These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] New destroyers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lili Lu
#281 - 2012-09-29 14:35:49 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Fozzie and Ytterbium,

I appreciate the effort. However, these things seem a little broken already. I think they need a radical rethinking. Possibly making them mini command ships (like a 1% per level bonus on links, or maybe 0% but able to fit 3), or making them tanky destroyers and not gank. Something a little different.

As another gank variant of destroyer, as presented, they just pose too many dangers imo of negating any frigate out there, and after all the work you are putting into frigates. And frankly the drone variants are going to be crap in comparison to the missile variants. The missile variants are going to be absolute murder on frigs at any range, especially the Caldari one. The drone variants will only have their expensive drones targeted and killed, and thus the two ships defanged.

So please shelve these things for a later date.

Sincerely,

LiLu


If only destroyers were meant to destroy frigates or something and these ships actually do that.

But you're obviously the better game developer here and these should 100% definitely be shelved.

No, I'm saying these things, particularly the two missile boats appear to have the potential to be too good at it. And the current destroyers are already very good at it. So snark off.
mine mi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#282 - 2012-09-29 14:37:14 UTC
I think it is preferable to first decide the role and then design.
Denuo Secus
#283 - 2012-09-29 14:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Lili Lu wrote:
Fozzie and Ytterbium,

I appreciate the effort. However, these things seem a little broken already. I think they need a radical rethinking. Possibly making them mini command ships (like a 1% per level bonus on links, or maybe 0% but able to fit 3), or making them tanky destroyers and not gank. Something a little different.

As another gank variant of destroyer, as presented, they just pose too many dangers imo of negating any frigate out there, and after all the work you are putting into frigates. And frankly the drone variants are going to be crap in comparison to the missile variants. The missile variants are going to be absolute murder on frigs at any range, especially the Caldari one. The drone variants will only have their expensive drones targeted and killed, and thus the two ships defanged.

So please shelve these things for a later date.

Sincerely,

LiLu


Those are destroyers. They are meant to murder frigs. Tho I agree both drone destroyers could need some love. Especially the Gallente one.

Consider this before yelling "nerf":

- Frigates and assault frigs are very strong now - especially when ASB fitted. It's good they have a hard counter.
- Try to judge those 4 new destroyers from a more global point of view..not only frig-vs-destroyer. They are not much faster (some even slower) than the new, boosted attack cruisers. As soon as one of them just looks funny at one of the new destroyers they are gone. The new destroyers are slow and low on EHP. So they have their natural foe as well...ofc this is not a frig.
- Let's see how TDs work on missiles before pre-nerfing both missile destroyers. The drone destroyers are not affected by them at least.
Lili Lu
#284 - 2012-09-29 14:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Denuo Secus wrote:
Those are destroyers. They are meant to murder frigs. Tho I agree both drone destroyers could need some love. Especially the Gallente one.

Consider this before yelling "nerf":

- Frigates and assault frigs are very strong now - especially when ASB fitted. It's good they have a hard counter.
- Try to judge those 4 new destroyers from a more global point of view..not only frig-vs-destroyer. They are not much faster (some even slower) than the new, boosted attack cruisers. As soon as one of them just looks funny at one of the new destroyers they are gone. The new destroyers are slow and low on EHP. So they have their natural foe as well...ofc this is not a frig.
- Let's see how TDs work on missiles before pre-nerfing both missile destroyers. The drone destroyers are not affected by them at least.

Two problems with your points. These two missile destroyers are getting bonuses to make their light missiles or rockets very much more lethal to frigates and at more range. When the the new mTC and mTE come out they will be even further bonused in these regards. Without knowing the numbers on the new modules it presents a very bleak picture for frigates. The synergy of the ship bonuses with the new modules is a very dangerous prospect for frigates.

As for TDs use against the new destroyers, I strongly suspect the base mods will be nerfed. They have to be frankly otherwise they will become the new mandatory midslot mods, similar to the old multispecs. So if base TDs are nerfed I doubt these destroyers will have nything other to fear than crucifiers.

Btw, I will be very happy when the base stats on TDs are toned down. It may restore some balance to what is now a heavy Caldari and missile boat advantage at the frig level because those ships are already filling a mid with a TD to screw over any turret boat. As for ASBs they it appears are receiving some slight nerfs.

