These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#401 - 2012-10-01 19:56:58 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Oh hey look, another Amarr ship with turret slots that nobody in their right mind is going to use for lasers.

IMO just take the turret slots off entirely. If I see another Amarr ship with projectiles I'm going to vomit.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#402 - 2012-10-01 21:05:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
While the idea of making these destroyers more combat class than attack class has some merit, I think I should remind everyone that destroyers are by their most basic nature attack craft.

Sure, you could put tanking bonuses on them but due to their size, speed, number of slots, and other factors at best you would end up with a destroyer that had gimped damage and MIGHT last for one more volley in anything but a full on gank (on the destroyers side) situation.

Destroyers are always called primary in any fight they are likely to be involved in, and for good reason. They are quick to kill and their death removes a significant portion of the damage available to your opponent.

Even with tanking bonuses this would not change, or even be significantly delayed.

There are reasons why by far the most common fits you find on destroyers used regularly in combat by their pilots tend to be very inexpensive. The only time you see T2 or expensive faction fits on a destroyer is if the pilot is either

A: New to destroyers.
B: An experienced pilot that will only be flying it in 1 vs 1 or gank only situations.

In any other situation you are simply throwing your ISK away, as (with rare exception) that destroyer WILL die.

To give destroyers bonuses that would actually allow them a reasonable chance of survival in a typical encounter you would have to give them defensive bonuses that pushed well into the territory of T2 vessels, and I do not think that is a wise course.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#403 - 2012-10-01 21:15:39 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
While the idea of making these destroyers more combat class than attack class has some merit, I think I should remind everyone that destroyers are by the most basic nature attack craft.

Sure, you could put tanking bonuses on them but due to their size, speed, number of slots, and other factors at best you would end up with a destroyer that had gimped damage and MIGHT last for one more volley in anything but a full on gank (on the destroyers side) situation.

Destroyers are always called primary in any fight they are likely to be involved in, and for good reason. They are quick to kill and their death removes a significant portion of the damage available to your opponent.

Even with tanking bonuses this would not change, or even be significantly delayed.

There are reasons why by far the most common fits you find on destroyers used regularly in combat by their pilots tend to be very inexpensive. The only time you see T2 or expensive faction fits on a destroyer is if the pilot is either

A: New to destroyers.
B: An experienced pilot that will only be flying it in 1 vs 1 or gank only situations.

In any other situation you are simply throwing your ISK away, as (with rare exception) that destroyer WILL die.

To give destroyers bonuses that would actually allow them a reasonable chance of survival in a typical encounter you would have to give them defensive bonuses that pushed well into the territory of T2 vessels, and I do not think that is a wise course.


mm.. they sound like expensive pinatas :P sig radius drop anyone?

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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#404 - 2012-10-01 21:48:41 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
While the idea of making these destroyers more combat class than attack class has some merit, I think I should remind everyone that destroyers are by the most basic nature attack craft.

Sure, you could put tanking bonuses on them but due to their size, speed, number of slots, and other factors at best you would end up with a destroyer that had gimped damage and MIGHT last for one more volley in anything but a full on gank (on the destroyers side) situation.

Destroyers are always called primary in any fight they are likely to be involved in, and for good reason. They are quick to kill and their death removes a significant portion of the damage available to your opponent.

Even with tanking bonuses this would not change, or even be significantly delayed.

There are reasons why by far the most common fits you find on destroyers used regularly in combat by their pilots tend to be very inexpensive. The only time you see T2 or expensive faction fits on a destroyer is if the pilot is either

A: New to destroyers.
B: An experienced pilot that will only be flying it in 1 vs 1 or gank only situations.

In any other situation you are simply throwing your ISK away, as (with rare exception) that destroyer WILL die.

To give destroyers bonuses that would actually allow them a reasonable chance of survival in a typical encounter you would have to give them defensive bonuses that pushed well into the territory of T2 vessels, and I do not think that is a wise course.


mm.. they sound like expensive pinatas :P sig radius drop anyone?


No, more like inexpensive pinatas with a lot of firepower... unless you get silly with the fittings. THEN they are an expensive pinata.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#405 - 2012-10-01 22:55:22 UTC
Gallente Destroyer

I feel it will be a better Brawler than the Cat with the cat better for mid to long range. Something like this fits I think although it has an empty high.

