 26/05/2009 11:41:43 i definetly still think destroyers need some desperate fat girl love. I would like to see an Assault varient, same tank, one extra mid, one extra low, little more pwr & cpu and for my stupid idea I think a missle boat varient would be hillarious. give a bonus for missle fitting requirements so I can stick on like 7 missles, and 1 turret. honest to goodness I just want a destroyer that T2 frigs SERIOUSLY question coming near. I'm tired of having to rig my thrasher.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.05.26 11:43:00 - [116] Originally by: rodensteiner I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for. Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe) Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets. Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps. Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other. This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well. I'm also sorry if I re-hashed what has been said, I only read the first page and a half, don't have that much time to read forums at work I don't think you could call that a destroyer any more.
Bloody2k Gallente SCHWARZSCHILD.	Posted - 2009.05.30 00:07:00 - [117] - Head Hunter Ship - What does this ship do? Destroyer sized ship as the answer to speed tanks and for POD cracking. - fast ship with webber immunity - no delay for lock on POD`S if security security standing is below -5.0 - and a small (5-10m¦) nearly or undestroyable cargocapsule for important things If your ship is blowing up this cargocapsule will be present for a few days in space. Ein Alfa Romeo ist kein Auto, sondern eine Lebenseinstellung.
Arec Bardwin	Posted - 2009.05.30 00:24:00 - [118] I'm gonna sign this. The destroyer class is possibly my favourite ship class in EVE. T2 variant could have T2 resists, bonus to tracking/range and possibly even higher alpha than the T1 variant. And please give them a minimum of 2 mid slots....
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.06.30 06:03:00 - [119] I'd still like a real T2 destroyer.
Hayaishi Gallente Swiftarrow Enterprises	Posted - 2009.06.30 06:08:00 - [120] wtb a stealthbomber styled destroyer, but with turrets. aka - Sniper ship. to replace the role of the very long assed ranged cruise SB. i actually wanted this in frigate size, but i never saw that coming.. also, cloak not needed, just lrn2bookmark. :)
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.06.30 12:01:00 - [121] Originally by: Teras Menac Just removing the rate of fire penalty right off gives a destroyer 25% extra damage. Make it capable of fitting eight turrets, give it another low so that it can fit a nano/armor/damage mod if it needs to. You wouldn't need to do a whole lot to make a destroyer much more lethal, giving it a little more HP and resists would go a long way. Also, trying to make the materials cost bring the price into around 30-40m instead of the 60m an interdictor costs would be great. I want my missile destroyer. -- Salpad
Betty Crocka	Posted - 2009.06.30 12:06:00 - [122] I'd say do this, and lower the sig radius for both the interdictor and the new t2 destroyer.....
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.06.30 22:50:00 - [123] Okay... I've tried to push this in other threads but if you need a role to be filled that is missing, how about "Point Defence"? This would however require defender missiles to be fixed first. I have ALOT of ideas on how to fix point defence and make it work in a balanced format that is race specific. Okay... Firstly, point defence will have an "Area Effect" like a warp disruption sphere and is a cap dependent and an "Active" module Secondly, point defence will automatically destroy enemy missiles (FoF misiles will be immune) AND enemy drones within the sphere of influence. Amarr will use long range, high accuracy, low ROF pulse lasers to destroy missiles and drones Caldari will use a NEW defender missile that actually works. I propose that the missile explodes on proximity and can potentially destroy a whole group of missiles in the blast radius of the missile Gallante will use a very complicated system of drones. These will not have a sphere of influence but will be assignable to defend particular ships. The ship will be able to use ALOT of these drones at once giving it the ability to defend multiple ships at the same time (perhaps a +2 defender drones per level) Minimatar will use very high ROF machine guns that have low optimal and high fall off. This will make them very good at popping drones but a bit rubbish vs missiles. These ships would not only fill an empty role but also create a new dynamic on the battlefield. They would also make the battle field look really cool with lasers and missiles and machine gun tracer flying in all directions. These ships will not be purely defensive, they will have some limited offensive capabilities.
blathering idiot Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.07.01 01:37:00 - [124] -Boost tanking -Make them ammune to fighter detection -Lower power/cpu requirments for smart bombs -Boost small and med smart bomb range -Give them a cap recharge rate bonus and (it's a reach) -Give them an emp smart bomb, via ammo or script that shuts off all and I mean all mods, weapons, drone/fighter action accept the same ship class with in range. This will be a "mini-doomsday" of the electronic kind. Could give it a script to focus emp at a pos to break pos gunners access.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.08.02 06:05:00 - [125] And look at the sig radius for the love [insert name here]. I know destroyers are supposed to be vunerable to cruiser, kinda like BC are vunerable to BS's. The difference is BC's can fit a tank. Destroyers can't.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.08.21 05:11:00 - [126] No love for point defence then???
