These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#701 - 2012-10-10 09:23:23 UTC
Mordecai Heller wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Update!

Caldari:
  • Removed one high slot and launcher slot, gained one mid slot - thus layout now is 7 / 4 / 2, 7 launchers



    • Oh great so a model that already has spaces for 8 launchers will have an annoying blank space just like the drake. Ugh

    Couldn't you balance it by cutting back on tank or its bonuses? Why'd you have to go and ruin the beauty of a row of 8 launchers?

    Anyway isn't missile damage supposed to compensate for the fact that they are useless at long range?



    I would like to help highlight this post, it's starting to get rather annoying to see models with blank hard points cause weapon slots was removed without changing the model to fit it, please stop doing that, the easy way to rebalance is to just remove a weapon slot, but for the sake of the design of the ship, give it the few extra minutes of effort and try and balance it out without just removing a weapon slot.
    Johnny Bloomington
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #702 - 2012-10-10 18:26:08 UTC
    CCP may not change the model of that Caldari ship. They maybe keeping that empty slot on the visual model just in case they decide to make a faction destroyer. The other Caldari missile boats that have faction counterparts have an extra launcher.

    CCP wish list: show damage on ships and open that door!
    Mordecai Heller
    Offstation Fund Administration
    #703 - 2012-10-10 18:48:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordecai Heller
    Johnny Bloomington wrote:
    CCP may not change the model of that Caldari ship. They maybe keeping that empty slot on the visual model just in case they decide to make a faction destroyer. The other Caldari missile boats that have faction counterparts have an extra launcher.



    Well that would make it more tolerable but still, seeing a ship nerfed into ugliness before it's released feels kinda bad. Sad

    Although I imagine the art dept feel worse about it. Seeing that ship with a turret missing is like seeing a smile with missing teeth, it's just not the same.
    Aglais
    Ice-Storm
    #704 - 2012-10-10 18:58:56 UTC
    "waaaa waaaa waaaa waaaa my destroyer dont'nt got 8 hig slonts i wnated all teh turrents ponsible to make look cooler"

    This is literally all I hear when I listen to people whining about having seven launchers rather than eight. Just stop. Please. You're going to be able to fit a more self reliant ship at the cost of a little bit of damage which may prevent people from whining about this ship later in future, which would make it get nerfed even harder if enough people whined.
    Mordecai Heller
    Offstation Fund Administration
    #705 - 2012-10-10 19:00:38 UTC
    Aglais wrote:
    "waaaa waaaa waaaa waaaa my destroyer dont'nt got 8 hig slonts i wnated all teh turrents ponsible to make look cooler"

    This is literally all I hear when I listen to people whining about having seven launchers rather than eight. Just stop. Please. You're going to be able to fit a more self reliant ship at the cost of a little bit of damage which may prevent people from whining about this ship later in future, which would make it get nerfed even harder if enough people whined.



    Quiet philistine.
    CheekyBabey
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #706 - 2012-10-10 20:39:51 UTC
    Bloodpetal wrote:



    Dude. I've read all those and commented on every one of them and gotten CCP responses to some of my thoughts.

    Anti-Frigate is anti-frigate. It doesn't matter how much they're "buffed", by definition - they're supposed to KILL FRIGATES. So, those threads are irrelevant to my point, because if they were relevant then the Destroyer wouldn't be good at its job as an anti-frigate platform.

    More anti-frigate is really absurd at this point, even with rebalancing. I think they can have another role, that's my point.



    I'm not sure but you know that most people don't fly around in t1 frigates all day they are useful but when there is better ships to fly why bother?

    Which is kind of why they are all getting a buff as many were relegated to being cyno ships.

    And if they are getting a buff and more people are going to fly them, as frankly most of them are now awesome, why would you not want more way to kill said people in those new frigate ships?

    However more so to the point I think this thread is more about getting them right and not sucking (yes still looking at that "drone boat") than a place for people to rant about empty launcher slots and how they might get bullied a bit more if they decide to fly around in a frigate.
    Lili Lu
    #707 - 2012-10-10 20:58:06 UTC
    Shanlara wrote:
    I would like to help highlight this post, it's starting to get rather annoying to see models with blank hard points cause weapon slots was removed without changing the model to fit it, please stop doing that, the easy way to rebalance is to just remove a weapon slot, but for the sake of the design of the ship, give it the few extra minutes of effort and try and balance it out without just removing a weapon slot.

