These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#341 - 2012-09-30 02:52:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Griffin Omanid
The Amarr Destroyer should maybe get another bonus then EWAR. Ok, it is now something between Crucifier and Arbitrator, but in Comparison to the other new destroyer it totally looses to their range. The ones from Caldari and Minmatar keep their distance slightliy above 45 km, and spam missiles. And the Gallenteen one will also try to stay out of range while using rails and maybe remote dampers. This way the three destroyer maybe able to kill the amarr detroyer without getting hit, and that may be to overpowered.

If you really want to make the Amarr destroyer a EWAR destroyer and donΒ΄t want to give him any turret bonus, I think a Tracking Disruptor bonus would be mor usefull, cause this way they could have a chance against the other three. Also with the winter upgrades for missiles and TD.

And maybe you can also give the Gallente destroyer a Sensor damping and/or propulsion jamming bonus. This way it would also be a usefull EWAR destroyer.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#342 - 2012-09-30 03:00:08 UTC
David Zahavi wrote:
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?


You're not forced to fly with both turrets and missiles on the Amarr destroyer. The way I see it alot of people will likely be running launchers and neuts due to launchers not having any capacitor impact.

Regardless, seeing as the slot layout on the Caldari one continues to in my mind be utter balls, I think I'll spend most of my time in the Amarr one.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#343 - 2012-09-30 03:43:57 UTC
Any chance the Amarr one can get 4 turrets and 4 launchers. That way with the grid and bonuses we can fit a couple neuts or nos and just one unbonused weapon system.

Also so now we have cap bonuses on ships without guns?
Lisa Heyes
Cythraul Gyrru
Electronic Control Monkeys
#344 - 2012-09-30 04:22:40 UTC
Why not give these ships a difrent role more in line of the stealth bombers and tier 3bcs started whit a smaller ship whit oversized weapons.

The new dessies get like the SB torps or capital torps and a t2 version can get capital torps whit a covert cloke.

So new ships that have a new role and that can be deadly if used right.
T1 ship is a cap killer that gives lower skilled chars a chanse to get back on capital using pirates.
T2 version is a bigger version of the SB.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#345 - 2012-09-30 04:26:03 UTC
Some Math on Gallente:

Current Rail Catalyst - Absolute Gank sans implants
High:
125mm II x 8
Mid:
Named MWD
Sensor Booster II
Low:
MFS II x 2
TE II
Rigs:
Ancillary Current Router
Hybrid Burst
Ionic Field Projector

With Faction Antimatter and it's one hobgoblin this lovely boat spits out 381 DPS at 11.6 km optimal with 12.2 km of falloff. With Faction Lead it does 261 DPS at 23.3 km optimal. It does not have a point. I personally use implants that allow me to get to 13km optimal and 418 DPS with Faction Antimatter. You don't need no stinkin' point when you're throwing alphas of 609 downstream every 1.53 seconds.

For giggles I put together a new Gallente Destroyer with as exact a fit as the one above. 125mm II x 5 for effective turrets. The lows exactly as they are above. The rigs as well. Since damage is delayed the new Destroyer will absolutely need a point and web. It's lock range is naturally 15km longer then the Catalyst's so a sensor booster isn't neccesary. Another thing I noticed is that the boat doesn't need the ancillary current router. It has 20 PG left over before looking at the two utility high slots. It is, however, bone dry on CPU grid. I would need implants AND an overclock rig or two to fit those two empty high slots. And of course - Hobgoblin II's!

Anyways, I would get 396 DPS at the 11.6km mentioned above and 306 DPS at the 23km range - sans implants. In addition - uhm, web?! It makes kiting much harder for the other guy. This ship is nowhere close to being as bad as people are making it out to be. To summarize my earlier statements:

Kill the damage bonus. Convert one of the utility slots to a fifth turret to compensate for the above bonus kill. Add a tracking bonus to make the rails more effective. Give the Catalyst a double falloff bonus rather then an optimal and falloff bonus. This creates synergy between not only the old and the new but also between the corm and the cat. Double optimal vs. double falloff. And the rail Catalyst is still too close in nature to the new destroyer for comfort. Make it a pure blaster boat. I also would not mind taking the sixth utility high and moving it to a low. A DC would make it tank a bit more - neccesary as a large part of it's DPS is delayed. Lastly , Match the Catalyst's 170 CPU grid and I'd be very happy.
Deornoth Drake
Vandeo
#346 - 2012-09-30 05:11:44 UTC
Deornoth Drake wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The new amarr ship is going to be a better drone boat than the gallente one


The new minmatar ship is going to be a better missile boat than the caldari one.