Yeah, fair enough, I may be leaping to a conclusion about these things. But the potential for that conclusion is very apparent to others already in this thread, not just me. It just seems very dangerous to tiericide and making all ships useful for something to be contemplating the mooting of all that by introducing new mini-drakes. Drakes in the sense of being a go to ship for that size which will crowd out the use of any of the other ships of that size and below.
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#285 - 2012-09-29 15:23:28 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Fozzie and Ytterbium,

I appreciate the effort. However, these things seem a little broken already. I think they need a radical rethinking. Possibly making them mini command ships (like a 1% per level bonus on links, or maybe 0% but able to fit 3), or making them tanky destroyers and not gank. Something a little different.

As another gank variant of destroyer, as presented, they just pose too many dangers imo of negating any frigate out there, and after all the work you are putting into frigates. And frankly the drone variants are going to be crap in comparison to the missile variants. The missile variants are going to be absolute murder on frigs at any range, especially the Caldari one. The drone variants will only have their expensive drones targeted and killed, and thus the two ships defanged.

So please shelve these things for a later date.

Sincerely,

LiLu


If only destroyers were meant to destroy frigates or something and these ships actually do that.

But you're obviously the better game developer here and these should 100% definitely be shelved.

No, I'm saying these things, particularly the two missile boats appear to have the potential to be too good at it. And the current destroyers are already very good at it. So snark off.


Too good at their extremely specific role.

Does not compute.

So snark off.
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#286 - 2012-09-29 15:23:51 UTC
You see, instead of saying "****" he said "snark" which is totally different guys, really.

Very high brow
Denuo Secus
#287 - 2012-09-29 15:28:57 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Denuo Secus wrote:
Those are destroyers. They are meant to murder frigs. Tho I agree both drone destroyers could need some love. Especially the Gallente one.

Consider this before yelling "nerf":

- Frigates and assault frigs are very strong now - especially when ASB fitted. It's good they have a hard counter.
- Try to judge those 4 new destroyers from a more global point of view..not only frig-vs-destroyer. They are not much faster (some even slower) than the new, boosted attack cruisers. As soon as one of them just looks funny at one of the new destroyers they are gone. The new destroyers are slow and low on EHP. So they have their natural foe as well...ofc this is not a frig.
- Let's see how TDs work on missiles before pre-nerfing both missile destroyers. The drone destroyers are not affected by them at least.

Two problems with your points. These two missile destroyers are getting bonuses to make their light missiles or rockets very much more lethal to frigates and at more range. When the the new mTC and mTE come out they will be even further bonused in these regards. Without knowing the numbers on the new modules it presents a very bleak picture for frigates. The synergy of the ship bonuses with the new modules is a very dangerous prospect for frigates.

Again, I don't see a real problem in destroyers owning frigs. If both drone destroyers lacking here they should be boosted, not vice versa. Atm a light missile Caracal cannot compete anymore against two assault frigs on the field - a cruiser which was known as frig killing machine. It's only logical a missile destroyer should be even better in this job since it doesn't have the survivability of said Caracal. As soon as the new Thorax or Stabber enters the field none of the new destroyers will last long.


Lili Lu wrote:

As for TDs use against the new destroyers, I strongly suspect the base mods will be nerfed. They have to be frankly otherwise they will become the new mandatory midslot mods, similar to the old multispecs. So if base TDs are nerfed I doubt these destroyers will have nything other to fear than crucifiers.

Btw, I will be very happy when the base stats on TDs are toned down. It may restore some balance to what is now a heavy Caldari and missile boat advantage at the frig level because those ships are already filling a mid with a TD to screw over any turret boat. As for ASBs they it appears are receiving some slight nerfs.


I agree. In FW TDs are mandatory already. At least in my experience. It will become even worse when they start to affect missiles.

Lili Lu wrote:

...introducing new mini-drakes. Drakes in the sense of being a go to ship for that size which will crowd out the use of any of the other ships of that size and below.

There is a big difference to the Drake. The new Caldari destroyer consists almost only of high slots. It can barely fit a tank or some ewar with 3 med and 2 low slots. So TEs and TCs affecting missile perfomance won't play a big role here I guess.
Lili Lu
#288 - 2012-09-29 15:31:32 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
You see, instead of saying "****" he said "snark" which is totally different guys, really.

Very high brow

If you would rather I'll say **** off too.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#289 - 2012-09-29 15:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
i am not a fan of the combat desi suggestions...

main reason is attack dessie do not overshadow attack frigs... mainly do to speed and sig radius...

but combat ships are slow by design and if you made desi combat they would overshadow combat frigs...

example why use a incursus when you can get better tank and more dps out of a desi?

but an atron still has advantages over a cat...

so making the second hull desi attack concept works for me as it would not make their frig borthers obselete...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#290 - 2012-09-29 15:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaikka Carel
Minmatar:

1) The MWD penailty reduction bonus is probably the strongest bonus a destroyer could have. I would suggest making it a feature of the new line of destroyers.

