These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
#361 - 2012-09-26 07:16:19 UTC
I don't agree with the Cormorant tweak... It's a Caldari Ship and is supposed to have more Mids. Yeah it sux to only have 1 Low, but would suck waaay more to Lose a Mid! Keep the Mid and Increase the PG. Seriously... do you guys even theory craft this stuff and test it yourselves? The prior buff was the biggest help to destroyers by far... don't destroy the Cormy! Ugh

Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#362 - 2012-09-26 14:59:23 UTC
Ok I am coming round to the 125mm cat.

I tried a 400m plate 75mm version thinking the EHP would be better but still found myself being kited under tracking disruption or unable to hit close range frigs even with javelin.

125mm, DCU cat seems to be where it is at, it at least projects damage well enough even under optimal range TD. Don’t let them get close though.

I still need to fit an ACR rig even though I have no plate as such and do feel the cat deserves a little extra powergrid. I also struggle to fit a T2 disrupter despite not being overly ambitious in module choices.

It needs to be made clear that the blaster cat is not really viable in real PVP unless you like shooting miners though. Maybe just maybe if the FW beacon location change goes through and you can just sit on the warp in with a scram and a AB for range control then the dps will win you some fights before they pull range. You will then need the Drone to kill any NPC’s as you will have very little DPS projection.

I killed two hookbills in succession in this which is a bit of a record for me. Not really happy with all the meta mods due to CPU.

[Catalyst, 125mm Rail Cat]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Internal Force Field Array I
Fourier Transform Tracking Program

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Fleeting Warp Disruptor I

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Ancillary Current Router I


Warrior SW-300 x1
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
#363 - 2012-09-26 15:55:47 UTC
I kinda like the Corm layout the way it is. I've learned to live with 1 low for a long time now. Give her some more speed or agility or sumpthin'. Wooosh! Zoooom! Kapow!

....yeah. Pirate

♪ They'll always be bloodclaws to me ♫
Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#364 - 2012-09-26 16:51:59 UTC
lordy, its redonk that so much of the winter "balancing" so far is just make them all like the minmatar ship.
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#365 - 2012-09-26 17:57:55 UTC
With the total number of slots and fitting resources available destroyers make for an excellent class of utiliy ships which was shown in the AT9 with a number of ECM Cormorants fieled.

Just imagine a logi/tracking link/target painter ship on such platform. Throw in a surviveability bonus in the lines of "-10% to the ship's signature per level" and it would be an interesting toy to complement those "new" tier 3 Battlecruisers.

There's whole field of unused opportunities aprat from the 8 turret doctrine.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#366 - 2012-09-29 13:48:47 UTC
i think the thrasher optimal range bonus does pin it to arties which doesn't seem very minmatar surely it should be a smaller autocannon bonus caldari are normally the snipers

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
Sethimothy
Chicken Manufacturing
#367 - 2012-09-29 23:37:14 UTC
I want to make sure I'm understanding this right. How much powergrid is the Catalyst losing? Or is it not that it's losing powergrid, but that other ships are gaining? Mine is so tightly fit as it is...
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#368 - 2012-09-30 12:43:18 UTC
The catalyst isn't changing. The Coercer, however, is making out like a bandit. Not only is it getting more pg and CPU, but it's largest tier weapons are becoming much easier to fit. The corn is also aging some PG but losing some CPU. As a mid is moving to a low it actually works pretty well.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#369 - 2012-09-30 12:59:38 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
ColdCutz wrote:
Hi CCP Ytterbium. Whatcha thinkin' about? Yay or Nay? Testing out the extra slots on the dev servers? It's great to be able to hash these things out ahead of time on the feedback threads - just curious what your thoughts are on the slots and weapons hardpoint requests.


Been busy designing the new ore frigate and destroyers. We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot. The Catalyst and Cormorant changes are still quite up in the air. We don't want to add extra slots for the sake of it though, so we'll either keep the current Cormorant layout or give it back it fourth medium slot back at the expense of the low, not decided yet.

We'll definitely have some iteration time on destroyers, this class is tricky to balance, especially with the new hulls coming out.



Whatever your intentions. You DID NERF the Cormorant and If you want to "ballance" destroyers. You may want look more closely @ the Coercer.