Rawbin Hood Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.08.21 07:04:00 - [127] would make sence when you look at the BC (i relate the 2 ) ◄Brutor► The Movement Because the human race can do better as a whole (despite these forums, they don't count)
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.09.11 09:22:00 - [128] Lookin for some destroyer LOVE.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.09.11 09:56:00 - [129] There is no need to create a second T2 Destroyer, use the Sabre as an example and revamp the others to similar stats. Meaning; keep the gun bonuses/allotments while adding slots as normal for T2 hulls. Make them deadly to the frigate class in the same way the destroyers are while having bubbles as a secondary function. Their main problem is that their firepower is marginal (except for Sabre) and the bubbling has more or less been taken over by HICs making them pretty useless overall. Sample Heretic; Destroyer skill bonus: +5% small laser damage, -10% laser cap use. Interdictor skill bonus: +10% range of small lasers, -10% RoF of bubbles. Role bonus: -99% CPU for fitting bubbles Slots: 8/2/4, 8 Guns, 0 missiles Fitting: Enough to allow small pulses, bubble, MWD, MSE, HS and DCU So basically the same as the Destroyer but without the RoF penalty and an extra slot. Do same for Caldari/Gallente, add a little to the Sabre and be done with it.
Wrangler Al Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.12 21:18:00 - [130] Originally by: Clansworth Originally by: Calypso Nadie also perhaps a 5% boost per lvl to defender missle rate of fire HA! She said defender missiles... that's just plain funny... Oh wait, were you serious? First they would actually need to make defender missiles work for players, and not just NPC's. This would only work if defender missiles were Fire and Forget and would target the first enemy drone or misile it found... (IDEA CCP?!?)
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.09.12 22:52:00 - [131] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida There is no need to create a second T2 Destroyer There's not really a need for two assault ships or two interceptors per race either. But there are. Interdictors don't really count as destroyers either. It's a specialty class. Kinda like Heavy Interdictors aren't cruisers or Heavey Assault Ships. Originally by: Wrangler Al Originally by: Clansworth Originally by: Calypso Nadie also perhaps a 5% boost per lvl to defender missle rate of fire HA! She said defender missiles... that's just plain funny... Oh wait, were you serious? First they would actually need to make defender missiles work for players, and not just NPC's. This would only work if defender missiles were Fire and Forget and would target the first enemy drone or misile it found... (IDEA CCP?!?) Defenders would have to be activate the laucher and forget. Missles have been nerfed into the ground though, so not much need for defenders anymore. The subject is T2 destroyers btw.
Gerard Deneth Caldari Pavlov Labs GmBH Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2009.09.15 04:18:00 - [132] Originally by: Spugg Galdon Okay... I've tried to push this in other threads but if you need a role to be filled that is missing, how about "Point Defence"? This would however require defender missiles to be fixed first. I have ALOT of ideas on how to fix point defence and make it work in a balanced format that is race specific. Okay... Firstly, point defence will have an "Area Effect" like a warp disruption sphere and is a cap dependent and an "Active" module Secondly, point defence will automatically destroy enemy missiles (FoF misiles will be immune) AND enemy drones within the sphere of influence. Amarr will use long range, high accuracy, low ROF pulse lasers to destroy missiles and drones Caldari will use a NEW defender missile that actually works. I propose that the missile explodes on proximity and can potentially destroy a whole group of missiles in the blast radius of the missile Gallante will use a very complicated system of drones. These will not have a sphere of influence but will be assignable to defend particular ships. The ship will be able to use ALOT of these drones at once giving it the ability to defend multiple ships at the same time (perhaps a +2 defender drones per level) Minimatar will use very high ROF machine guns that have low optimal and high fall off. This will make them very good at popping drones but a bit rubbish vs missiles. These ships would not only fill an empty role but also create a new dynamic on the battlefield. They would also make the battle field look really cool with lasers and missiles and machine gun tracer flying in all directions. These ships will not be purely defensive, they will have some limited offensive capabilities. Definite +1 here. You just managed to implement an idea that I was kicking around for god knows how long. Figure the Caldari one is ideal for anti-missile work but can only manage to plink at one drone at a time (figure the defender missile has an "area effect" that thumps grouped missiles). Gallente can handle multiple drones happily with their own "suicide drones" that basically ram themselves (and consume ammo like defenders) but they can't deal with missiles anywhere near as effectively. Amarr get longer range with the beams and engage both reasonably well, but kinda suck at it, whereas Minmatar can engage both very nicely, but they can't effectively cover large formations. Essentially, Gallente and Caldari are better at dealing with their respective technology, whereas Amarr and Minmatar are more average but they trade that for the ability to cover more or less of their allies more efficiently. I'm honestly more tempted to swap some around though: The Caldari would work hard to mitigate Gallente drone technology and the Gallente Caldari missile technology via their own technological abilities... ---------------------------- The Game's always changing under your feet; don't start moaning when you get a toe caught in the gears.
