These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Existing destroyer rebalancing

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
#181 - 2012-08-15 17:12:07 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
Unfortunately some of us don't give a damn about (T1) destroyers. I haven't flown one in the last 3 years and don't intend to ever in the future.

I know why these changes are necessary: You think DUST players will want decent ships within the first 30 seconds of starting EVE, something they can get into a fight with and hope to kill something. While I can see why you want to satisfy them, have you considered that any DUST player that lacks the patience to wait a few weeks to get into decent ship won't become a long term EVE subscriber anyway?

I think you are spending too much time on balancing the beginner ships at the expense of leaving serious gameplay issues that affect older players completely unfixed. In particular, I would rather see a post about giving supercaps proper roles and abilities than about adding 6 CPU to a destroyer.


I use destroyers on an almost daily basis - they are a powerhouse for fw combat. I've probably got at least a thousand kills in a thrasher.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#182 - 2012-08-15 17:41:42 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
much has changed since the beginning of crucible and "winmatar" has lost a lot of ground.


I would like to know what you're basing this assertion on. I've been following http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 in the last six months and not much has actually changed in that timeframe.

Hybrids are slightly better represented while lasers are slightly worse represented. HMLs are still on top and projectile weapons make up the bulk as always.

Very few armor tankers as usual also.


im basing this on the use gallente and caldari frigs T2 and T1 seen in the alliance tournament and on the general praise these ships are getting lately. they are just scary now ;)
eve-kill statistics are nice but heavily biased from fleet doctrines in 0.0 as well as habits of the average eve player.
these statistics are influenced by a lot more factors then just the balance between the ships.
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#183 - 2012-08-15 21:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?

Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf
Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf
200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?

How is this balance?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#184 - 2012-08-15 23:37:44 UTC
I want the Cormorant to be a missile boat. I don't want to have to get a flimsy interdictor to get me some sweet rocket action.

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#185 - 2012-08-16 00:04:55 UTC
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
I want the Cormorant to be a missile boat. I don't want to have to get a flimsy interdictor to get me some sweet rocket action.


I hear they're adding some rocket destroyers to the game. And drone destroyers. Just sayin.

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#186 - 2012-08-16 11:23:26 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser
.


I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time.


Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot"


Yea with watts we don't have to worry as much about the name making sense in respect to the actual capacitor consumption, which is indicated in joules.

That said these lasers consume gigajoules of energy each cycle


Except that knowing the joules and the cycle time, you can calculate the watts. It'd be kind of silly if the numbers didn't match up.

Do not run. We are your friends.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#187 - 2012-08-16 16:39:54 UTC
everything seem to be in order except : thrasher still has the damage bonus,while other 3 destroyers dont.
cormorant : slot layout is somehow better now,but whitout proper bonuses (usefull bonuses) it still cannot compete with the rest of desssies.

keep up the good work
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#188 - 2012-08-16 16:41:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Recoil IV
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?

Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf
Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf
200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?

How is this balance?



mate,next time think about what u say.

light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons.


and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#189 - 2012-08-16 16:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Recoil IV wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?

Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf
Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf
200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance?

mate,next time think about what u say.
light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons.
and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage

Thrasher can fit a full rack of highest tier (200mm) autocannons and still sport a massive tank. The catalyst struggles with moderate tank and medium tier (ion) light blasters. How is that balance?

Current Thrasher is faster, longer range, more EHP*dps. Perhaps the changes in shield/armor/structure changes that equation - probably not since thrasher received more hull HP bump than catalyst.

Edit: Speaking of Hull HP differences, shouldn't these differences be greater with larger baseline values? For example, Catalyst hull HP should be 300 greater than Thrasher, not 150 (since destroyer baseline hull HP is 2x that of the frigates).

Add in selectable damage type (more effective DPS especially against more Tech 2 ships), dps not susceptible to neuts (versus more vulnerable to ecm), and engagement envelope of the short range Thrasher completely covers the limited engagement envelope of the short range Catalyst.

Note that the other three destroyers combined cover any potential envelope of the rail catalyst. Coercer short-medium range, Thrasher medium-long range (a case could be made for Thrasher > cat at all ranges), and Corm has no competition at long range. The reason is that the Thrasher has ample CPU available for other mods but the Catalyst has to use co-processors to get any other mods fit up. (Same 170 CPU for Cat and Thrasher, but rails use more CPU than arties). The CPU requirement tells me that the catalyst is intended to be a short range ship. However, it cannot and does not dominate its class at short range where it should.
Alara IonStorm
#190 - 2012-08-16 19:50:09 UTC
Honestly looking at you change I would have prefered you just + up the slot number.