[Gallente Destroyer, Drone]

Internal Force Field Array I
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
[empty High slot]
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S

Small Anti-Explosive Pump I
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Processor Overclocking Unit I


Hobgoblin II x5
Warrior II x5


5 x Hob II’s with one damage Mod = 183dps
4 x Ions Void with 5% damage bonus one magstab = 262dps (rails may be more viable but the CPU is very limiting)
Total = 445dps

It is going to be very difficult to significantly increase the drone dps, so this ship will always be a split Hybrid/ Drone platform. This may make it the better brawler than the Cat as it has three mids for range control, drones are best used close up and with a tackled target Hobs can be used, utility highs for neuts and still has a fall back of throwing out a flight of warriors if there is any kity TD nonsense. This is something the Cat cannot do; a blaster cat caught and not able to apply dps dies very easily. Yet the Cat has good mid range DPS with rail, has instant damage application and is faster.

I guess I would like more CPU, havn’t even come close to fitting a drone rig or upgrade and it will be very difficult to fit both utility highs. Enough CPU powergrid for that high or move it to a low at least it can have a mod with zero CPU or be used to boost CPU.
Doddy
Excidium.
#406 - 2012-10-01 23:16:47 UTC
I am looking forward the t2 versions tbh, t2 destroyers specialised in killing things would be nice ....
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#407 - 2012-10-01 23:26:26 UTC
Doddy wrote:
I am looking forward the t2 versions tbh, t2 destroyers specialised in killing things would be nice ....

They first have to make the T1s usable, then bat around T2.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Victor Gallows
Doomheim
#408 - 2012-10-02 01:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Victor Gallows
I'm a new player... I want to like Amarr ships, I really do. But, they're always so indecisive in their design. Here we have 2 secondary weapon systems being thrown at the player again: missiles and drones. Can we pick one please, so that if I roll an Amarr alt, I'll know which to train?

Destroyers are supposed to be the second class of ship the player gets into, correct? Why the wishy-washy design in the weapon slots then? This reminds me of the Arbitrator: is it an ewar ship? a drone boat? And, what am I supposed to do with those highs if I trained lasers? The Vexor, being similar and better doesn't have this ambiguity, it's a drone boat with hybrids as it's secondary weapon; that is easy to see and work with.

Now look at the bonuses, and like the guy said a few posts back, "here we are with projectiles on an Amarr ship again." Also, neuts? With drones and missiles? And, possibly artillery because nothing else would match up... My god, do you even see the schizophrenia in this design? It looks like an ugly ducking you should pick ANY other destroyer over until you have 20 million SP and can equip something useful in every slot.

How about 6H, 5T and a laser optimal bonus or something? Want to keep the ewar? Then have a laser OR ewar bonus kick in depending on how many of -type- are equipped in the high slots. Please give it a focus of some kind, I don't care what, as long as it has one.

Note: When you redesigned the Tormentor I was able to understand that ship instantly. 4H, 3T, 2 Drones with good speed and a fairly long targeting range for a frigate. It's a kiting ship, drones + link augmenter and beams.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#409 - 2012-10-02 01:16:01 UTC
Victor Gallows wrote:
I'm a new player... I want to like Amarr ships, I really do. But, they're always so indecisive in their design. Here we have 2 secondary weapon systems being thrown at the player again: missiles and drones. Can we pick one please, so that if I roll an Amarr alt, I'll know which to train?

Destroyers are supposed to be the second class of ship the player gets into, correct? Why the wishy-washy design in the weapon slots then? This reminds me of the Arbitrator: is it an ewar ship? a drone boat? And, what am I supposed to do with those highs if I trained lasers? The Vexor, being similar and better doesn't have this ambiguity, it's a drone boat with hybrids as it's secondary weapon; that is easy to see and work with.

Now look at the bonuses, and like the guy said a few posts back, "here we are with projectiles on an Amarr ship again." Also, neuts? With drones and missiles? And, possibly artillery because nothing else would match up... My god, do you even see the schizophrenia in this design? It looks like an ugly ducking you should pick ANY other destroyer over until you have 20 million SP and can equip something useful in every slot.

How about 6H, 5T and a laser cap bonus or something? Want to keep the ewar? Then have a laser OR ewar bonus kick in depending on how many of -type- are equipped in the high slots. Please give it a focus of some kind, I don't care what, as long as it has one.

Note: When you redesigned the Tormentor I was able to understand that ship instantly. 4H, 3T, 2 Drones with good speed and a fairly long targeting range for a frigate. It's a kiting ship, drones + link augmenter and beams.



