These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
#301 - 2012-09-11 17:49:32 UTC
While it is all well and good that Destroyers are good for ganking and various advanced activities, they are the best ship available for people with low skill levels.

I am just under 4 months in the game, I fly my Coercer about 60% of the time.

It is important that reasonable fits work for people who are working on building up skills.

I like the Coercer as it is. Some day I will have the skills to do all the cool T2 stuff that is talked about here in the blog, but right now the important thing is that it work as a low skill ship.

I use it for: rat'ing, level 1 and 2 missions, courier duty, cleaning up belts after mining in high sec, and other utility tasks.

Funny but if you look at how destroyers are used in the real world navies today, they get all the odd jobs. That is the way we should look at destroyers - not specialized in anything, but good enough all around to support low risk solo tasks.

I would be perfectly happy if nothing changed with the destroyers - they work as is. I am very OK with the changes proposed by CCP.

Trying to make them better for veteran players while potentially reducing they utility for people who are just getting started would be a very bad thing in my mind.

OBTW - I use a 26km, 70DPS fit with salvager and tractor as a base - it is a great low cost starting point for someone who wants to hunt 0.5 space. The nice thing is as every skill finishes the Coercer just gets better and better, just like a destroyer does for a new captain in the Navy as they learn to really handle it.
E Potato
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#302 - 2012-09-11 19:25:23 UTC
I'd like to join many others in suggesting that the 4th mid slot on the Cormorant is a good thing that should stay. It gives a variety of interesting fitting options which are no longer available without it.
Imsopov II
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#303 - 2012-09-12 01:55:34 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Jarvin Xadi wrote:
Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking.


We are talking about the small sized turrets here, that like to call themselves "medium" just to confuse everyone. We should probably rename them to something that actually match their proper size.



Yes, yes you should. It is very confusing
Mirei Jun
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2012-09-12 02:26:03 UTC
Reading through the dev blog I think no one can be unhappy. Overall the changes are great.

The dream of every destroyer pilot is another slot -no joke. To be specific:

2 mids and 4 lows on the Coercer

4 mids and 2 lows on the Cormorant

3 mids and 3 lows on the Catalyst

3 mids and 3 lows on the Thrasher

This would really make destroyers that "in between" set of ships -between frigs and cruisers that they ought to be.

Additionally, another core problem with destroyers right now is they aren't really a threat to many frigates at all. They actually lose to most t2 and faction frigs hands down. One more slot would help even out the score, and make fitting and planning matter a lot more.

MJ
Kaelarian
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2012-09-12 04:34:15 UTC
Please leave the cormorant's mid slot count alone. If you must change the slot layout take the generally useless highslot.

Right now the cormorant has utility options the other destroyers don't like the silly but sometimes effect ewar fit. A low slot does very little for this ship given the tight fittings for rails (if you want blasters fly a catalyst). As many others have stated it will be reduced to being worse than a thrasher in almost every way most of the time (slightly longer range with sniper fits in the proposed layout) and it will fall back into relative disuse.

The changes to the other 3 are welcome, especially the coercer. I might finally fly one.
Oberus MacKenzie
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#306 - 2012-09-12 04:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Oberus MacKenzie
What he said ^

The only reasonable use for a Cormorant right now is to fill a sniper role, which it does quite well. If you remove a mid slot the potential max range is greatly decreased and, like almost all other Caldari ships, it is the slowest of its class. A slow, short ranged sniper does not a good choice make.

Forget the whales, save the Cormorants!!! Keep it 4/2 plz.
Kifette
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-09-12 06:54:53 UTC
I think 4 mids is what makes the cormorant interesting, please dont remove one !

SnF gang PvP video https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238775 Flipboard EVE magazine http://flip.it/evRpD

Bryan D'Arcy
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2012-09-12 11:58:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Bryan D'Arcy
I'm agree with a lot of posts here.
I use the cormorant in what is, imho, it real specificity : long range snipping at + 100 k (no prop mods necessary in this case if you have good bookmarks to warp in and back quickly). The loose of the 4th mid slot will be the end of this role, with no real new replacement role ... except if you like to use it for pve salvaging.
Tais Macao
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#309 - 2012-09-12 14:13:01 UTC
Mirei Jun wrote:
Reading through the dev blog I think no one can be unhappy. Overall the changes are great.

