These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#321 - 2012-09-13 10:37:53 UTC
Zakeus Djinn wrote:
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.



I really don't think there is a problem with destroyers.

There may be a problem with td frigates being over powered.

I'm just glad ccp didn't further boost tds to cover missiles too.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#322 - 2012-09-13 18:54:54 UTC
I support the Corm 4 mid slot movement. tho givign all the dessys 1 more slot would be nice, maybe just drop their stats a tad to make up for it.
Aaron Greil
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#323 - 2012-09-13 23:36:12 UTC
I think losing a high/turret would be a very good answer to adding an additional needed slot. It would add more flavor to the individual races and prevent dessies from being OP. In turn maybe a tiny boost to damage via ship bonuses.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#324 - 2012-09-15 00:07:35 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
...
+1. This man knows what he's talking about.
Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#325 - 2012-09-15 04:39:27 UTC
Not for nothing but did any1 pickup on the title? I mean "existing" destroyers? where are the non-existing? We goetting new destroyers? Hmmm....

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.
Sanka Cofie
The Yaar Offices of Pointe Webb and Podemall
#326 - 2012-09-15 05:10:27 UTC
The Coercer is fine the way it is.

>> Does not need 2nd midslot.
>>> Should not lose 4th low.

Lets be honest, all of those destroyer hulls are glass cannons. Even without the warp disruptor you can kill shield tanks before they align out, and if you're going to lose the fight it's going to be over quickly anyway. 

◄ The Views or Opinions Expressed Above Are My Own And Do Not Reflect the Views or Opinions of My Corporation, My Alliance, or My Internet Service Provider. ◄ But They Should, Because I Am Usually Right. ◄ I Am Quitting The Forums and Giving Away All My ISK, Send me 10M ISK In Game And I Will Send You All My ISK!◄
Atreides 47
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#327 - 2012-09-15 10:21:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Atreides 47
How dare you to even think of mounting rockets on THRASHER ?
I don't know which ******* idiot pushed that idea, but he can shoot his head with any projectile cannon.
Rookies after that damnable winter patch must learn rockets instead of learning projectiles, because Destroyers are the only good starting combat ships.

Long Live the Fighters !

CCP and nerfs - http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#328 - 2012-09-15 16:46:24 UTC
Atreides 47 wrote:
How dare you to even think of mounting rockets on THRASHER ?
I don't know which ******* idiot pushed that idea, but he can shoot his head with any projectile cannon.
Rookies after that damnable winter patch must learn rockets instead of learning projectiles, because Destroyers are the only good starting combat ships.


lol well mimatar are getting a "new" rocket dessy, but i dotn think the thrasher is going to become the rocket king of the sky instead
Atreides 47
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#329 - 2012-09-15 19:34:51 UTC
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
lol well mimatar are getting a "new" rocket dessy, but i dotn think the thrasher is going to become the rocket king of the sky instead


The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action.

Long Live the Fighters !

CCP and nerfs - http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#330 - 2012-09-16 17:48:22 UTC
Please do away with the single drone on the Catalyst and give it more powergrid. Fiddling around with the drone interface while in a fight is not worth one drone, and the second line of Amarr and Gallente destroyers will have drones covered.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#331 - 2012-09-16 17:52:12 UTC
The cormorant absolutely does not need to lose a medslot, it'd be better off with less highslots if it really has to have another low.
Martin0
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#332 - 2012-09-16 18:07:03 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Please do away with the single drone on the Catalyst and give it more powergrid. Fiddling around with the drone interface while in a fight is not worth one drone, and the second line of Amarr and Gallente destroyers will have drones covered.

THIS.
The catalyst have lots of fitting problems.
And increase autocannos pg usage
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#333 - 2012-09-16 18:36:02 UTC
indeed the only ship designed not too use the top tier guns how bizarre 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
Kannteir
Imperial Guardians
Tactical Narcotics Team
#334 - 2012-09-17 06:47:59 UTC
Why has CCP not made destroyers like Tier 3 Battlecruisers? Just give them 4 turrent/lanucher slots and 100% damage bonus on their weapons? You wouldn't be able to fit the dps to kill a cruiser, but frigates couldn't solo you anymore. Not to mention you could use them for those awkward low level 3 missions.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#335 - 2012-09-17 09:41:12 UTC
I would definately redistribute 1 hi-slot for an additional med/low slot depending on the racial flavour...
The destroyers do have a good amount of dps and they are supposed to be fragile - but unless you can get propulsion, tackle and a plateextender on them they will explode if anything sneeze in their direction...

If you insist on the current slot layout perhaps an additional amount of shield/armor/structure hitpoints - these ships rarely have slots with resistance modules anyway...
Iokasti palaiologou
DAMSEL In Duress
#336 - 2012-09-17 14:22:01 UTC
I was fortunate to see some of that in person by the amazing presentations of CCP Tallest and CCP Guard at the eve-dust summerfest in Greece with a unique presentation with pictures of the new Caldari Destroyer that made us drool.

Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#337 - 2012-09-17 21:05:35 UTC
Selnix wrote:
Oki Riverson wrote:
Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^


This please!


Perhaps replacing existing ship bonuses with a 25% fitting bonus to cpu&pg of weapons, keeping the existing layout (pre-winter changes), but dropping 2 highs down to racial specific slots. That would make one helluva ship.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#338 - 2012-09-20 00:07:11 UTC
I think destroyers could use some love in general, they aren't necesarily always terribad, but they are frequently underwhelming

try this:


COERCER:




Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 4 L
Fittings: 90 PWG (+15), 175 CPU (+15)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 950 (+90) / 800 (+70)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
Sensor strength: 10 Radar
Signature radius: 62



CORMORANT:



Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 2 L (+1) Turrets 8 (+1)
Fittings: 70 PWG (+15), 225 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 950 (+90) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 65 (-3)



CATALYST:



Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L
Fittings: 75 PWG (+015), 175 CPU (+ 5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 850 (+ 47) / 900 (+118)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 68 (+3)



THRASHER:




Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L (+ 1)
Fittings: 70 PWG, 175 CPU (+ 5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 850 (+ 47) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
Signature radius: 56



Its only a few small changes and an extra slot and the PWG and CPU numbers are probably ned more fine tuned, but i think this setup will give a better performance overall, especially if small artillary got a slight reduction in fitting as well
Mildew Wolf
#339 - 2012-09-20 05:42:48 UTC
3 mid corm? ouch
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#340 - 2012-09-20 05:45:33 UTC
Furry Commander wrote:
I think destroyers could use some love in general, they aren't necesarily always terribad, but they are frequently underwhelming

try this:


COERCER:




Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 4 L
Fittings: 90 PWG (+15), 175 CPU (+15)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 950 (+90) / 800 (+70)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
Sensor strength: 10 Radar
Signature radius: 62



CORMORANT:



Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 2 L (+1) Turrets 8 (+1)
Fittings: 70 PWG (+15), 225 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 950 (+90) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 65 (-3)



CATALYST:



Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L
Fittings: 75 PWG (+015), 175 CPU (+ 5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 850 (+ 47) / 900 (+118)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 68 (+3)



THRASHER:




Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L (+ 1)
Fittings: 70 PWG, 175 CPU (+ 5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 850 (+ 47) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
Signature radius: 56



Its only a few small changes and an extra slot and the PWG and CPU numbers are probably ned more fine tuned, but i think this setup will give a better performance overall, especially if small artillary got a slight reduction in fitting as well


That now is better and makes more sense.