Or you know, you could use your head?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Victor Gallows
Doomheim
#410 - 2012-10-02 01:21:54 UTC
Quote:
Or you know, you could use your head?


Yea I did... And this is what I came up with: Can't fit it out without all kinds of tertiary training in things even the game tells you Amarr isn't focused on.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#411 - 2012-10-02 01:36:55 UTC
You don't just go around badmouthing the Arbitrator in these parts, mister. Cool
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#412 - 2012-10-02 01:44:46 UTC
Drone boats as destroyers only have so many ways they can go. You will get between 121 and 206 DPS depending on what type you use and how many DDA's you put on your boat. That DPS is delayed as well. Compared to the 300 - 600 DPS many of the original destroyers can throw up - that's not a whole lot. So you have to add something to the pot for balance.

The first is to allow the destroyer to field drones a size up - Valkeries or Hammerheads.
The second is to add a wild card - such as the nos bonus being proposed for Amarr.
And lastly you make it a mixed weapon platform. This is the route they went with Gallente.

And the drone destroyers will need to be able to tank a bit more then the old destroyers if they want to stay on the field long enough to apply their damage.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#413 - 2012-10-02 04:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Drone boats as destroyers only have so many ways they can go. You will get between 121 and 206 DPS depending on what type you use and how many DDA's you put on your boat. That DPS is delayed as well. Compared to the 300 - 600 DPS many of the original destroyers can throw up - that's not a whole lot. So you have to add something to the pot for balance.

The first is to allow the destroyer to field drones a size up - Valkeries or Hammerheads.
The second is to add a wild card - such as the nos bonus being proposed for Amarr.
And lastly you make it a mixed weapon platform. This is the route they went with Gallente.

And the drone destroyers will need to be able to tank a bit more then the old destroyers if they want to stay on the field long enough to apply their damage.


Another option in line with the devs stated purpose of the ship:

Gallente are always about raw firepower, that's why this ship has double drone damage bonuses to achieve its goals. While the drone damage may appear excessive, remember that drone damage is delayed and is often not applied by glass cannon ships like high sig radius Gallente destroyers with no adequatee defensive capabilities. On the downside, it has a limited dronebay next to the Amarr version, making it more difficult to replace lost drones - but this won't matter because somebody is gonna die before its drones are shot.

+10% to drone damage and HP per level
+5% drone speed and tracking per level
Role bonus:
+50% drone damage bonus

How about that? 223 drone damage without drone damage augmentors, 377+ dps (or so) when fit for total gank (3x drone damage augmentors). I'm sure CCP can remove another high slot and decrease its speed to further balance this ship.
Luc Chastot
#414 - 2012-10-02 06:00:05 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
How about that? 223 drone damage without drone damage augmentors, 377+ dps (or so) when fit for total gank (3x drone damage augmentors). I'm sure CCP can remove another high slot and decrease its speed to further balance this ship.


I would remove one hardpoint and move 2 highs to lows. I like the bonuses, though, but am a bit afraid +100% to drone damage at Destroyers 5 would be a bit too much. Another idea could be this:

Ship bonuses:
+10% to drone speed and tracking
+5% to drone hp and mwd
Role bonus:
+50% drone damage
Slot layout: 5 H, 3 M, 4 L, 4 turrets
Fittings: 52 PWG, 170 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 850 / 950
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 550 / 350s / 1.57s
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240 / 2.45 / 1800000 / 4.46s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 40 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 48km / 450 / 7
Sensor strength: 11 magnetometric
Signature radius: 72
Cargo capacity: 350

The thinking behind this is that new players won't have to train Drones 5 to get the best (sort of) from the ship bonuses. The decreased hp kind of balances the increased speed, specially considering this is supposed to field a group of 4 meds. +20% to mwd speed (with dessy 4) will give meds quite a boost and decrease the delay of applied dps, but also make smalls outrun their targets, transforming them in a less viable alternative (unless you use goblins, in which case I think they would be ok). More tracking means more hits, which helps a lot with meds against small targets. For new players this would be a great little mission boat.

Now, for older players who have good drone skills and Destroyers 5, such configuration would allow for the fielding of 3 Valkyrie IIs and 2 Hobgoblin IIs --which I think is quite an awesome configuration-- with the added bonuses. All the other changes are meant to encourage rails over blasters (and I know Gallente is all about blasters, but CCP could change the Catalyst to be a serious blaster boat only by changing the optimal bonus for a falloff one).