Kittamaru Gallente Democracy of Klingon Brothers Wicked Nation	Posted - 2009.09.15 04:39:00 - [133] Originally by: Dar Qsyde Originally by: Blastil I'd like to see them able to fit somehting like this - small guns + tank, or half as many med guns and some utility as well as a modest tank or speed fit. This. Especially the Med Guns version. or Make a Med Gun using Destroyer a TIER 2 version, and a Torpedo firing boat based on the same hull the TECH 2 version, call it a Heavy Bomber or somesuch. I already have a Heavy Torpedo Bomber in the works: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1177102
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2009.09.24 09:24:00 - [134] The idea of mini command ship has come up before. One command link only. Not my personal fav but an idea. Maybe make it the T2 version of the tier 2 destroyer.... if they ever add one.
Panem EtCircenses	Posted - 2009.09.24 11:55:00 - [135] Well, this thread plus this one: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1179871 And this one: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184113 Make 3 in generally the same direction; give us more destroyer love! Lets hope it gets added to the Common Ideas thread. Panem
AbudSeab	Posted - 2009.09.25 00:19:00 - [136] /signed
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.09.28 13:15:00 - [137] Originally by: Panem EtCircenses Well, this thread plus this one: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1179871 And this one: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184113 Make 3 in generally the same direction; give us more destroyer love! Lets hope it gets added to the Common Ideas thread. Panem It used to be in the commonly proposed idea section. I don't why they dropped it. I've been trying to keep it active.
Stoned Witch	Posted - 2009.09.28 13:33:00 - [138] Okay, please, first lets bring T1 destroyers into parity with the rest of the game? Yeah, currently they're okay at their job, but any well tanked T1 frigate will laugh them off and the only thing putting a fear into an inty might be the tracking enhanced sniping Thrasher. Otherwise... easy prey. And having tested the new faction frigates... good gods. Slicer is a speedboat with near destroyer damage output (5 guns effective w/ max skills) and much higher survivability. Firetail would be sweet except for the launcher slot LOL. Destroyers under Dominion, unless they're looked at, will be as ineffective in a fight as an Ibis facing a Rifter. Yes, a Heavy Destroyer T2 (a'la AF, with the light dictor being the 'Interceptor' version), would be marvelous but how to balance it to not make T1 cruisers pointless is a complex issue.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.09.28 13:55:00 - [139] T1 cruisers cost what, 5mil? Assault ships are running 28 mil right now. HASs are running 130 mil? I think cost is a pretty reason t1 cruisers won't go obsolete.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.10.14 21:43:00 - [140] I swear I saw someone post that destroyers need love!
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.12.05 19:48:00 - [141] So love for destroyers? Any day now you say?
Pesets The Hunt Club	Posted - 2009.12.05 22:01:00 - [142] Retribution, Harpy, Enyo and Jaguar are essentially T2 versions of destroyers right now. "Proper" T2 destroyers would make them useless. Having two possible outcomes of destroyer invention would also mess up interdictors' prices. As much as i love destroyers, i'm not sure that combat T2 variants are a good idea. There are rumors of T3 destroyers in development though...
StarDeffender	Posted - 2009.12.05 22:47:00 - [143] Most ideas here are good I personally like the Heavy Bomber Idea and the heavy af version. Basically what t2 destroyers would need is little more hp, alot more resists and hell of a lot more med slots. As a experiment I fitted a amarr coercer for full purpose of killing interceptors and I must say since I had a mwd on the med slot the inti guy warped out with some 30-40% armor. I was really impressed how often I was hitting him. So as a thought T2 destroyers can be more than one kind. 1)They can be heavy bombers capable of fitting 4 or 5 torp launchers with dmg bonuses (with 0 delay after decloacking but without the cov ops bonus replaced by better hp/resists/cap recharge)... -these ships will have skill bonuses something like 10% damage to em torps and scan resolution for amarr destroyer, while advanced skill will give some 5% to ar hp and ar resists 2)They can be a better focused anti interceptor weapon with a lot less hp/resist but more speed and gun range / tracking bonuses maybe even a warp scram/disrupt range bonus. (NOte: They would have from start large enough pwr grid/cpu to fit 6 to 8 guns + the normal pvp/other mods) -these ships will have the following skill bonuses: racial destroyer 5% bonus to range and tracking of small guns per level and advanced skill 5% or even 10% speed and range to warp scram/disruptor. 3)They can also be Heavy Assault Destroyers. Those would be similar with the af's but better. They would have no trouble bringing down a t1 cruiser and with the capability to fully mount tank + 6 to 8 small guns no af could even challenge them. (Note: a good af can bring down a t1 cruiser). -These destroyers would give bonuses like 5% per destroyer skill to gun damage and cap recharge/rof while the advanced skill will give 5% for ar hp and damage resists. CCP please give destroyers some love asap :):):)
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.12.06 03:17:00 - [144] yes please bump
Alpha195	Posted - 2009.12.06 04:59:00 - [145] This is my take on T2 dessies: (Look at the long post at the bottom for the updated concept)Escort Ships
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.12.10 13:10:00 - [146] If nothing else a sig reduction on the t1 destroyers. It's not like they can fit a proper tank. Maybe a 2-5% power grid increase.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.12.25 09:16:00 - [147] This thread was removed from the commonly proposed ideas list a while back. Does that mean you guys are actually looking at destroyers?