Cormorant: 7 High slots (6 turret harpoints), 4 mid slots, 2 Low slots.
Damage modules would make up for anything loss from removing 1 turret hard point. Keep everything else the same.

Coercer: slot arrangment is fine, but do NOT increase it's cpu and power grid.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#370 - 2012-09-30 13:12:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
Major Killz wrote:
[quote=CCP Ytterbium]

Whatever your intentions. You DID NERF the Cormorant and If you want to "ballance" destroyers. You may want look more closely @ the Coercer.

Cormorant: 7 High slots (6 turret harpoints), 4 mid slots, 2 Low slots.
Damage modules would make up for anything loss from removing 1 turret hard point. Keep everything else the same.

Coercer: slot arrangment is fine, but do NOT increase it's cpu and power grid.


Shhhhhhhh... The Thrasher's era is over. It just doesn't realize it yet. Blink
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#371 - 2012-10-02 18:37:36 UTC
So is the 3 mid cormorant thing definite at this point? Because it's really bad. Sensible alternative is dropping the high for a low, or giving it 8 guns and leaving the slots.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#372 - 2012-10-02 19:18:09 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot...

If your minds are truly made up, then please remove a high and add a low. Seems dubious to have exact same layout as the Gallente and the slowness of the Coercer require that fourth low to add speed/tank/damage as compensation.
Suki Kasumi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#373 - 2012-10-03 20:31:42 UTC
Toterra wrote:
Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers.


I concur. +1
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#374 - 2012-10-03 21:02:20 UTC
Suki Kasumi wrote:
Toterra wrote:
Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers.


I concur. +1


well maybe 4.5 AU makes more sense and they need to drop the sig rad below 60 and increase their speed a fair bit

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
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#375 - 2012-10-03 21:56:37 UTC
Suki Kasumi wrote:
Toterra wrote:
Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers.


I concur. +1


Supported! I didn't notice that either.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Luc Chastot
#376 - 2012-10-03 22:09:06 UTC
Again, Catalyst should lose that optimal bonus and gain a falloff one. We want to go all guns blaz(t)ing.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#377 - 2012-10-04 09:54:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Sparkus Volundar
Dear CCP Ytterbium,

I just noticed that the ship mass values were not listed in your first post. Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): xxxx / xxxx / -missing value- / xxxx


    • I guess they are unchanged too?

    Regards,
    Sparks

    .
    Snow Iskold
    United Trade Coalition
    #378 - 2012-10-04 21:02:41 UTC
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #379 - 2012-10-05 14:21:07 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium, I'm dying to know what you're doing to the cat. Tell us now!
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #380 - 2012-10-05 16:20:53 UTC
    You wish is my command Pirate


      After some more internal and external play testings, we are fairly happy with existing destroyers, except for the Catalyst, as mentioned in the new destroyer balancing thread.

      We want to increase the fittings on it so it is able to mount neutron blasters, or even have a hope to fit 150mm railguns (with fitting implants / rigs). However, by doing so we are removing its tiny dronebay to make its role more focused on turrets and keep a clear distinction with the new Gallente drone destroyer.

    • Powergrid increased from 60 to 70, CPU increased from 170 to 178
    • Drone bay and bandwidth removed

      • Doing so approximately keeps the same damage potential as before, except you have slightly more range as using neutrons instead of ions. It also means you don't have to rely on a destructible damage source (light drone) to compensate for your downgraded guns.

      Also, we want to reduce mass on existing destroyers to make them more noticeable against the new hulls. Changes are the most important for the ships that needed the most, while the thrasher was slightly tuned down. For instance, we estimate around 200m/s to be gained on MWD speeds for a Catalyst.

    • Coercer: mass decreased from 1665000 to 1650000, agility increased from 2.75 to 2.77 to keep close align time
    • Cormorant: mass decreased from 1892000 to 1700000, agility increased from 2.5 to 2.78 to keep close align time
    • Catalyst: mass decreased from 1761000 to 1550000, agility increased from 2.45 to 2.76 to keep close align time
    • Thrasher: mass increased from 1542000 to 1600000, agility decreased from 2.96 to 2.8 to keep close align time

      • We also had a look at the Catalyst bonuses, but we find them acceptable as they are right now - swapping turret optimal range to falloff would be detrimental to long range Catalyst setups, especially with the fittings changes, that's why no modifications are planned on that front.