Player Features and Ideas Discussion

My naming suggestion for the Amarr destroyer: Affliction.

I like this because it seems fitting for a ship that's going to be a real pain in the arse with its neuts.

Destroyers are supposed to be dedicated to straight-up combat.

With that in mind, bonuses to electronic warfare should be out of the question, especially at the Tech 1 level. We already have a laser pew-machine, so the only option left for the new Amarr destroyer is a tank-mobile, I don't get why some (or all) of you disagreed with me on this :S

Because that is like saying Cruisers are supposed to be dedicated to straight up combat if only the Thorax, Maller, Moa and Rupture existed. It is like saying Battlecruisers are supposed to have a little more firepower and more tank in exchange for slower speed and a larger sig before Tier 3's came along.

Your perception of Destroyers is based upon 1 Line of Hulls in the class when really there is no clear goal for a Destroyer line. They can be flushed one of many ways. Cruisers so far have EWAR, Logistics, Speed and Combat. Frigates have 2 Combat Lines, 1 Speed Line, 1 Logi Line, 1 EWAR Line and 1 Scanning Line.

Not everyone wants an overarching explanation of what Destroyers should be, they and I want variety in more then just the way they preform a role but what that role can be.

Yeah but why are you relating them to cruisers and frigs? If they should be compared to anything, it should be the existing battlecruiser lineup. By your logic we will have logistics destroyers coming along, it makes no sense that way. They're called destroyers for a reason. There are few options and a tanking role makes the most sense. Ewar destroyers? Logi destroyers? **** that, make them tankers.

You made the first comparison I guess I was first kind of comparing them to the already existing Destroyers, but that comparison really, really goes without saying.


How is it unique? Sentinel / Cruor want a word? It differs from those in ways, but still is really similar, it's also got traits of the Vengeance in it, the thing is, though, it will be uber slow and have no tank, which is not good.


Oh come one, you don't have to relate Destroyers to real life, but basic common sense allows that Destroyers would be built to Destroy things. Wait, this isn't good for my tanking case is it? I guess the way I see it, a Destroyer should be the space-ship equivalent of a top-level striker in the UFC, but giving them bonuses to Energy Neutralizers gives them a role more akin to ground-game submissions and jiu jitsu, which should probably be left for the EAFs, don't you think? Or they could be viewed as under-water creatures; I would see Destroyers as vehicles designed with the formidable strength and power of the great white shark in mind, but again, with these Neutralizer bonuses, they would seem more like some kind of dangerous, elusive squid - again, a role that should probably be left for EAFs. But there's another problem; whichever role they choose for these new Destroyers, don't you think they should be uniform together? If Amarr gets a bonus to neuts, Minmatar gets a bonus to webs? Yeah? No? Ah... the current layout for these new Destroyers is very higgly piggly. You've got an Amarr wanna-be Sentinel, an OP-Drake-esque Caldari, a mediocre mixed-weapons system Gallente, and a Minmatar one that for some reason is a dedicated missile platform with an Interceptor signature radius bonus?

Just what, is going on in the minds of those who created these?

But whatever. My opinion is clearly not appreciated, so I will now leave the thread (though I will still read any replies to this).

You should not make that mistake again, thier is only one existing destroyer line currently, the next one does not have to follow said pattern.

Unique to the Destroyer class and to the role of its partners.

Which a Neut Bonus will help it do.

No it should not be left to one other type of ship and it is fine if they are a mash-up, uniqueness is not a bad thing.

I actually like the idea of a support destroyer, ewar destroyer and 2 attack destroyers. Glass cannons designed to kill Frigates. but haveing troubles with destroyer counterparts, and not the survivability to last in a fight against cruisers and up.
Continuation of the lines that started in frigates but then resized for destroyers. In this respect, i think ccp should really sit down and look at its future for the development of Destroyers, as well as some announced modules. Does ccp envision destroyers like for example the ones below?

Ideas:

Support Destroyer:
Link capabilities, Mediocre speed / dps

Ewar Destroyer:
No tank what so ever: Power grid for weapons, and ewar. A penalty to fitting requirements for shield / armor extenders, resistance mods (includeing DCU), and (remote) repair modules so you can only fit weapons, ewar and dps mods. Mediocre speed / dps

Attack destroyers:
Type A: Designed for short range high dps, fastest of the destroyers, slower then a combat frig
Tybe B: Designed for mid - long range moderate dps, Mediocre speed

TII Variants:

Interdictors (Attack destroyer)
As they are now, with minor rebalancing issues

Orbital Bombardment (Attack Destroyer)
For Dust synergy

Troop Transport (Support Destroyer)
For Dust Synergy

Science Vessal (Ewar Destroyer)
Wormhole specialist

If This is a road CCP can see itself in the future this raises a question for the amarr destroyer. Will its neuting bonus not conflict with any future destroyer? Will some of the destroyers not gain an increadible tactical advantage, if for instance the micro jump drive becomes a reality?

So far i'm likeing what i'm seeing. I have a few concerns with the current wich i cannot predict on paper alone. This will have to be tested, and quite frankly, i don't think the test server population and mass tests will reveal all possible undesirable effects.
The amarr one: Medium neut range on a small neutralizer with the option to go autocannon / rocket suplement. Hurricane like issues but then on destroyer scale?
The Caldari one: Is the volley damage, combined with the high scan res, and low align time a problem for hit and run tactics with eg a critical mass destroyer fleet?
The Gallente one: With Tristan and Catalysts availability, how can this ship be designed so that all 3 will be used?
The Minmitar one: Will the MWD sig radius penalty affect any use of current assault frigates / interceptors?

CCP don't get me wrong, i like these new destroyers and what i see so far will open up a lot more intresting options to explore. As will all the new redesigning. Unfortunatly i don't think we actually will be able to see there full impact till they go live.

I know one thing though. These things will change a lot of the current small gang tactics

[/Me giggles madly], especially at the DDA II buff.

I can almost --almost-- forgive the utterly unnecessary abomination of the HM nerf for this.

Please name either the Cladari or Minmatar one Serval, thank you.

Christ:

They haven't even officially introduced it yet, and here come the whinebears screaming for a nerf to another ranged missile boat.

You twats just got what you wanted recently, be satisfied with that, and STFU.

For once.

For ****'s sakes...

Names, by the way:

Minmatar -- Serratos (doesn't really mean anything, just a play on "serrated" and I thought sounded cool)
Caldari -- Serval (a type of African wildcat, basically a smaller version of the RL Caracal )
Gallente -- Hecate (Hek-AH-Tay, Greek Goddess of the Underworld)
Amarr -- Drakul (for the cap-warfare part, 'natch)

The Amarr is wayyyyy too skill intensive, requires gunnery skills, missile skills AND drone skills to fly well.

Why split missiles and gunnery skills on a destroyer? Especially as you take it away from frigates like the Tristan, AND the ship is focused towards drones?