Czert ElPrezidente	Posted - 2009.12.25 11:27:00 - [148] I will love to see navy versions of destroyers.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2009.12.25 12:13:00 - [149] I hope they tackle tech 1 destroyer balance first.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.12.30 06:52:00 - [150] +1 for destroyer love.
MasterCeremony	Posted - 2009.12.30 08:58:00 - [151] /signed But for a really awesome t2 destroyer i would absolutely LOVE to see.. DESTROYER COMMAND SHIPS Reason being is that it would offer a whole new meaning to small gang warfare. A nice cheap cs that works with small gangs of frigates effectively. Of course if the ship were to use gang mods they may have to have their own gang mod for the smaller version, or perhaps not since blowing up a destroyer cs would be easier than a normal bc cs. I thought i had something else to add...anyways, SIGN FOR T2 CS DESTROYERS! :D
Swish3r	Posted - 2009.12.30 10:50:00 - [152] What do people do in battleships? Mission. What did CCP give the t2 battleships? Damage bonus and Salvage bonus. What do people do in destroyers? Salvage, or go around being a noob. Pretty similar relationship. Combat Salvagers - rank 5 (same as interdictors) Requirements - destroyers V, Spaceship command IV, Salvaging V? Skill bonus: 10% damage and 5% access difficulty per level. Destroyers skill bonus: 10% optimal range and 20% tractor beam range & speed. Catalyst hull - (8/3/4) (4 guns, 2 tractors, 2 salvagers, mwd, cap booster, web, 2x sarII, 1 eanmII, explosive resist II) Cormorant hull - (8/5/2) (4 rockets, 2 tractors, 2 salvagers, mwd, cap booster, deadspace sb, em resist II, boost amp II, dc II, overdrive II) Thrasher hull - (8/4/3) (4 guns, 2 tractors, 2 salvagers, mwd, medium shield extender II, 2x InvulnII, 2xoverdriveII, dcII) Coercer hull - (8/2/5) (4 guns, 2 tractors, 2 salvagers, mwd, cap booster, 2x sarII, 2 eanmII, dcII) they would each get a pretty decent cap buff, AF base resists, and around 500m3 cargo capacity.
Xtover Suicide Kings	Posted - 2009.12.30 12:06:00 - [153] Originally by: Swish3r What do people do in battleships? Mission. What did CCP give the t2 battleships? Damage bonus and Salvage bonus. What do people do in destroyers? Salvage, or go around being a noob. Pretty similar relationship. NO NO NO NO NO NO They are used as salvagers because of the speed and slot layout. If it's not broke, don't fix it! Destroyers were out long before salvage. Destroyers are currently anti-frigate ships, and light interdictors. They have a PVE bonus and it works FINE. Destroyers lack a PvP bonus currently, as AFs do just as good of a job, and HICs make dictors obsolete. on the T1 level, with the exception of a CPU and PG bonus, they are fine. Heavy guns and a thin hull. on the T2 level they should reflect what the real life destroyers did, which is to find subs (eve eqv= stealth/covops) click my avatar and you'll find posts on my suggestion for a hunter destroyer, and how to do it without becoming too overpowered.
