Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How about

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

Or something like that. I'm not sure what power would be appropriate for their size and destructive power. A megawatt is a quite a bit of power. Most nuclear power plants output between 500 and 1000 Megawatt.

I think the changes to the Cormorant need some adjusting. Keep the 4 mid slots and drop the utility high for an extra low slot. The Corm is a shield boat but with only 3 mids there's no room to fit a tank, web, scram and prop.

If the destroyer is supposed to be anti-frigate it needs to be able to catch and hold the smaller ships before bringing it's superior firepower on target. Unless of course you mean for the corm to be fit with an armor plate as tank, in which case I wonder why it's in the Caldari line up.

Megawatts are so Earth 20th Century. Even a Civilian Gatling Laser pumps out energy in the Gigawatt-ranges.



(o.-)b

Just slap a new slot to every destroyer and be done with it. I mean, if recent t1 attack frigate changes are any indication "anti frigate platform" is not something destroyers will do very well. I mean, condor should be able to kill most of them these days.

Ok, once again I wade in for the glory of the caldari race!

cormorants... first off, am I completely against the new cormorant slot layout? honestly no. the Advantages of the 8/3/2 layout are pretty damn apparent when you look at the thrasher which has been, and in terms of general usage still is, the best of the destroyer line combining tank, firepower, range and speed into a single powerful and respected death dealer which often means the end of all T1 frigates it can catch in both its autocannon and its artillery variations, producing a very effective and much loved ship for us rvb types.

making a cormorant simmilar to this would only be an advantage from a purely game play oriented point of view allowing me to in some ways produce a platform easily the equal of the mighty thrasher with a MWD, MSE scrambler in the mids and a damage control/magstab affair in the lows with my turrets turned over to glorious double range bonused blasters.

the new changes aren't BAD.

but they don't feel caldari.

this is my big quibble, at the current moment, for all its faults and foibles the cormorant is a very caldari ship. It fits in with the combat principles of the caldari race wonderfully with wondrous range bonuses, the tracking to make railguns effective and the mids to make its self a fearsome support platform in smaller gang engagements or the ultimate fleet harrasser with its 100km railguns of death defending fleets from rogue interceptors, EAF frigs and other sniper platforms. its filling a fantastic niche in the caldari ship line, an underused one perhaps, but in the hands of someone who knows exactly what they want to do with the hull? unsurpassed.

My concern is that while the new layout is by all means good, DAMN good, it'll lose some of that magic which makes the cormorant so unique. as an avid cormorant enthusiast I have to side with the other individuals in this thread and get on my knees and beg that the cormorant can retain its glorious 4th mid, even at the expense of a 2nd low, which in my mind is not critical to solving that faults the cormorant has at the current moment.

what faults the ship does have are... well... being adressed with your other changes. the biggest issue with the cormorant In my mind has always been the weak power grid which severely limmits its ability to fit both a shield tank and hybrid weapons, forcing the player to either compromise with smaller guns or sacrifice the single lowslot for an MAPC often to the annoyance of the pilot as you'll STILL have the better part of a 3rd of your cpu just sitting there not being used unless you fit out the rest of your mids with spads of Ewar. the proposed powergrid boost and CPU reduction solves this problem magnificently giving the caldari pilot the ability to fit both an MSE and a damage control without being shackled with electron blasters unless they give up rigging. the move of putting a mid into a low of course also helps with this problem but its more overkill relative to the issue at hand and kind of robs the cormorant of its.... cormorantness.

As mentioned previously an easy solution to keeping everyone happy would be to remove the utility highslot, which we often don't have the power grid to use, and move it down to the low saving the mid. while this would solve the problem I think its again a bit overkill to solve the cormorants flaws and ccp would be much better served by maintaining the slot layout and instead giving the cormorant an extra turret in addition to the PG/CPU rebalance.

It maintains the cormorants current slot layout while providing a slight dps buff to the hull. snipers would recieve a little extra dps from the extra turret but the constraints of fitting would go a fair way to preventing this becoming too powerful (and still balancing the cormorant by not permitting it to have a prop mod if it wants the 100km fit of death layout) Its dps would at best still be only comparable to the autocannon thrasher on a good day but still remaining unique enough to be distinct from its minmatar sister ship. (due to the lack of a damage bonus in favour of tracking and optimal, which is awesome by the by, please keep ^_^)

ytterbium? fozzie? please don't take my wondercorm away from me? please don't just make it a thrasher with blasters?

let caldari pilots know the glory of the 4 mids, let them learn that its not always purely about having more firepower or tank than everyone else, that sometimes its the Ewar that matters, let the cormorant remain the only shield destroyer with a utility midslot for a web, tracking disruptor or sensorbooster. let the pilot discover the joy of beating a thrasher thanks to fighting like a caldari pilot, with range mobility and Ewar being the tipping points of battle. please let it remain the scourge of slicers everywhere and the gurilla destroyer of choice for the embattled rvb pilot who has no friends to support him as the other side camp the gates in his system, his only friends being a folder of bookmarks a few hundred rounds of spike S.

please keep it a cormorant

(for additional motivation please refer to link)

http://c0117602.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/b93e925b-9983-4ca5-b399-fe3effc0c9e0.jpg

Sounds like fun to me.

By the way, in the discussion about the Cormorant, it's important to keep in mind that Caldari will get a missile based destroyer which will be able to fit rockets and melt hulls in the 15 km range (assuming the usual 50% range bonus).

I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:

Coercer:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
2 Mid
4 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)

Catalyst:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
3 Mid
3 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking

Cormorant:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
4 Mid
2 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage

Thrasher:
As is.

This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.

There' s something to be said for that utility high, but this is an alright solution.

I would argue that the Corm does not need a tracking bonus. With four mids and two lows it can get away without one. It is ideal at range but with TC, webs, or TE it should work. Plus I would point out that a tracking bonus is not very Caldari.

As for the Coercer - optimal, tracking, damage? Others will be more familiar with its cap then me.