Player Features and Ideas Discussion

In addition to the destroyer roles you mentioned, they will also be able to fit orbital bombardement modules.

The way I feel is that destroyers are simply too useful. If you cruise around FW space you'll notice that destroyers, more often than not, outnumber frigates by a decent margin. You'de think that it would be the other way around given that each faction has a few useful frigs and only one destroyer. It's the same way with cruisers and battle cruisers. One would think that with progression working the way it does, you would see more frigates than anything and ships would get less common as you go up the ladder. I'm not really sure how one would fix this, I'm just ranting.

This is not their intent.

They aren't just going to be increasing dps and tank on all the ships.

Their design goals are going to be much more in depth than that.

Currently, from what I know, they've only done attack frigates.

These are specifically the high speed, and high damage frigates, however, this is not the design intent for all frigates.
They will all have a specific focus.


So, assuming that everything to come in the future is going to be damage and tank buffs based off an unfinished project is incorrect.

They've only done attack frigates, and there are many more frigates left to balance.

Wait until they finish balancing all the frigs and then you will be able to make a clear observation on what changes to expect for other ships.

Sure, most of the frigates will probably be getting some damage and tank buffs, but that isn't to say that cruisers, bcs, and bs's will get the same treatment.
The only reason the frigs are getting buffed in this manner is because they haven't been competitive in game for a very long time, so CCP had to give them buffs that would make pilots want to train and fly them instead of just using the frigates skills as a stepping stone to something else.

They are going to nerf tier 2 bc's from what i've heard.

Not buff them.

Suggestions? Man, they're facts. You can argue the theory all you want, but the fact is a SOLO frigate killing a BattleShip is a rare event. You can add all the "what-ifs" that you want, but I'm sorry, such examples are irrelevant in a discussion of ship balance.

And please, stick to proper examples. Your argument is very inconsistent here. First you talk about a SOLO newbie in a frigate killing a veteran in a BS. I trounced your example, and now you're trying to save it by adding all sorts of things; NPCs applying DPS/EWAR to a BS means it's no longer a SOLO kill. A bad fit? I'm sorry a bad fit BS is more likely to kill a frigate, because a bad fit BS probably has smaller guns, and/or a dual tank.... Also taking about 3-5 frigates taking out 1-2 BS's - please, this is NOT a "SOLO" newbie frigate taking out a veteran in a BS. If you can't make a consistent argument then don't make one at all.....

As far as the rest of your post... just relax, ease off the caps lock button. It's very hard to take you SERIOUSLY when every other WORD is in CAPS, and you go CRAZY with the exclamation POINTS!!!!

Your response actually supports my idea to make frigates - cruisers one tree, and destroyers - battlecruisers another tree - separate but (somewhat) equal. You talk about progression and "bigger is not always better"... so... What sense does a "progression" from more diversity and utility to less diversity and utility make? None at all. So we see that going from cruisers to BC isn't a progression, but a regression, from smaller, smarter ships to bigger, dumber DPSy ships - however, the bigger, dumber DPSy ships are more popular on the field because they're more effective, because in order to unlock the utility of a cruiser, you need to train for the T2 variant. T1 DPS BCs have no problem tracking DPS cruisers, and have more slots, therefore more utility, than T1 DPS cruisers. This needs to be addressed. Cruisers should have more utility, even in the T1 platform, than battlecruisers, the same way frigates have more utility than destroyers. It would make for a more interesting balance between ships and make the progression make sense; from smaller dumb DPS ships to bigger dumb DPS ships, and smaller smart utility ships to bigger smart utility ships.

If you actually bothered to read and comprehend what I was saying, you would see that my entire suggestion indeed does boil down to rebalancing BCs to reflect their place, but with the additional change of tweaking skill-tree progression to reflect their place. That's my entire suggestion in a nutshell, which you seem to agree with, even though you don't seem to want to agree and are going to great lengths to make yourself look silly in the process of not doing so.

HOWEVER, if you put frigates - cruisers on one tree, then you have a real progress - from the smaller versions to the bigger versions. Bigger is not always better, of course, so frigates will still have certain advantages over cruisers, while cruisers would have certain advantages over frigates. Putting destroyers - battlecruisers on another tree preserves progression, from the smaller dpsy/commandy ships to the bigger dpsy/commandy ships.

Let me also reply with a reason that you should NOT separate the progression chain.

Frigates and Cruisers open a wide variety of ship roles for various areas of game play. It is in the best interest of the game if people pick these skills up as they progress through ship chain, even if they don't initially realize or utilize the avenues that open up for them.

To restate this: In my experience, most people start this game primarily PvE'ing, progressing to BS's to run lvl 4 missions fairly quickly... Its only after plateauing in highsec PvE that they branch out and explore other areas of the game, and having them pick up t1 cruisers and BC's on the way opens doors that might not otherwise be open.