    This is nothing new. Been a mildly annoying empty gun hardpoint on the Geddon forever. But really it's no big deal.
    Mordecai Heller
    Offstation Fund Administration
    #708 - 2012-10-10 21:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordecai Heller
    Lili Lu wrote:
    Shanlara wrote:
    I would like to help highlight this post, it's starting to get rather annoying to see models with blank hard points cause weapon slots was removed without changing the model to fit it, please stop doing that, the easy way to rebalance is to just remove a weapon slot, but for the sake of the design of the ship, give it the few extra minutes of effort and try and balance it out without just removing a weapon slot.

    This is nothing new. Been a mildly annoying empty gun hardpoint on the Geddon forever. But really it's no big deal.


    I don't see this, there are 7 spaces for guns and it can use 7 guns.

    Two sets of five on side and two sets of two on top and bottom, and the geddon pulls it off beautifully.

    Although I can't test that on this character so I could easily be wrong.

    Edit: Disregards that, just tested on alt.
    Lili Lu
    #709 - 2012-10-10 21:25:23 UTC
    Mordecai Heller wrote:
    Although I can't test that on this character so I could easily be wrong.

    My derp you are right. But the 7 turrets has always been annoying. It would be awesome to have 8 turrets.Big smile

    I think there are some other examples of this, even if the missing hardpoint is not so noticeable, for instance the Harbinger. Such a symmetircal beauty until you notice the one gun on one side of the undercarriage. It becomes damn annoying if you focus on it long enough. I'm sure there are others but that is what's coming to mind atm.

    Anyawy, not having seen the actual model with launchers on it for this new destroyer, it may not be as irritating as the Harbinger's asymmetrical irritant. Regardless, that mid it got in exchange has lots of potential.
    Mordecai Heller
    Offstation Fund Administration
    #710 - 2012-10-10 21:26:17 UTC
    Lili Lu wrote:
    Mordecai Heller wrote:
    Although I can't test that on this character so I could easily be wrong.

    My derp you are right. But the 7 turrets has always been annoying. It would be awesome to have 8 turrets.Big smile

    I think there are some other examples of this, even if the missing hardpoint is not so noticeable, for instance the Harbinger. Such a symmetircal beauty until you notice the one gun on one side of the undercarriage. It becomes damn annoying if you focus on it long enough. I'm sure there are others but that is what's coming to mind atm.

    Anyawy, not having seen the actual model with launchers on it for this new destroyer, it may not be as irritating as the Harbinger's asymmetrical irritant. Regardless, that mid it got in exchange has lots of potential.



    Eight turrets are always awesome.
    Aaron Barton
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #711 - 2012-10-10 21:39:48 UTC
    Lili Lu wrote:
    Mordecai Heller wrote:
    Although I can't test that on this character so I could easily be wrong.

    My derp you are right. But the 7 turrets has always been annoying. It would be awesome to have 8 turrets.Big smile

    I think there are some other examples of this, even if the missing hardpoint is not so noticeable, for instance the Harbinger. Such a symmetircal beauty until you notice the one gun on one side of the undercarriage. It becomes damn annoying if you focus on it long enough. I'm sure there are others but that is what's coming to mind atm.

    Anyawy, not having seen the actual model with launchers on it for this new destroyer, it may not be as irritating as the Harbinger's asymmetrical irritant. Regardless, that mid it got in exchange has lots of potential.


    The turret placement on the Harbinger has always annoyed me too. But if you move one of the guns around, you can have that undercarriage hardpoint filled up. The flip side is that you now have a gun missing on the wings. But even then, with the right placement, you can get those five wing guns somewhat symmetrical. I have the top row filled up and and the first and third on the bottom row filled up.

    Of course, CCP could always spare us the grief and give the Harbinger eight turrets. (A guy can dream, can't he?)
    Serge Slade
    Exiles of Chaos
    Balcora Gatekeepers
    #712 - 2012-10-10 23:16:23 UTC
    What bothers me the most is that CCP is onboard with having 8 instant hitting turrets on as many hulls as possible, and yet acts as if 8 launcher hardpoints would be the equivalent of killing babies for sport. Nerf the bonus if you must, but keep the 8th launcher.
    Lili Lu
    #713 - 2012-10-11 00:23:37 UTC
    Serge Slade wrote:
    What bothers me the most is that CCP is onboard with having 8 instant hitting turrets on as many hulls as possible, and yet acts as if 8 launcher hardpoints would be the equivalent of killing babies for sport. Nerf the bonus if you must, but keep the 8th launcher.

    Sad to say, 7 turrets is quite common. Also, of the 8 turret BSs, they were not outnumbering 7 launcher BCs. It was the other way around. Blink
    Ark Anhammar
    GO' R0V
    Pandemic Horde
    #714 - 2012-10-11 00:29:01 UTC
    Aaron Barton wrote:
    Lili Lu wrote:
    Mordecai Heller wrote:
    Although I can't test that on this character so I could easily be wrong.