CCP removes the single damage bonus on one ship, just to grant it on another ship!
Why not just give that damange bonus for all damage types, like you do it for the minmatar one.

edit: I just compared those two ships together, not all four

Have to change the content in here:

After planning to remove the single damage type bonus on the caracal,
CCP grants it again to frigates (caldari and minmatar).
How about changing that bonus into something more general like you did it with the caracal?

Single damage type bonus is not bad however there should be one ship for each damage type then, see stealth bombers.
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
Doomheim
#347 - 2012-09-30 07:16:32 UTC
Quote:
Zarnak Wulf
Posted: 2012.09.30 04:26

Some Math on Gallente:

Current Rail Catalyst - Absolute Gank sans implants
High:
125mm II x 8
Mid:
Named MWD
Sensor Booster II
Low:
MFS II x 2
TE II
Rigs:
Ancillary Current Router
Hybrid Burst
Ionic Field Projector

With Faction Antimatter and it's one hobgoblin this lovely boat spits out 381 DPS at 11.6 km optimal with 12.2 km of falloff. With Faction Lead it does 261 DPS at 23.3 km optimal. It does not have a point. I personally use implants that allow me to get to 13km optimal and 418 DPS with Faction Antimatter. You don't need no stinkin' point when you're throwing alphas of 609 downstream every 1.53 seconds.

For giggles I put together a new Gallente Destroyer with as exact a fit as the one above. 125mm II x 5 for effective turrets. The lows exactly as they are above. The rigs as well. Since damage is delayed the new Destroyer will absolutely need a point and web. It's lock range is naturally 15km longer then the Catalyst's so a sensor booster isn't neccesary. Another thing I noticed is that the boat doesn't need the ancillary current router. It has 20 PG left over before looking at the two utility high slots. It is, however, bone dry on CPU grid. I would need implants AND an overclock rig or two to fit those two empty high slots. And of course - Hobgoblin II's!

Anyways, I would get 396 DPS at the 11.6km mentioned above and 306 DPS at the 23km range - sans implants. In addition - uhm, web?! It makes kiting much harder for the other guy. This ship is nowhere close to being as bad as people are making it out to be. To summarize my earlier statements:

Kill the damage bonus. Convert one of the utility slots to a fifth turret to compensate for the above bonus kill. Add a tracking bonus to make the rails more effective. Give the Catalyst a double falloff bonus rather then an optimal and falloff bonus. This creates synergy between not only the old and the new but also between the corm and the cat. Double optimal vs. double falloff. And the rail Catalyst is still too close in nature to the new destroyer for comfort. Make it a pure blaster boat. I also would not mind taking the sixth utility high and moving it to a low. A DC would make it tank a bit more - neccesary as a large part of it's DPS is delayed. Lastly , Match the Catalyst's 170 CPU grid and I'd be very happy.


Aha. And many members here think the caldari dessie with approx 160dps and missile travel time is overpowered?
Seems that the balancing is already quite good. I suppose the minnie dessie will be a very nasty hard to kill rocket boat, gal seems okay too, amar is fine and caldari is..... very special but probably okay.
With about 8seconds flight time at max range it wont probably never alpha a frig (like Thrashers do) at max range because it will have enough time to jump away but it is okay because the damage also works well at close range.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#348 - 2012-09-30 08:08:08 UTC
I was actually hoping the gallente destroyer would be like a mini Myrmidon being designed to fly drones a size class up (The Myrm has 75 bandwidth so can field 3 heavy drones). in this case I was hoping/expecting the Gallente destroyer would have 30-40 bandwidth.