2) 13 slots total is awesome. Consider giving that last one to the other destroyers as well.

Amarr:

1) 6 highslots is too much considering the anemic dps 3 unbonused lasers will give you. Cut down to 5, capwarfare is what it is going to be used for. Use it for extra med or low or even give it 13th slot and make a balanced 5/4/4 ship in the lines of Arbitrator.

2) Too much overlap with the Arbitrator. Consider making this hull more useful for frigate gangs:

a) 6.0 Au/s speed would allow it to travel with frigs without gimping their strategical mobility.

b) Signature radius reduction bonus or MWD penality reduction bonus just like on the Minmatar one.

Caldari:

1) I can understand the idea of 8 rocket platform but this one is going to be as unbalanced(in a bad way) ship as the current Cormorant.

I'd suggest shifting its role to something more utilitarian(talking E-War and med slots here) in the lines of the Amarr destroyer.

3) Signature radius reduction would make this ship work.

Gallente:

1) 6 highs yet 4 turrets and 55PW on top of all which highly limits the resources for the 2nd neut/vamp module. I don't understand this. It is more in the way of Minmatar who can use those for either missile systems or capwarfare. Consider giving the ship either 5th turret or redirect this slot for med/low raw.

2) Signature radius bonus would be an awesome feature considering the nessecty of this ship to close the distance for blasters to work.

3) Once again this destroyer overlaps with Vexor. 6.0 Au/s speed could emphasize its frigate gang orientation.


I really loved the tier3 Battlecruisers and most of the balancing changes proposed so far. But some of these destroyers look like a product of the same man that made the initial line of destroyers, t1 cruisers and tier1 BCs. They have artificial handicaps to "balance" them and they aren't gonna work "just because".



EDIT: You know what? If you want to make destroyers actually work rather than have them be either "fun toys" or "highsec gankers" give them all a 50-75% Signature radius reduction bonus and then assign the other bonus as a racial destroyer one.
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#291 - 2012-09-29 15:46:13 UTC
Im not really in favor of the thought of making them more tanky style, tho another tank slot for ALL 8 dessys would be nice. But the idea i would love to see would be havign these guys as mini comand ships. give them ONE comand moduale whith no ability to fit any more no matter how you squeeze it. then give them their super anti frig DPS, give frig gangs a warfair link ship that can keep up with them (on grid) sitting out at mid range tossing dps and commands around. Why should frig gangs be limited to cloaky lokis travelign ahead of them for links when they could have something their own size to keep a better (feel) to a small frig dessy gang
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
Doomheim
#292 - 2012-09-29 15:49:03 UTC
Am I the only one who is happy with that stuff? What?
Only gal dessie would need a little buff and cal dessie more targeting range.
Lili Lu
#293 - 2012-09-29 15:51:29 UTC
Denuo Secus wrote:
Again, I don't see a real problem in destroyers owning frigs. If both drone destroyers lacking here they should be boosted, not vice versa. Atm a light missile Caracal cannot compete anymore against two assault frigs on the field - a cruiser which was known as frig killing machine. It's only logical a missile destroyer should be even better in this job since it doesn't have the survivability of said Caracal. As soon as the new Thorax or Stabber enters the field none of the new destroyers will last long.

Well a Caracal losing to two tehc II AF does not concern me much. The invested sp should count for something. And since you brought up the Caracal, it does not have 8 launchers. So already the destroyer would have that up on the Caracal. I guess I'm wondering how these will fit into what I perceive as the hoped for role of support frigates. These things will be volleying frigates such that I don't know what the support frigates are supposed to rep. It's bad enough to have the current destroyers to worry about.

With these new ones I worry even the new frigs will become like the current cruisers against the tier 2 BCs, that is, negated and hardly ever seen unless in a medium plex in FW. I haven't keept track of the FW design changes thread. Are Destoryers and frigates still going to be entering minors? Because if so I wonder what frig would dare to enter if one of these is on short scan.

Denuo Secus wrote:
I agree. In FW TDs are mandatory already. At least in my experience. It will become even worse when they start to affect missiles.

Yep, that's my experience too. And yeah, that is shy they definitiely need to nerf the base stats on TDs. Missile users will want that once they start affecting them too.P

Denuo Secus wrote:
There is a big difference to the Drake. The new Caldari destroyer consists almost only of high slots. It can barely fit a tank or some ewar with 3 med and 2 low slots. So TEs and TCs affecting missile perfomance won't play a big role here I guess.