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

Alara IonStorm
#415 - 2012-10-02 06:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
From the Combat Frig Thread.

Alara IonStorm wrote:
A lot of people are talking about how the Tristan has to long an uphill train time for newer players while others are countering that this makes a good drone ship for them to train on. CCP seem to be adding more drone coverage for their Frigate lineup in general as well.

I propose that they change the way drones are skilled without changing the time they are skilled in effect leaving drones the same as before with completed training but like turret weapons and missile launchers workable at lower SP.

Example.

Drone Skill allows the launch of 5 combat drones at Lvl 1. Each level of Drone Skill trained gives 20% increase in Drone Damage. Each Lvl of Drone Interfacing gives 10% per Lvl to Drone Damage. Base Drone stats are adjusted so the combined total achieved overall is the same as current.

Secondly introduce 1 Meta lvl Drone per race with stats that are roughly an "in between" of T1 and 2.

Hobgoblin 1 : ****
Meta Lvl Hob: ******
Hobgoblin 2 : ********

This would allow quicker entry into usable Drones with the same amount of time invested for refinement.

Making Drones take less time to skill into and the same amount of time to max out will help new players use these newer smaller drone boats with a good level of effectiveness without taking to much time out of Core Skills Training or reducing overall training time.
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#416 - 2012-10-02 07:33:13 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Hazen Koraka wrote:

Edit: Ooh just noticed the PG on these ships though? 8 light missile launchers and you've used up all the base powergrid? o_O



CCP Fozzie wrote:
-Decrease all Light Missile Launcher fitting requirements by 2pg and 4cpu


Yeah just read this, this morning, yay! :) Should make fitting these much more viable now.

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#417 - 2012-10-02 07:51:52 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
How about that? 223 drone damage without drone damage augmentors, 377+ dps (or so) when fit for total gank (3x drone damage augmentors). I'm sure CCP can remove another high slot and decrease its speed to further balance this ship.


I would remove one hardpoint and move 2 highs to lows. I like the bonuses, though, but am a bit afraid +100% to drone damage at Destroyers 5 would be a bit too much. .
The dps is low compared to other ranged dessies and the applied damage over time for drones is less than other weapon systems as well.

Long range coercer is going to be able to pump about 1800 damage before your drones apply any dps, and then the drones will only be applying a marginal amount more damage with these proposed bonuses. Say an average destroyer has 6k EHP.

300 dps = 20 seconds until death. Your drones have spent 6 seconds getting to target (30% of the fight.) Your drone destroyer needs to put out at least 1/3rd more dps than the opponent if you expect to win - assuming your drone decides to actually attack the opponent for those 14 seconds instead of deciding to quit the attack while turning its mwd off and on.



Luc Chastot
#418 - 2012-10-02 08:34:36 UTC
Yes, but this is assuming you rely only in your drones to project your dps. With 4 125mm rails and spike you would be looking at something close to 420+ dps after the first 6 seconds and around 40+ dps during that time. All of this at point range, of course.

I know those numbers make the total marginally higher than 6k hp, but this means you will need slightly less than 20 seconds to win.

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

Luna Navita
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#419 - 2012-10-02 09:06:02 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
the gal drone ship i want to see

GALLENTE DESTROYER:

Ship bonuses:
+10% to drone damage and HP per level
+1 max active drone per level
Role bonus:
+50% small hybrid turret optimal range
Slot layout: 5H, 3 M, 4 L, 4 turrets
Fittings: 60 PWG, 150 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 850 / 950
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 550 / 350s / 1.57s
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240 / 2.45 / 1800000 / 4.46s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 42km / 500 / 7
Sensor strength: 11 magnetometric
Signature radius: 72
Cargo capacity: 350


This will be a TRUE DRONE boat!
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2012-10-02 09:16:37 UTC
Luna Navita wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
the gal drone ship i want to see

GALLENTE DESTROYER:

Ship bonuses:
+10% to drone damage and HP per level
+1 max active drone per level
Role bonus:
+50% small hybrid turret optimal range
Slot layout: 5H, 3 M, 4 L, 4 turrets
Fittings: 60 PWG, 150 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 850 / 950
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 550 / 350s / 1.57s
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240 / 2.45 / 1800000 / 4.46s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 42km / 500 / 7
Sensor strength: 11 magnetometric
Signature radius: 72
Cargo capacity: 350


This will be a TRUE DRONE boat!


Think the bandwidth may need adjusting if you really want to propose that.