The dream of every destroyer pilot is another slot -no joke. To be specific:

2 mids and 4 lows on the Coercer

4 mids and 2 lows on the Cormorant

3 mids and 3 lows on the Catalyst

3 mids and 3 lows on the Thrasher

This would really make destroyers that "in between" set of ships -between frigs and cruisers that they ought to be.

MJ


Spot on!

I think there is a real danger here of ending up with basically "a destroyer" with 4 different skins. Balance can never be achieved if the definition of balance is to have exactly the same DPS and EHP, range and sig and so on. Basically we would need just one ship and just one weapon system of each size, I honestly don't think that's desirable, and I fear that this is the direction we seem to be headed here.

If given the choice between freedom to try different fits and playing to the racial flavor I've chosen, versus being shoe-horned into a very specific fit in the name of balance, I'll pick freedom any day of the week. Yes, even if that means that other races ships will perform better in certain situations.

Some of us don't necessarily care so much about whether another ship of the same class can squeeze 5 km more range out with 7 months of training. What is important is that all the ships are usefull, fun and viable to fly, and that they are "good", not necessarily "exactly equal in any situation".

While people argue on forever about the difference 3 PG or -2 Sig radius will do in a max-skill, Tech II PvP engagement, I'd like to chime in and say that there will always be an ├╝ber-ship of the month, it's completely unavoidable. Someone will find a way to equip and rig one of these so that they will outperform the rest, and no up-front design will be able to foresee the ingenuity of players in this respect. If you try to achieve that with an up-front design effort, you'll end up with what is basically a single ship in four different disguises.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#310 - 2012-09-12 14:38:27 UTC
destroyers have the same amount of slots as a support cruiser how wrong is that?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Luka Datitties
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#311 - 2012-09-12 18:58:06 UTC
If they are meant to be anti-frigate, then let's do that. +5% bonus to Webifier and Warp scrambler range per level. Only got 2 mids? Then you have to chose between warp scram or web.

The counter a destroyer should be a cruiser, not a kiting frig. Perhaps a brawling assault frig could be acceptable though...
Shaalira D'arc
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2012-09-12 19:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaalira D'arc
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts.


Please don't take this the wrong way. How experienced is your internal testing team at PvP?

I ask because the methodology of testing matters a great deal when deciding when something is balanced against something else. If your team is just having both destroyers hitting 'approach' on each other and blazing away, then of course the ion catalyst will win.

In actual combat, though, an enemy dessie will see the ion catalyst coming miles away and jink, kite, web, and/or t/d to make sure that catalyst applies as little of its dps as possible. Without much of a tank, the ion catalyst often melts long before it gets within its preferred engagement envelope. And with limited mids and sub-Minnie speed, the catalyst usually can't keep its target within that envelope long enough to win the fight.

An overly simplistic method of internal testing would lead to greatly exaggerated assessments of Blasters because of their paper DPS. I suggest reviewing the data on how ships are actually used in-game; at the very least, you'll see how lackluster the effect of the 'hybrid fix' was on blaster boats.

Edit P.S.: The one drone is just dead weight. Get rid of it already.
Lili Lu
#313 - 2012-09-12 23:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Seriously, get rid of the drone, hell knock it down to 7 turret slots but give it grid and cpu like the other destroyers. Then tell us that a neutron blaster (forget ions even) overpowers other destroyers. Also, it should be able to fit 150 rails. Tell us that 7 150s without an optimal bonus like the corm (which really should only be 7.5% or 5%, and 7.5% or 5% is sufficient for the catalyst falloff bonus) is overpowered.

Also, why not take away the damage bonus on the Thrasher and replace it with a fall-off bonus.

Right now the situation is sorta sad as you try to keep 8 turrets on the catalyst (and figure in it's pita drone damage as well even if most people don't have time for the damn drone interface) but limit its dps with fittings. Forcing it to use second tier guns and only short range ones at that. Setting it like the rest with 7 turrets and no drone then frees it to make use of the falloff on blasters and allows it to fit rails even if it's falloff bonus won't benefit the sniping as much as the optimal benefits the corm.