Hoodat Bee	Posted - 2009.12.30 13:17:00 - [154] I like the command ship idea for destroyers, it definitely fits the concept of them being the top dogs of the frigate class world. I'd also go with the "half guns +100% damage" idea so that it has room to fit everything on that tiny frame. Give it a reasonable tank and it'd be good for launch. Although, to be honest, I still think fixing the t1 destroyers should come first.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.12.31 05:49:00 - [155] I've always liked the idea of a mini command ship. I'd rather not see that as the focus of t2 destroyers though. I'd like to see a destroyer that can actually stay on the field of battle for more then a few seconds. I wouldn't mind a role bonus that allows the fitting of a "Command Processor" for free on all destroyers. Then players would have the option or fitting one command link (destroyer sized) at the cost of one mid and one highslot plus whatever cpu and powergrid req's the command link had. Or make it even simpler and let all destroyers fit a mini command link that has reduced capabilities compared to the normal ones. I like the idea of using a destroyer hull to hunt down cloaked ships as well, but I get tired of people trying to bastardize the entire ship class to do it. Retool the interdictor, or add a second interdictor with similar setup and probe/probe launcher bonuses. Destroyers aren't the only ship that should be able to hunt cloaked ships. It should be a module most ships can fit, such as a probe from an expanded probe launcher. For real life hunting of subs, navies use passive listening posts anchored to the ocean floor. They use frigates, destroyers, cruisers and other subs. They active ping the area of opperation (the grid in game) if they believe a sub is in the area. They use sonar dipping helicoptors (drones?). They drop disposable sonar bouys from aircraft (probes). They launch anti sub missiles (fof missiles?) and depth charges (smart bombs? Bombs?) from any of these platforms when they locate an enemy sub. Subs are hard to find if thier crew know what they are doing, but they are far from invisible or impossible to detect. While were at it, when do we get t2 recon probes? Probes that are cloaked themselves but can only be launched from t2 expanded (or some other specialized) launchers. The point is: destroyers as a class should be combat focused, not the "dump your specialization here" class. They shouldn't have a massive tank, but they should have some survivability on the battle field, especially T2 destoryes. Frigates are supposed to fear them, not laugh them off. I think a significantly smaller sig radius would go a long way for t1 destroyers, maybe a small speed increase as well. You'll recall they were indirectly nerfed (harshly) with the nano nerf. Or maybe increased pg/cpu plus a slot or two on a tier 2 version. Interdictors and the destroyers we have need some love. There should probably be a tier 2 version for each race. There should be a combat focus t2 hull as well. Command, salvage, cloak hunting, and whatever else version would be cool to, but I say that's icing on the cake, shouldn't be the main focus.
Sunset Rogue	Posted - 2009.12.31 06:09:00 - [156] Tech2, Tier2 destroyer no weapon hardpoints range bonus to small remote armor/shield 50m3 bandwidth +1 drone controlled per frigate level. Optional/suggested penalty: -50% damage and hitpoints of medium scout drones. (encourages the use of 10x light drones instead of 5x mediums)
Reine Jacotey	Posted - 2009.12.31 10:20:00 - [157] Edited by: Reine Jacotey on 31/12/2009 10:24:20 Edited by: Reine Jacotey on 31/12/2009 10:22:40 I haven't had time read most of this thread, so sorry if this idea has been posted already... [Edit: apparently I only had to look up two posts ] In real life naval history, the ships we now call "destroyers" started their existence prior to WWI as "torpedo boat destroyers" and were specialized at taking out fast torpedo boats. As torpedo boats evolved the ability to submerge and surface torpedo boats were essentially replaced by submarines, "torpedo boat destroyers" became simply known as "destroyers" with a primary mission as anti-submarine escorts. Covert ops ships (covops frigates, recons, and especially stealth bombers) are EVE's submarines. With all that in mind, I'd love to see t2 destroyers be specialized in finding and engaging nearby cloaked ships in a quasi "anti-submarine" role... probably through a new scanning module (high or mid slot) that only these types of t2 destroyers can fit.
Bloody2k Gallente SCHWARZSCHILD.	Posted - 2009.12.31 15:06:00 - [158] My Idea of a true T2 Destroyer as a new Role, is a "Head Hunter Ship" As the answer to speed tanks and for POD cracking. - fast ship with webber immunity - no delay for lock on POD`S if security security standing is below -5.0 - and a small (5-10m¦) nearly or undestroyable cargocapsule for important things If your ship is blowing up this cargocapsule will be present for 24h in space. Einmal mit Profis!
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2009.12.31 16:42:00 - [159] I want a cheap ship that can fit cruiser weapons on a frig sized hull, as fast as an interceptor has the best tracking in game, can field a good tank and is immune to all forms of E-War.
Bloody2k Gallente SCHWARZSCHILD.	Posted - 2009.12.31 16:49:00 - [160] Hoar the best idea ever...ingenious, helpful and very profound. Einmal mit Profis!
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2009.12.31 16:53:00 - [161] Originally by: Bloody2k Hoar the best idea ever...ingenious, helpful and very profound. There is already a T2 Destroyer in Eve you may not like it, But it is in game.