+ 1 Mid Coercer
+ 1 Low Thrasher
+ 1 Mid Catalyst
+ 1 Low Cormorant

None of them tanking slots but they give all 3 underpowered destroyers what they need without seriously buffing the Thrasher. I:E Tackle for the Coercer, a Dmg Mod to go with the DCU for the Cormorant and a Web for the Catalyst.

Nerfing the Cormi and Coercers tank doesn't seem like the best way to balance them.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#191 - 2012-08-16 20:13:44 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Honestly looking at you change I would have prefered you just + up the slot number.

+ 1 Mid Coercer
+ 1 Low Thrasher
+ 1 Mid Catalyst
+ 1 Low Cormorant

None of them tanking slots but they give all 3 underpowered destroyers what they need without seriously buffing the Thrasher. I:E Tackle for the Coercer, a Dmg Mod to go with the DCU for the Cormorant and a Web for the Catalyst.

Nerfing the Cormi and Coercers tank doesn't seem like the best way to balance them.


I agree I think you could just add a slot to all the Destroyers with the changes your making to all the frigates and still not over power them, especially if you didn't increase the fittings more than you are.
Whisperen
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#192 - 2012-08-17 01:28:31 UTC
The coercer do not need a extra mid for a point most things die before they can warp away the extra low has far more value. If anything the only thing the coercer needs is more Cap capacity so it can run a prop mod and guns for longer.
Lili Lu
#193 - 2012-08-17 02:10:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
I think you guys need to rethink the racial straightjackets you are only exagerating. In this regard you limit pg and cpu on gallente ships to force blasters and bless pg and cpu on caldari to allow rails. This has unintended consequences. Such as allowing viable tanky blaster fits on caldari ships while not allowing viable sniper kiter fits on gallente ships. This is not balanced.

Also, the cormorant range ability is creating the typical extreme Caldari fit problem. Here with destroyers it is around 100km sniping destroyers (this most often shows up with all ecm mod ecm boats and ridiculous particularly pve shield tanks). Knock that optimal bonus down to 5% or at most 7.5% please.

edit- no, make it 5%. you gave the corm another low for a mag stab. it needs to be closer in for its now increased damage ability. See Chatgris' quotes above. Cormorants dominate fw plexes. Once a cormorant gang gets in a minor and has range it either kills anything else that enters or if heavily outnumbered it kites and if it has to it simply warps away.
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#194 - 2012-08-17 10:37:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Recoil IV wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?

Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf
Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf
200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?

How is this balance?



mate,next time think about what u say.

light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons.


and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage


I did not compare the 200mm to anything, I just showed that the biggest of the small autocannons are as hard/easy to fit as the smallest of the small hybrid guns. You don't see a problem with that? Combined with the fact that Thrasher has 10 PG more to play around with...

The way I see it, it's a problem with the powerfulness of the blasters in big numbers. CCP limits the PG on the catalyst so we can't fit a full rack of Neutron blasters together with tank, and sport a Thrasher sized tank with 700 dps.

What they need to do, is to remove the drone, drop down to 6 turret hardpoints, add 2 missile hardpoints and add 5 powergrid and 10 cpu.

Then we can fit 6 of the biggest guns and a decent tank without going crazy with dps, and if we fit ion blasters, we can add 2 rocket launchers as well.


TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2012-08-17 11:38:13 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:

TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints


Maybe. But it also has a split range bonus which is "bad mmkay"

Drop the fall off bonus for an optimal or maybe a MWD cap penalty bonus "a la Thorax" to let this thing MWD around a lot.
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#196 - 2012-08-17 11:57:32 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:

TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints


Maybe. But it also has a split range bonus which is "bad mmkay"

Drop the fall off bonus for an optimal or maybe a MWD cap penalty bonus "a la Thorax" to let this thing MWD around a lot.

Nah, it works very well with Null IMO

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#197 - 2012-08-17 15:54:42 UTC
I just think they need to give the Catalyst some engagement envelope where it can be "king" like they did with the hybrid rebalance last year for the other Gallente hulls. Unfortunately, the hybrid rebalance falls apart when you have 8 turrets on your ship.

Either range control, more damage, or more tank. It need something to make it a better extreme close range ship than the Thrasher.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#198 - 2012-08-18 00:52:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#199 - 2012-08-18 01:34:31 UTC
Who needs a point in a coercer when you're with friends? Seems like it's a good spot for ewar or something of the like.

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#200 - 2012-08-18 13:04:43 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's.


Remember that cruisers and battlecruisers are in line for rebalancing too though, so the slot ratios that exist now may not be sticking around for ever.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.