As for the coercer, having 8 turrets could stay as compensation for the crap cap use bonus and not having a range bonus.

edit - and do something about TDs and ASBs. Both mods are getting heavy use at alomost every level now and really screwing armor turret boats.
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#314 - 2012-09-13 00:29:08 UTC
All of the destroyers have an optimal range bonus. All of the destroyers have a tracking bonus. The last bonus is race related. The caldari get a second optimal. The infamous Thrasher gets a damage bonus. The Gallente get falloff. And the Coercer gets a cap useage bonus.

Cormorant - is fine. They have the best range. In all other categories though - DPS, speed, signature - the corm is dead last. It is very niche. The sniper fits will go from a MWD, two SB, one TC, and one TE to trading out the TC to a second TE. The blaster fits were, quite frankly, horrible in the first place and not worth talking about.

Coercer - This is the the clear winner in this revision. It has a triple buff. First, it's fitting grid has increased. Second, the largest tier weapons it can fit just got easier to fit! Lastly, it gained a mid. Those of us that are obsessed with gank will simply slap a sensor booster in that slot and look at new choices the other two points give us for rigs. One more point - you can now make a great beam coercer with these changes.

Thrasher - It's good. It's forgiving. It has weaknesses that are easy to exploit if you're a bitter vet. I started off on this ship and have since moved from it.

Catalyst - I have my fits that work - both 125mm rail and Nuetron. It is a challenging boat to fit. I cheat and use implants. It beats the Thrasher in my hands consistently. I think the Coercer will overshadow it heavily with the new changes.
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#315 - 2012-09-13 00:42:09 UTC
If Destroyers are meant to kill faster frigates that are usually equipped with mwd's or ab's, shouldn't they all have at least 3 mid slots so they can each fit a fit a prop, scram, and web and the power grid and cpu to support them?
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#316 - 2012-09-13 01:02:27 UTC
Smilingmonk wrote:
If Destroyers are meant to kill faster frigates that are usually equipped with mwd's or ab's, shouldn't they all have at least 3 mid slots so they can each fit a fit a prop, scram, and web and the power grid and cpu to support them?


Only the Coercer can't do this. Only the Coercer can strike out to long point range with a short-range weapon system. It's fine. Meanwhile, I've dived arty thrashers and killed them under their guns, and I've held AC thrashers at overheated scram range and killed them while surviving their damage with a two-slot active armor tank. Both with T1 frigs that would explode after receiving a stern look from a Coercer.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#317 - 2012-09-13 01:21:45 UTC
I don't know about everyone else and I haven't read more then the first post in the thread, but my first thought is, I'd like to see the Destroyer bonuses changed. I never like them and probably never will. Tracking bonus is nice generally speaking but Optimal bonus is kind of messed up.

I don't think I have ever used a Destroyer for sniping and I probably never will, and besides it doesn't really get that much range anyway, even with small artillery, rails, or whatever. Even with what it does get, the DPS is kind of sad.

Besides that, Destroyers are not tanks so to speak, so speed assisted by an MWD or AB is a strength for them and it really improves on their maneuverability and combat readiness as well as improving the ability to mitigate damage with a speed tank.

I've flown all the Destroyers of course, as most people have I imagine, and though a little weak, they are very fun in most regards and I often find my issue with optimal because I'm using close range guns. Regardless of that, I don't think they really need any type of range bonus.

Actually, I'm thinking of Role Bonuses, which you haven't mentioned or grouped with the Destroyer bonuses. Either way, my issue is the same. I don't see a great need for Optimal bonus and always found it out of place given the 50% bonus has virtually no discernible effect on short range guns which benefit more from falloff.

On the other hand, a 50% bonus to falloff would probably be too much and I'd still likely look at it and wonder if it was appropriate or really all that useful.

I also consider the Destroyer as a base model ship and sort of in the same category as a Battlecruiser given it has role bonuses at all. Still a base model ship though. It'd almost be nice to see a new model some time. New ship, not redone model, but that would be nice too.

Then we could have a HAD, (Heavy Assault Destroyer Lol), or maybe just an AD or an EAD, or both, or something. I really like Destroyers, even if I don't often like their models. Great ship. Kind of the staple of newbiedom. Smile

Right, while I'm at it on the models, could we do something about the Catalyst separating into two distinct pieces that flip and converge along two points of a central axis--seemingly randomly--in space. I'm not sure why that was happening, or if it is still happening, but it happened quite a lot when I was still actively playing and I think I petitioned it and posted here about it once or twice.