Eh. whatev. I might still get me one.
Definitely getting me one of those Caldari UBoats
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#349 - 2012-09-30 10:27:12 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Some Math on Gallente:

Current Rail Catalyst - Absolute Gank sans implants
High:
125mm II x 8
Mid:
Named MWD
Sensor Booster II
Low:
MFS II x 2
TE II
Rigs:
Ancillary Current Router
Hybrid Burst
Ionic Field Projector

With Faction Antimatter and it's one hobgoblin this lovely boat spits out 381 DPS at 11.6 km optimal with 12.2 km of falloff. With Faction Lead it does 261 DPS at 23.3 km optimal. It does not have a point. I personally use implants that allow me to get to 13km optimal and 418 DPS with Faction Antimatter. You don't need no stinkin' point when you're throwing alphas of 609 downstream every 1.53 seconds.

For giggles I put together a new Gallente Destroyer with as exact a fit as the one above. 125mm II x 5 for effective turrets. The lows exactly as they are above. The rigs as well. Since damage is delayed the new Destroyer will absolutely need a point and web. It's lock range is naturally 15km longer then the Catalyst's so a sensor booster isn't neccesary. Another thing I noticed is that the boat doesn't need the ancillary current router. It has 20 PG left over before looking at the two utility high slots. It is, however, bone dry on CPU grid. I would need implants AND an overclock rig or two to fit those two empty high slots. And of course - Hobgoblin II's!

Anyways, I would get 396 DPS at the 11.6km mentioned above and 306 DPS at the 23km range - sans implants. In addition - uhm, web?! It makes kiting much harder for the other guy. This ship is nowhere close to being as bad as people are making it out to be. To summarize my earlier statements:

Kill the damage bonus. Convert one of the utility slots to a fifth turret to compensate for the above bonus kill. Add a tracking bonus to make the rails more effective. Give the Catalyst a double falloff bonus rather then an optimal and falloff bonus. This creates synergy between not only the old and the new but also between the corm and the cat. Double optimal vs. double falloff. And the rail Catalyst is still too close in nature to the new destroyer for comfort. Make it a pure blaster boat. I also would not mind taking the sixth utility high and moving it to a low. A DC would make it tank a bit more - neccesary as a large part of it's DPS is delayed. Lastly , Match the Catalyst's 170 CPU grid and I'd be very happy.


now make a proper catalyst fit...
[Catalyst, Catalyst P2 - Brawler]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I

Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S

Small Hybrid Ambit Extension I
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I


Hobgoblin II x1

506 dps and 1800ms^-1 before overheats. The new gallente dessies role as a dps boat is more than covered by the catalyst. if its meant to be a ranged drone boat, then lose the rails and improve the drones a smidge.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#350 - 2012-09-30 10:28:52 UTC
The gallente destroyer is not bad on its own. It's just that it have two strange utility slots (gallente hull don't have those most of the time, and when they have one, they very often lack cpu to use them), and it is very close from the amarr one. The amarr destroyer can field as many firepower as the gallente one in fact, and it have more drone bay on top of it. In fact, the gallente destroyer don't look a lot more powerful than the tristan.

And for the uboat, it have 80% more alpha than the current caracal, but it will have twice the alpha of the futur one and built-in tracking computer...

In fact, the gallente destroyer seem pre nerfed and the caldari one pre buffed.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#351 - 2012-09-30 11:37:12 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

now make a proper catalyst fit...
[Catalyst, Catalyst P2 - Brawler]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I

Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S

Small Hybrid Ambit Extension I
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I


Hobgoblin II x1

506 dps and 1800ms^-1 before overheats. The new gallente dessies role as a dps boat is more than covered by the catalyst. if its meant to be a ranged drone boat, then lose the rails and improve the drones a smidge.


The blaster cat is a lesson in impracticality. It will die to the first kitey frigate with a TD. Also the future Coercer:

High :
Medium Pulse II x 8
Mid:
Limited MWD
Named warp disruptor
Low:
Internal Force Field Array
Heat Sink II
TE II
Rigs:
Energy collision
Energy burst

333 DPS at 19 km with Scorch. 466 DPS with Conflagration. The blaster cats only place in combat is the undock or on a accel gate.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#352 - 2012-09-30 13:24:24 UTC
Since these destroyers have different role bonus, how come that all the existing ones all have the same role bonus? Wouldn't a falloff bonus benefit the Thrasher and the Catalyst more?

