These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Navy Destroyers or T2 combat destroyers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#21 - 2013-06-12 14:32:30 UTC
please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls.
Tehyarec
Silverleaf Foundation
#22 - 2013-06-13 00:41:24 UTC
A sexy navy-colored Catalyst would be awesome. Finally got a sexy Navy Brutix, so now just need the dessie.

Robert Caldera wrote:
please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls.

Considering the MUCH higher price of the Navy hulls, I don't see that as a big deal at all. Most people will still pick the regular version for PVP purposes. And for PVE... well, what use does a destroyer have beyond level 2 missions that you outgrow on your first week of playing anyway?
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-06-13 00:53:08 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Don't let T2 destroyers fit command links. You can let them boost the effect of trained leadership skills, but letting them even touch a command link immediately begins to heavily devalue Command Ships and T3s.


Actually it wouldn't, not if you allowed countervailing penalties such as a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of warfare link modules on destroyers due to the undersized power grid.

Robert Caldera wrote:
please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls.


Navy ships seem to generally be 75% better than T1 versions at most and cost anywhere from 3x to 80x the price. I'm not really sure how this devalues them at all, especially not given that the higher price tag of navy ships can, and often does, increase the value of T1 ships, in comparison, for new players and PvP'ers.
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
#24 - 2013-06-13 16:03:32 UTC
More competition on faction LP is a good thing.

It would also be a new dynamic to anti-tackle as the current desties are rarely used outside FW
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#25 - 2013-06-13 16:28:10 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
Roseline Penshar wrote:
why no voice for pirate faction destroyer?


Cause no-one wants a 800DPS shadow serpents catalyst with 90% webs!!!


Just petitioned to change my name to no-one.Big smile

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#26 - 2013-06-13 17:05:05 UTC
i would love to see faction navy dessies that are combat based.

that and tech III dessies...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Sabre Rolf
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-06-14 10:28:12 UTC

Do you have any usefull role for a faction destroyer that isn't fille by a another ship-class already?

just because there is no faction variant of a certain ship class, is not a valid reason why there should be one. We certainly don`t need more or evne better frig killers as there are plenty of those.
Bakuhz
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2013-06-14 10:58:38 UTC
Azula Kishtar wrote:
I support this.

I guess Navy Destroyers are only logical now and it is probably only a question of when we get them. The new racial skills and the introduction of Navy BCs pretty much paved the way for them.

I would prefer the original Turret Destroyers to get Navy hulls, though that would mean the old hulls are used for three ships each, which might be seen as visually boring. I really want a Navy Coercer with even more DPS at even better range though :)

In the case of T2 Destroyers, i first want to see the rebalance of Interdictors and other T2 ships. Dictors are not specialized for raw combat, but at least the Sabre actually does have some benefits (but also some drawbacks, as it should be) over the regular Thrasher in pure combat. I'd like to see that happening with the others as well.

If we then see we still have some role to fill with new T2 Destroyers, then sure, why not.


i completely support your point first rebalance all the tech II lines before adding more faction ships
they cost quite a buck and worthless to insure but thats tech II i dont mind that
but that rebalance is the first thing ccp has to lay focus on

fozzie said in an interview they are looking for new ships to release in the winter expansion and moar is better diverse choices to support your style of combat is a good thing but the main priority is updating tech II Frigates, Destroyers & Cruisers.

https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/
Alpha Taredi
Multispace Technologies Inc
#29 - 2013-06-14 11:12:14 UTC
eh, we have too many ships as it is. t3 battleships i could see because the gap to capital ships is huge.
Sabre Rolf
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-06-14 11:54:24 UTC
Alpha Taredi wrote:
eh, we have too many ships as it is. t3 battleships i could see because the gap to capital ships is huge.


pretty sure Fozzy answered the question at FF about T3 BS with a "no no"
Leslie Chow
Perkone
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-06-14 17:24:38 UTC
Allandri wrote:
The Tech II version of the new destroyers could be destroyer leaders, with emphasis on bonuses to leadership skills.

T2 Algos = 5% to Information Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
T2 Corax = 5% to Siege Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
T2 Dragoon = 5% to Armored Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
T2 Talwar = 5% to Skirmish Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster

or

T2 Algos = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need
T2 Corax = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need
T2 Dragoon = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need
T2 Talwar = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need


+1 to this. Would provide small ship gangs small bonuses. Can't see it being overpowered.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-06-14 17:32:03 UTC
Leslie Chow wrote:
Allandri wrote:
The Tech II version of the new destroyers could be destroyer leaders, with emphasis on bonuses to leadership skills.

T2 Algos = 5% to Information Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
T2 Corax = 5% to Siege Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
T2 Dragoon = 5% to Armored Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
T2 Talwar = 5% to Skirmish Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster

or

T2 Algos = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need
T2 Corax = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need
T2 Dragoon = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need
T2 Talwar = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need


+1 to this. Would provide small ship gangs small bonuses. Can't see it being overpowered.


Dessies get killed too easy for links too be worth the price..

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Gareth Burns
GeoCorp.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2013-06-14 17:42:48 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:

Coercer Navy Issue: Laser Kite


Flying a Laser Kite sounds dangerous...

Noblesse Oblige ► Gareth Burns
Giovanni Ursula
Low Tax Hedge Funds
#34 - 2013-06-14 18:45:08 UTC
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Interdictor balancing.
Leslie Chow
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-06-14 21:51:24 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls.


Actually it doesn't. Most people get there Navy Ships in Hisec from the store with LP. Therefore 1 t1 hull must be built and purchased to create it.
Previous page12