I'm not sure what bonus would be better, but Optimal is odd. I think I'd like to see something that doesn't buff it up to much, but clearly sets it apart from other ships in a way that defines its role and makes it much more distinctive.

Maybe:

ECM Countermeasures as a level bonus of +10% to Sensor Strength per level. - Not overpowering but definitely unique and useful in todays battlefield in EVE. Also useful in some missions.

If I think of some others equally unique to that, I'll post them here later. I rather like that one tbh.


zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#318 - 2012-09-13 01:41:12 UTC
Adding my support for either adding a slot to all destroyers or giving the cormorant a 7/4/2 layout (-1 high/+1 low)

Not only is that a very nice layout for the cormorant given that it lets you fit a nice shield tank and still have some utility, it also fits in better with the doctrine of Caldari: They have a crapton of mids on all their ships, but don't use utility highs nearly as much as other races (since their utility slots are the mids not used on tank). unless you decide to give the Cormorant an 8th turret slot (which would be nice), that slot isn't really doing much at all. There is absolutely no point to fitting a single missile luncher on anything.

I would, however, be onboard with making the Cormorant kind of like a mini ferox by giving it more launchers but no bonus, so it can be fitted as a missile ship, but the other destroyer (which would be a mini-drake) will perform that job better in most cases. Going by your shiny ship chart, I would say the current destroyers should stay in the attack category being quick, but not having staying power, and the new destroyers should be put in the combat row being slower, but having more combat endurance. Then maybe our mini ferox might be a good hit-and run rocket platform, though, with the bonuses, is more useful in many situations as a rail platform, or possibly a blaster platform.
Zakeus Djinn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#319 - 2012-09-13 05:27:52 UTC
I think a large problem with the destroyers in general is simply their lack of mid/low slots. What about reducing every destroyer down to 6 high slots, and giving them all an extra low slot and mid slot. The Coercer gets to have a 6/2/5 arrangement, the Cormorant could get 6/5/2, the Catalyst could have 6/3/4, and the Thrasher would have 6/4/3.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#320 - 2012-09-13 10:35:00 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
All of the destroyers have an optimal range bonus. All of the destroyers have a tracking bonus. The last bonus is race related. The caldari get a second optimal. The infamous Thrasher gets a damage bonus. The Gallente get falloff. And the Coercer gets a cap useage bonus.

Cormorant - is fine. They have the best range. In all other categories though - DPS, speed, signature - the corm is dead last. It is very niche. The sniper fits will go from a MWD, two SB, one TC, and one TE to trading out the TC to a second TE. The blaster fits were, quite frankly, horrible in the first place and not worth talking about.

Coercer - This is the the clear winner in this revision. It has a triple buff. First, it's fitting grid has increased. Second, the largest tier weapons it can fit just got easier to fit! Lastly, it gained a mid. Those of us that are obsessed with gank will simply slap a sensor booster in that slot and look at new choices the other two points give us for rigs. One more point - you can now make a great beam coercer with these changes.

Thrasher - It's good. It's forgiving. It has weaknesses that are easy to exploit if you're a bitter vet. I started off on this ship and have since moved from it.

Catalyst - I have my fits that work - both 125mm rail and Nuetron. It is a challenging boat to fit. I cheat and use implants. It beats the Thrasher in my hands consistently. I think the Coercer will overshadow it heavily with the new changes.



Cormorant now is more than just a sniper ship. The 75 rail ships can fight just about any destroyer within scram range. After the change it may be only for sniping though.

Coercer used to be the best gank and tank destroyer. That will change. You forgot to mention it is losing a low slot. It is currently a great ship for jumping into several enemy frigate ships and having brawls. Especially if you "cheat and use implants." Right now I think I will lose a heat sink in exchange for bigger guns and a tracking computer. Web will just help enemies align out quicker. I will have slightly better range and slightly better tracking but less dps. I don't know this is any great change.

For the kitey long range stuff it is good but for the brawler role I see it as a nerf.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815