These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#21 - 2012-08-09 14:46:02 UTC
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Reppyk wrote:
The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Sad

Option 1 : 8 turret slots.
Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.
In the Summer Update they said they're looking at adding more hulls to the Destroyer lineup.
From Ship Balancing Summer Update
"But wait, there is more. More ships that is, as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered – as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based."
Indeed, and the flycatcher should be a missile-base destroyer (but since it's just a terrible ship, everybody uses the sabre).
But remember that the ferox/moa have missile slots too, and are sometimes used as missile ships.

"It's a cormorant ! I will use my armor-tank enyo with kin/therm hardeners !"
*get raped by a nova-rocket-cormorant*

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Cameron Zero
Sebiestor Tribe
#22 - 2012-08-09 14:48:57 UTC
I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets?

Quote:
Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below.


Yes, I know they're small turrets, but it's still confusing to someone who doesn't understand the naming conventions.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. …"
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#23 - 2012-08-09 14:50:04 UTC
Its a step in the right direction but it doesn't seem like its a big enough change
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#24 - 2012-08-09 14:53:00 UTC
Cameron Zero wrote:
I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets?
A CCP dude made a thread about it a few months ago, but I don't remember how it ended. Dig a bit ! Blink

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-08-09 14:57:51 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
Cameron Zero wrote:
I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets?
A CCP dude made a thread about it a few months ago, but I don't remember how it ended. Dig a bit ! Blink


Let me guess: lots of whining about dumbing down the game and destroying "immersion"?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#26 - 2012-08-09 15:16:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Reppyk wrote:
The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Sad

Option 1 : 8 turret slots.
Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.


Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu).

I dont like the corm changes, but the rest look quite good.

For the cormorant, I would suggest giving it a slight speed boost, and maybe a fitting increase, while leaving the slots the same. If you want to get really out there, give it the merlin's old shield boost bonus.
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#27 - 2012-08-09 15:34:30 UTC
I really don't feel these changes are sufficient. The Cormorant really needs a change to its highslot layout, especially if you're going to lose a midslot.

That said, your OP doesn't say anything about the changed Turret/Launcher layout for any of them. Could you tell us how you imagine the ships?

Katrina Oniseki
Malice Duivels
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-08-09 15:37:22 UTC
There's a lot of discussion on rockets on corms.

There's a lot of simplification on destroyers. (attempting to make them all very similar)

I know it's a lot of dev time to introduce new mods.. but instead of a spreadsheet tweak to try and fit the masses demands.. why not introduce a single subsystem slot for the dessies?

Put subsystem A into the corm.. it's now a 7/4/2 rocket destroyer with the proper bonus
Put subsystem B to make it into a 8/3/2 hybrid dessie.

etc..

Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs)
Vakr Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-08-09 15:39:33 UTC
Malice Duivels wrote:
Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs)
Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Smile
Malice Duivels
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-08-09 15:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Malice Duivels
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Malice Duivels wrote:
Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs)
Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Smile


Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship.

Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.)

Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy..
Vakr Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-08-09 15:47:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vakr Onzo
Malice Duivels wrote:
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Malice Duivels wrote:
Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs)
Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Smile


Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship.

Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.)

Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy..
Yes but, more T1 classes is good. Look at the T1 BCs, they have three hulls to choose from per race. The T1 Destroyers? Only one hull to choose from for each race.
BarryBonez
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-08-09 16:00:45 UTC  |  Edited by: BarryBonez
Destroyers are the perfect class for me. T1 frigs are pretty weak, and cruisers are a bit too expensive for a throwaway ship. I like to be able to fit a decent ship for ~10mil and undock it not really caring if i lose it or not and destroyers are right in that price range with good dps. The more the better.

Also, can you figure out a way to make T2 EWAR Frigs cheaper, I would love to use some of those but they are simply too expensive, especially compared to their cruiser counterparts which are far more efficient and cheaper. Blackbird>>>>>Kitsune and I don't think it should be so lopsided. I know they need serious rebalancing, but simply making them easier to produce or whatever it takes to make them cheaper would allow them to see more use in the field rather soon until they can be focused on at a later date. Right now they are on life support. I honestly can't remember seeing one of them in space in over a year.Cry
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#33 - 2012-08-09 16:03:04 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU

small medium or medium medium or both?

and when do you give them a distinct name to prevent this confusion?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#34 - 2012-08-09 16:07:05 UTC
These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#35 - 2012-08-09 16:10:17 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu).
Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot. Bear

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#36 - 2012-08-09 16:45:35 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu).
Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot. Bear


Which is why I dont like the proposed changes - cormorant has its uses now, but with only 3 mids, it just becomes a worse thrasher
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries
#37 - 2012-08-09 17:37:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing.

This was the Dev post by CCP Gnauton that set out to address changes to laser names...

What happened to that?
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#38 - 2012-08-09 17:39:51 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Reppyk wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu).
Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot. Bear


Which is why I dont like the proposed changes - cormorant has its uses now, but with only 3 mids, it just becomes a worse thrasher


The 8/3/2 layout is by far the best. You can armor tank or shield tank, bring ewar or do whatever you want, and in Minmatars case, fit the biggest guns.

And don't even get me started on the Eris, lol

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Sekundary
Never Outgunned
#39 - 2012-08-09 17:41:12 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%


I was really confused about how you were getting explosion velocity of 50 for LM's, until I realized you were talking about explosion radius. Please don't accidentally change the explosion velocity of LM's to 40. Big smile
Malice Duivels
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-08-09 17:43:51 UTC
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Malice Duivels wrote:
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Malice Duivels wrote:
Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs)
Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Smile


Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship.

Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.)

Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy..
Yes but, more T1 classes is good. Look at the T1 BCs, they have three hulls to choose from per race. The T1 Destroyers? Only one hull to choose from for each race.


I agree with you and think either of our solutions are valid.. but it comes down to resources and what CCP has available. My proposal was heavy on the spreadsheet side and easy on the creation side.

I don't know what kinda resources CCP has available.. perhaps one of our suggestions can propagate a discussion within CCP to provide a widely accepted solution!