TYR3L	Posted - 2009.12.31 17:04:00 - [162] Originally by: Reine Jacotey Edited by: Reine Jacotey on 31/12/2009 10:24:20 Edited by: Reine Jacotey on 31/12/2009 10:22:40 I haven't had time read most of this thread, so sorry if this idea has been posted already... [Edit: apparently I only had to look up two posts ] In real life naval history, the ships we now call "destroyers" started their existence prior to WWI as "torpedo boat destroyers" and were specialized at taking out fast torpedo boats. As torpedo boats evolved the ability to submerge and surface torpedo boats were essentially replaced by submarines, "torpedo boat destroyers" became simply known as "destroyers" with a primary mission as anti-submarine escorts. Covert ops ships (covops frigates, recons, and especially stealth bombers) are EVE's submarines. With all that in mind, I'd love to see t2 destroyers be specialized in finding and engaging nearby cloaked ships in a quasi "anti-submarine" role... probably through a new scanning module (high or mid slot) that only these types of t2 destroyers can fit. Finally, someone has mentioned this ^^ Also like a previous post by someone that suggested the T1 racial destroyers (drone boats, missile, etc.). Would really like to see a number of other additions to the destroyer class. The more destroyer variety (small ships in general), the better. The preference would be to keep them mostly T1 and relatively inexpensive. However, since this thread is about T2 destroyers... - T2 destroyer: There's at least one person in this thread who may have mentioned his desire to see this. - Fix of current T1 destroyers: Functional in a variety of roles. - Stealth hunter: As quoted above. Fills the traditional role of destroyers, as anti-sub, convoy escort boat. Historically these ships acted in squads, and this should be true in EVE as well. Not sure if these should be T2. - Salvage boat (T1): Salvaging bonuses. Extra cargo?
Mya ElleTerego The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.12.31 20:00:00 - [163] Edited by: Mya ElleTerego on 31/12/2009 20:03:06 in the anti cloak idea, you could set them up to have a smart bomb 10000% range bonus, 1 small faction smartbomb it could fit or maybe lol fit a medium one with RCU And ACR rigs. DPS wise this wont do anything, but with the range it will decloak people up to 50 -60 km away from you. Thus helping dramatically with the new silly stealth bomber dd crap we see in large scale fights. I would love to see that. It wont get rid of afk cloakers or find people that ninja rat, but it will help dramatically for catching stealth bombers or other cloaky things. Make sure its dps is crap tho, so its not a solo gate camp mobile. With a small smart bomb it should be able to max skilled reach out to 20km, with a medium 40-60 ish. I know the bears wont like this idea, because it will be dangerous to their blockade runners, but it will only effect 0.0 really, and tbh you guys have JF, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. Use them. In lowsec you would uncloak people but youd get bbqed by gate guns, and your sec status will go into the toilet. Alliance Recruit thread Alliance Homepage/Killboard
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.01.01 00:16:00 - [164] How about ( as someone else suggested in some other destroyer thread ) allow the T2 destroyer ( interdictor ) to drop a Web Bubble? It would not be able to be placed within a certain range of a warp disruption bubble.
Ex Caliburr Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2010.01.01 02:01:00 - [165] hehe, just started a similar thread, but this one is better. How about, then, as a role they specialize in killing fighters/fighter-bombers? they would have a role in cap ship fights then..I guess it would be the anti-drone role on steroids.. And I looked, and, behold, a pale horse; and he that sat on him was death. and hell followed with him..
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.01.03 18:22:00 - [166] What about Pirate Destroyers, like angel, serpentis...etc versions? The models are already in game!
EadTaes Minmatar d o o m	Posted - 2010.01.04 15:52:00 - [167] Hehe people have been asking for true T2 combat destroyers for a long time. And for salvaging destroyer since the 2nd day salvage existed. Wish CCP would get with the program on destroyers already. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.01.16 16:17:00 - [168] bump
d3vo Isotope Laboratories	Posted - 2010.01.16 18:12:00 - [169] Current T2 Destroyers aren't really "destroyers"...which it should be. I disagree with any relation to being a command ship type as well. It should be a damage boat. Amplify the current use of T1 Destroyers as all gank, no tank. ch33rs
DrDooma	Posted - 2010.01.18 03:12:00 - [170] We already have Assault ships that should perform this role. The problem is not all of them are cabled of doing this.