    My derp you are right. But the 7 turrets has always been annoying. It would be awesome to have 8 turrets.Big smile

    I think there are some other examples of this, even if the missing hardpoint is not so noticeable, for instance the Harbinger. Such a symmetircal beauty until you notice the one gun on one side of the undercarriage. It becomes damn annoying if you focus on it long enough. I'm sure there are others but that is what's coming to mind atm.

    Anyawy, not having seen the actual model with launchers on it for this new destroyer, it may not be as irritating as the Harbinger's asymmetrical irritant. Regardless, that mid it got in exchange has lots of potential.


    The turret placement on the Harbinger has always annoyed me too. But if you move one of the guns around, you can have that undercarriage hardpoint filled up. The flip side is that you now have a gun missing on the wings. But even then, with the right placement, you can get those five wing guns somewhat symmetrical. I have the top row filled up and and the first and third on the bottom row filled up.

    Of course, CCP could always spare us the grief and give the Harbinger eight turrets. (A guy can dream, can't he?)

    I have the exact same layout on my Harby. It was so annoying when I saw the one turret on one side of the "chin" before I finagled the weapons around.

    On topic: more turrets are better, but less = less ammo! :)
    Serge Slade
    Exiles of Chaos
    Balcora Gatekeepers
    #715 - 2012-10-11 00:44:58 UTC
    It has more to do with the fact that there is exactly 1 ship in the entire game which can fit 8 launchers, and that's an ultra-rare piece of gankbait which nobody in their right mind would undock. Yes, 8 would be aesthetically pleasing, but is it so much to ask for a little bit of parity? I mean, it's not like I've started arguing that the only turrets which should be instant hit are lasers... Followed by blasters, then rails, with autocannons and artillery somewhere down near missiles. After all, the only way to get a projectile that's fired explosively moving at anywhere near relativistic velocities would be to use nuclear charges, and the instantaneous heat transfer would simultaneously weld the barrel's reloading mechanism and reduce the slug to slag.
    CheekyBabey
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #716 - 2012-10-11 10:04:23 UTC
    Roll The number of gun turrets on many ships changes specially when they have faction counter parts with more turret/ missile slots.

    However what is more important a few Model/Artist tweaks that can be fixed at a later point or a bunch of ships that are not as good as intended because people want them to have their art models sorted straight away?
    Doddy
    Excidium.
    #717 - 2012-10-11 10:40:37 UTC
    Serge Slade wrote:
    What bothers me the most is that CCP is onboard with having 8 instant hitting turrets on as many hulls as possible, and yet acts as if 8 launcher hardpoints would be the equivalent of killing babies for sport. Nerf the bonus if you must, but keep the 8th launcher.


    As many hulls as possible? there are tier 3 bs, tier 3 bcs a couple of faction bs, the coercer the catalyst and the apoc.
    Mordecai Heller
    Offstation Fund Administration
    #718 - 2012-10-11 10:48:09 UTC
    Doddy wrote:
    Serge Slade wrote:
    What bothers me the most is that CCP is onboard with having 8 instant hitting turrets on as many hulls as possible, and yet acts as if 8 launcher hardpoints would be the equivalent of killing babies for sport. Nerf the bonus if you must, but keep the 8th launcher.


    As many hulls as possible? there are tier 3 bs, tier 3 bcs a couple of faction bs, the coercer the catalyst and the apoc.



    More than the missile boats get.

    There is a reason that the only missile boat most people tolerate for PVP is the drake, and that's because of the tank.
    Bouh Revetoile
    In Wreck we thrust
    #719 - 2012-10-11 11:29:40 UTC
    Mordecai Heller wrote:

    More than the missile boats get.

    There is a reason that the only missile boat most people tolerate for PVP is the drake, and that's because of the tank.

    Though this assertion is wrong...

    And if you don't know why, then you don't know what you are talking about.
    Mordecai Heller
    Offstation Fund Administration
    #720 - 2012-10-11 12:29:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordecai Heller
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    Mordecai Heller wrote:

    More than the missile boats get.

    There is a reason that the only missile boat most people tolerate for PVP is the drake, and that's because of the tank.

    Though this assertion is wrong...

    And if you don't know why, then you don't know what you are talking about.


    That sentence doesn't even make sense.

    But I'll humour you.

    I made 2 points, one that there are more ships that use 8 turret hardpoints than use 8 launcher points.

    This is a fact since there is only one ship that has 8 launcher points.

    Second point is that the most popular missile boat in PVP is the Drake, and that people more often than not want it for its tanking abilities rathar than for missiles damage seeing as it is often treated as a bait ship. This is also well known.

    So how the **** am I wrong?