Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's.

Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.

How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based?

I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. Using drones also means committing to the fight, whereas the fragile destroyer hulls need to stay aligned and ready to warp out.

I would rather see a rocket based destroyer with a +50% rocket velocity bonus. With missile speed & flight duration rigs it can reach out to 30 km using javlin rockets. That's more than adequate range, offers selectable damage types like drones and suffers less from delayed damage.

It does seem to be happening that way - typically, Minmatar have had better drone ships than Amarr (arbitrator hulls not withstanding) so this is a very new direction. We might be seeing more Matari missile hulls than drone hulls.

I see no reason to assume that all destroyer hulls will be flimsy. The current batch could almost fit into the attack line, with tons of firepower and very little defence, but slots could be arranged for a combat line destroyer. 6 high slots, 4 mids, 3 lows, providing a lot more combat endurance, as that line of ships is supposed to have. I'd like everyone to stop thinking of destroyers as 'suicide ganking ships that have no defence', and accept that they are more like 'heavy frigates', in the same way BC's are more like 'heavy cruisers', but it probably won't happen.

They do excel at destroying frigates.

Destroyers in numbers > All frigates in numbers. Solo frigates (all types) > Dessies (if done right)

Not a problem.

Destroyers are supposed to be Anti-frigate ships. They are OP vs frigates, but everything bigger is OP against them.

Destroyers adjustments must be made with the frigate buffs in mind. If destroyers are no good against frigates, then they are no good at all.

A lot of frigates are receiving a big makeover such as more slots, more ehp, more fitting, better ship bonuses.

What is the destroyer getting? A very minor and questionable change, the cormorant loses with mid for a low, all the destroyers are getting their sig radius bigger again. The thrasher still remains the only real destroyer to fly. The catalyst sucks for anything except suicide ganking and still has the same terrible fitting, its worse than the cormorant which fits shields and has one less turret.

Yttribium were making adjustments based on old data, which shows how out of touch he is with destroyers.

After the first page, he disappears off the face of the earth, leaving us in the dark of what he's planning so far.

There isn't. The notion that destroyers need a buff across the board is just crazy talk. Destroyers are overwhelmingly favored against frigates in general. Some exceptions apply but these are individual cases and not a systemic imbalance. For example double TD fits can mess with destroyers but only a few frigates can do them, so it's something related to these frigates in particular. Once destroyer hulls that don't use turrets get released this will be a non-issue.

Hey folks,

Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply.

We are mostly fine with the changes so far - we may change the slot layout back on the Cormorant if 4 meds are preferred, but there is no large incoming buff to be expected on the destroyer class itself as we feel they are faring quite well since the last set of buffs during Crucible.

Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role.

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.

The Thrasher, despite its bonus, still has a relatively low damage output - what matters on it is the alpha with the artillery fit and the plentiful fittings left with autocannons - both of which are questions that need to be solved on a weapon system level, not ship hull itself.

We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ.

Regarding the questions about possibly introducing missiles and drones for destroyers, we agree, that is why both these weapon systems will be introduced with the new four destroyer hulls also coming for Winter. More information on this blog.


It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though.

I don't agree, but it's a valid reason. :)



I... don't agree. Is this internal testing that's with the new hulls or with the old ones?



Turn it into an Optimal bonus and I'll love you long time. Also, that would be OP as hell.



Truth. I look forward to it. :)

-Liang