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.02.03 06:24:00 - [171] Yeah, but assault ships aren't designed for an anti frigate role, and the t1 destroyers barely stand up to most t1 frigates now a days.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.02.03 07:29:00 - [172] Edited by: Yon Krum on 03/02/2010 07:33:39 Here I was just looking at the ideas forum and thinking "we need more destroyer topics"--seriously, no snark, I love the ship. There's a lot of specialized things you could do with the destroyer hull, but let's set that aside for the moment to address my pet peeve with EVE ships: There is no interceptor counter! (And to a lesser extent no Assault Ship counter.) Sure, interceptors die all the time to fleet fire, silly things around BS with neuts, etc. That's fine, we know they can die, but there's no ship that is designed to do what the destroyer should have: kill light tacklers. We've discussed how frail and ineffective the T1 destroyer is at it's "job", so moving on.... What should a Combat Destroyer do? 1) Use light guns in quantity (I've suggested 6, and ditching the ROF penalty.) 2) Have either lots of speed (to tackle extremely fast ships), propulsion jamming range (tackle, again), or lots of range (to put damage on target long enough within interceptor engagement envelopes). --I favor the later: range, as the other options show up on EAS and Recons, and Interceptors themselves. 3) Have T2 resists and HP increases, to defend against attack by light guns/missiles. 4) Have lowered sig radii, to defend against attacks by medium and large weapons. 5) Have increased fitting flexibility, enabling the ship to use the top-tier small guns without rigging or fitting mods. 6) Have the usual, T2 slightly increased number of fitting slots (meds/lows as appropriate). 7) Have greatly increased base lockrange and scanres. This would result in a ship (I won't bother giving bonuses, as CCP will determine those) that uses the equivalent of 8-9 top-tier small guns, tanks better across the board but in different ways, remains as slow as current destroyers but makes up for it in 2x+ range/lockrange. The disadvantages of the destroyer remain: use of multiple expensive guns, higher ammo use, higher cap use when firing, relatively slow speed, higher base ship cost, and relatively higher damage from larger-sized weapons -- versus assault frigates. Such a space-superiority ship would not be what you'd want to use to tackle, but it would effectively complicate efforts by frigates to harass or tackle itself/its fleet. I'd love to see an anti-stealth destroyer hull, but the above would fill an (slightly) even more urgent hole in EVE. Ideally can we have both? Plus citadel torps? :) --Krum [Edit: at one point months ago I did attempt to stat a set of such ships for the Assembly Hall, and if you're interested you may do the search to find them.] --Krum
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.02.03 18:21:00 - [173] /signed I love my catalyst, but i find it sad it's only great at salvaging and missioning. I would gladly trade cargo space for more hp and better firepower... That said, i would like as much variety of destroyers as we have of frigates/cruisers. T2 variants should be aimed at fighting t2 frigates or cruisers. There has been a lot of good suggestions here from assault gunboats to droneboats. There is room for more ships there and i don't mind if it take some glory from other ships in the game. I want my invested destroyer skill points be more useful than they are now.
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.03.11 15:32:00 - [174] Destroyer love please.
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.04.01 10:45:00 - [175] Ditto
Xtover Suicide Kings	Posted - 2010.04.01 12:31:00 - [176] Originally by: Meeko Atari How about ( as someone else suggested in some other destroyer thread ) allow the T2 destroyer ( interdictor ) to drop a Web Bubble? It would not be able to be placed within a certain range of a warp disruption bubble. web bubble + dictor bubble = horrible idea.
Nick Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2010.04.01 16:19:00 - [177] Originally by: Calypso Nadie Why not make T2 destroyers fill a niche not currently available... Let them fill the traditional role of destroyers, that of anti-aircraft boats. Give them a 5% bonus to tracking speed per lvl also perhaps a 5% boost per lvl to defender missle rate of fire Change the high slots to allow 3-4 missle rigs This would fill a role of a drone destroyer/missle interceptor, ideal for what destroyers are made to do. I like this. Perhaps with slight modifications. T2 AAA Destroyer. Hi slots a mix of gun/missile Be able to "assign" yourself to defend ship "x" as you can drones ... the boat would then follow (formation) with this hi value ship and do it's best to pick off drones, frigates and missiles that attack it ...
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.04.09 06:59:00 - [178] Originally by: Xtover web bubble + dictor bubble = horrible idea. But to add: T1 destroyers need more PG, more tank- not a whole lot just a tiny bit. They should have a web and scram (about 100%) bonus (so pretty much a 20km warp scram to shut off intys MWD. They need at least 2 mids, the coercer can't catch crap with only one mid slot. 20 km web and scram won't happen. Pretty much guarantee that. I totally agree on the 2 mids minimum though. 1 mid is like WTF? Or give all ships one "tackle" only slot.
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.04.15 03:56:00 - [179] Who else loves destroyers?
Tornicks Caldari U-208 Blade.	Posted - 2010.04.16 17:51:00 - [180] Edited by: Tornicks on 16/04/2010 17:52:11 I support the idea of T II gunboat destroyers that last more than a frigate/T I destroyer and serve an improved role of a counter-frigate (could be a counter-interceptor specifically). -- 'Non-essential personnel, abandon ship.' Admiral Yakiya Tovil-Toba's last command, CE23155
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2010.04.17 07:50:00 - [181] Well, you can put a heavy launcher on a Thrasher with power rigs and mods, but not much else. And it's a glass cannon as well. Make it T2 with precision missiles and you give frigate pilots and heavy drone flyers quite a rude surprise with still some power for scram, web and AB. But it's a flying coffin still. A good starting point for a T2 dessie would simply be more CPU, power, and HP in the same hull, and perhaps some variation of extra low or mid slot, so weaponing up highly would still leave something for tank. T2 armaments still take more power and CPU so there is nothing to gain from junking a T2 boat with low end guns except for funny killmails.