Yes, of course these things will not have a Drake tank. What I meant is that they could develop drake like usage though in that the others are just inferior and these would be the things that get flown.
mkint
#294 - 2012-09-29 15:55:58 UTC
Loldrones.

Drones need a rework to not inherently suck before more lame drone boats are mucking up the ship lists.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Oraac Ensor
#295 - 2012-09-29 16:25:13 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
Gallente Destroyer

I get why it has less Drone bay than the Amarr version

Then please explain it to the rest of us.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2012-09-29 16:41:53 UTC
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
Am I the only one who is happy with that stuff? What?
Only gal dessie would need a little buff and cal dessie more targeting range.

Yes

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Iokasti palaiologou
DAMSEL In Duress
#297 - 2012-09-29 17:22:00 UTC
And we saw it first at the ShockedEVE-Dust summerfest in Loutraki GreeceShocked earlier this month thanks to CCP and most notably to CCP Tallest.

I cannot wait till next year to ee what juicy info we might get at the 2013 Summerfest in Greece. Blink

Save your ISk for that flight ticket guys. Lol
Doddy
Excidium.
#298 - 2012-09-29 17:39:30 UTC
Having digested it a bit i see it like this;

Minmatar - Very nice and in keeping with the minmatar style of combat, but is that size of mwd bonus not a bit too strong?
Amarr - Very nice, but neut bonuses on a t1 ship set off alarm bells in my head. Still its a perfect counter to the new logi frigs.
Gallente - Nice idea but looks weak, In my opinion it needs either 50 bandwidth and a drone tracking bonus or it needs 6 turrets.
Caldari - Probably the best for its intended role (killing frigs) and quite well balanced by tight fitting for light missiles.

In my mind both the mwd and neut bonuses are t2 bonuses but i gues sthey can work on cheap t1 platforms if balanced properly.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#299 - 2012-09-29 18:16:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Okay, going down the list of these hulls:

Amarr Destroyer: Neut/Nos bonus has traditionally only been used on T2 Amarr e-war ships, and randomly extending this ability to a new T1 destroyer just feels out of place somehow. Plus, as already mentioned, this ship seems to duplicate the Sentinel a little too closely - obviously we can expect tweaks to that ship in the future, but unless you're completely scrapping its current role I think you're storing up headaches for later on when your attention turns to EAFs and you have to try and distinguish this new destroyer from the Sentinel. That, and this flat-outclasses the new Gallente destroyer's drone capabilities thanks to the extra dronebay, which seems inappropriate.

Caldari Destroyer: The concerns about a full 8-launcher rack of triple-bonused light missiles are something that obviously need looking at. Personally I'd say drop to something like a 6-4-2 slot layout with 6 launchers and switch the kinetic damage to a RoF or all-round damage bonus and run the numbers from there.

Gallente Destroyer: Its less of a droneboat than the Amarr one, the optimal range bonus pushes it towards a rather un-Gallente theme of rails over blasters (as I've said already, having both Gallente destroyers packing hybrid optimal role bonuses doesn't feel right at all), and with only 4 turrets those hybrid bonuses get much less bang for their buck than the weapon bonuses do on the rest of the destroyer range. I don't know what to make of this at all. Maybe with an extra turret hardpoint or two, squeezing in an extra lowslot from somewhere, and/or switching one of the hybrid bonuses to a drone bonus, we might be on to something, but I feel like to make this thing look and feel right you first have to rework the new Amarr destroyer into something a little less drone-y, and maybe go back and tweak the Catalyst too.

Minmatar Destroyer: Is that supposed to be 'explosive missile damage'? If so, yuck. If not, and its a universal damage bonus, yikes. That aside, the main issue with the Minmatar destroyer is the fact that the ship model resembles a flying nasal hair trimmer.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#300 - 2012-09-29 18:31:47 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
I think you should lock the Amarr and Gallente drone Bonus to their racial Dmg Types.

Why?

Because the uproar might actually make you fix Amarr Drones. Lol


Play nice now P Yes yes, we know they need to be looked, poor things.

Holy crap, I think this is the first acknowledgement by a dev that Amarr drones are subpar. I have a spreadsheet somewhere analyzing just why they're subpar, but I'd think it's obvious.

The destroyers look great, and the Minmatar one is REALLY SCARY. Keep being awesome!


the reason they are subpar is because drone ships should not be good at every damage type...just like most missile ships get locked into kinetic.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us