β€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’šπŸ’™πŸ’œ
DarthRazr
Doomheim
#353 - 2012-09-30 13:27:23 UTC

I think I'm excited about the new Caldari Missile Destroyer... I had always thought that it should have had one to begin with. That being said, with the ranges it will have, it pretty much nerfs any frigate it would come across... making "kiting" one in a frigate impossible? I mean, not entirely a bad thing... that is the traditional role of a Destroyer in any fleet

Anyway, good job, glad Caldari *finally* has a missile destroyer \o/
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#354 - 2012-09-30 14:41:50 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
Since these destroyers have different role bonus, how come that all the existing ones all have the same role bonus? Wouldn't a falloff bonus benefit the Thrasher and the Catalyst more?


Not if you're fitting arties like a sensible person. The catalyst already has an optimal and a falloff bonus, but it has 2 mids so who cares, it's terrible.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#355 - 2012-09-30 14:48:32 UTC
i just seen the new destroyer graphics and i have to say.i`m not really impressed at all.in fact they all look ugly and way out of theme with each race
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#356 - 2012-09-30 14:50:05 UTC
Quote:
AMARR DESTROYER:

The Amarr destroyer is designed to take down opposition through indirect means. On the downside, the damage is nothing to write home about, but the combination of energy disruption ability plus drone control makes it dangerous at shutting enemy frigates off, then finishing them properly when they're helpless. It also has quite a generous dronebay, for multiple drone replacements.

Ship bonuses:
+10% to drone damage and hitpoint per level
+20% bonus to energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer range per level
Role bonus:
+25% to ship capacitor recharge rate


What's the point of a cap recharge role bonus? Just increase it's base cap recharge 25% and give it a useful role bonus. Like say... 15% bonus to drone control range or maybe stasis webifier velocity.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#357 - 2012-09-30 14:52:32 UTC
Alternate Amarr Destroyer Concept:

Keep the drone bonus.
Increase the nuet/nos range bonus to 40% per level. **** the sentinel. P
Decrease the high slots to 3 or 4. Give it the option of three unbonused turrets.
Keep mid slots at 2.
Increase low slots to 6 or 7.
Keep the recharge role bonus.

Thoughts- the Coercer will have heavy DPS covered. Give the tank aficionados something to sink their teeth into and play fully into the concept you had for this destroyer.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#358 - 2012-09-30 14:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Fight will be over before Gank Gallente Dessie's hobgoblins can apply their "supplemental" 150 dps.

Edit: This ship needs tank since it can't control range and needs time for drones to apply dps. Will try to come up with something.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#359 - 2012-09-30 15:36:43 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Fight will be over before Gank Gallente Dessie's hobgoblins can apply their "supplemental" 150 dps.

Edit: This ship needs tank since it can't control range and needs time for drones to apply dps. Will try to come up with something.


5-3-4 with 5 turrets is my suggestion.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#360 - 2012-09-30 16:08:37 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Alternate Amarr Destroyer Concept:

Keep the drone bonus.
Increase the nuet/nos range bonus to 40% per level. **** the sentinel. P
Decrease the high slots to 3 or 4. Give it the option of three unbonused turrets.
Keep mid slots at 2.
Increase low slots to 6 or 7.
Keep the recharge role bonus.

Thoughts- the Coercer will have heavy DPS covered. Give the tank aficionados something to sink their teeth into and play fully into the concept you had for this destroyer.

Yeah the neuting focus ..
40%/lvl
4-2-6
Let cap be the limiting factor when it comes to neuting, sacrifice tank or second mid to run more than two neuts.
Keep the 3/3 unbonused gun/launcher.
Swap cap charge bonus for a "soft" drone bonus like optimal range or tracking.
And again, what the hell is 75m3 bay to be used for? Filling it costs as much as fitting a Coercer and chances are you or enemy wont make it beyond two flights maximum if that .. as wasted a stat as the cap bonus on the current Maller Big smile.
X Gallentius wrote:
Fight will be over before Gank Gallente Dessie's hobgoblins can apply their "supplemental" 150 dps.

Edit: This ship needs tank since it can't control range and needs time for drones to apply dps. Will try to come up with something.

That is the problem all drone carriers face on the small scale, everything can track/lock them and fights are so ferocious that one has 20-30s to make ones contribution. Zarnaks suggestion of 5-3-4 with five guns should give it the necessary oomph.

By the way, why does the missile spewers have one slot more than the drone boats. Missiles on the small scale are fully up to par with guns so the result is merely to make them OP from the get go like the 8 launcher caldari has been theorized to be.