Fi Vantage Minmatar Bristol Freedom Cooperative Jovian Enterprises	Posted - 2010.04.17 11:26:00 - [182] Edited by: Fi Vantage on 17/04/2010 11:27:19 Restating my previous suggestion of fire support with high but unsustainable dps. (Although it wasn't a T2 idea.) Edit: Cheap fire support, that is.
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.04.19 08:28:00 - [183] Lookin' for destroyer love... (in all the wrong places?)
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.05.02 15:10:00 - [184] Keeping this thread unlocked.
chopper14	Posted - 2010.05.06 04:41:00 - [185] Edited by: chopper14 on 06/05/2010 04:45:04 hey dessy pilots, after reading the original post i set out to make a devastating destroyer that would live up to its glass cannon heritage; but, settled for a more balanced approach. After all how much dps does it take to kill a frig or some drones? when fitting destroyers I've made the following revelation, that is; shield tanking ftw. why? Because its economical! every slot on a dessy is precious there can be no waste shield recharges itself armor does not. even the ammar dessy can fit a large shield extender and electron blasters. unfourtunatly all of the dessys with the exception of the thrasher are only usful to suport slow moving ships in need of anti drone support but in that role with my overshielded setups they are pure devistation! The cormorant can be fit with a heavy shield tank electron blasters and a scram. it doesnt take much smacktalk in low sec local to get somone to agress a dessy on a gate to high sec. and with my setup it allows you to be an effective point+anti drone support. with over 11k+ ehp The catalyst can kill light t2 drones fast as you can target them and boast the ability to carry a trcking disrupter drone a few of these in a dessy fleet are very nice. The Trasher. (bows) This is not an ordinary ship here is one of the setups I like to fly on it. Try it out! high slots: 7x 200mm autocannon II.(hail or faction phased plasma) 1x rocket launcher (caldari navy faction) mid slots: 1x microwarp drive I. 2x medium shield extender II Low slots: 1x power diagnostic II. 1x Damage control II Rigs: 1x Anti-EM shield. 2xcore shield extender rig. this is my 0.0 ratting setup I usually carry a cloak instead of a rocket launcher till I get to the area I want to rat in somtimes i get poped but that setup rigs and all is about 11 mil. Stats: It does almost 1000 volley damage on a perfect hit against hull, and about 250 dps. It can switch out the mwd for a scram which also lets you switch out the rocket for a nos or neut and the low of your choice for a heat sink which gets you closer to 300 dps, all while tanking 11,500 EHP in fleet while racharging 27shield points per second at restshich meant over 60 per second at 30% find me a small shield booster that does that and the damage control and anti em rig make your lowest resist about 30%. I have used the cormorant sucssfully to bait in low sec by jumping in ahead of my fleet orbiting the gate at 500 and smacktalking until fired upon I count the gate dps as my own since the cormo does little dps but does eliminate drones well. even low skilled solo domi can be handled by this fit and cormo, with the gate on your side u simply orbit him at 500 using your scram on him, and guns on his drones while the gate does the rest. with the cormo its the ships between t1 frigate and battle ship you dont want to fight due to their decent firpower and decent tracking. the catalyst cant point but can survive solo vs low skilled bc with a tracking disrupter drone, again with the gate on your side. now back to the Thrasher (bows) this posted fit on the thrasher can survive a direct hit from a bomb launched from any race. and can then attack and do damage to the bomber before it escapes being to fast for the torpedos to hit. it can survive a drake if it keeps at 45+ just close enough to pick off drones and it has never lost to a caracal. it can go toe to toe against t2 frigs if you know which ammo to bring inclusing harpys jaguars and hawks. I have shamed ravens, maelstom, abbadon, and a low skilled hurricane. and have picked off a dominix' entire drone complement while stating out of range of an ishkur. about the only thing it doesnt seem to be able to do is kill due to the inability to keep the "super" tank and point at the same time. the tank on this ship comes from the mixture of shield passive recharge, 1,500 mps speed and stout t2 frig like firepower. all for the statrting cost of the t2 frig. this setup can do lvl 3 and 4 missions with dificulty.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 16:28:00 - [186] Sabre is true T2 destroyer. Eris is not due to those bastards at Roden Shipyards who "favor missiles over drones" and screwed it up with split weapons system. Please for the love of god either put a full rack of hybrids on the Eris - or at least fire the designer who killed the Celestis, Lachesis, Eris, and Tristan by putting too many launchers in the high slots.
Trick Novalight Caldari Instapop Industries Amici Noctis	Posted - 2010.05.10 19:31:00 - [187] I'm sorry if this has been mentioned somewhere in here before but; how about making them like "flack" assault ships. 6w/5m/3l (or 8w/3m/5l depending on race) bonus to small short ranged weapons for tracking, range, rof and damage, 15% increase to resists (depending on race) and a bonus to agility.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.