These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

[Idea] Gunships (T2 Destroyers)

Author
AnimeHeretic
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2013-10-31 06:22:24 UTC  |  Edited by: AnimeHeretic
Ok so we have interdictors, which have their role as bubblers. But something Ive always wanted to do is be an ANTI bubbler. A T2 ship specialized in killed fast tackle and dictors. Since destroyers use small guns they would be good for a role like this. A few things. Since it would be geared towards fleet defense, this ship would be a bit slow for its class, but with high agility. This should keep it with the fleet instead of being used as tackle or in solo pvp. On the flip side it would be very hardy for such a small ship. It would also have very high tracking and optimal for hiting fast targets, and high scan res for locking them quickly. DPS would be a bit low. But you dont need much to kill fast tackle anyway. And the icing on the cake. The Quantum Singularity Projector! Basicly a Web on steroids that only effects small ships.

I made an example ship below. Go easy on me. Please explain if this is op/up and how it could be improved. Enjoy!



Name: Apostle
Hull: Dragoon
Role: Gunship

Expanding on a destroyers role as anti-frigate platforms, gunships represent the ultimate in point defense and frigate screening for large fleet operations. Sporting incredibly advanced tracking and targeting mainframes, they are purpose built to bring to a halt, and then annihilate fast enemies. Equipped with the final word in propulsion jamming systems, the Quantum Singularity Projector, no target is out of reach for this hardy defenders.

Developer: Carthum Conglomerate

Carthum ships are the very embodiment of the Amarrian warfare philosophy. Possessing sturdy armor and advanced weapon system they provide a nice mix of offense and defense.

Amarr Destroyer Skill Bonus:
10% bonus to Small Energy Turret Cap Use per level.
4% bonus to All Armor Resists per level.

Gunships Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage per level.
10% bonus to range of Quantum Singularity Projectors per level.

Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Small Energy Turret tracking and optimal range per level.

Can fit Quantum Singularity Projectors

Slot layout: 6H, 3M, 4L : 4 Turrets
Fittings: 70 PWG, 200 CPU
Defense (shields/armor/hull): 800/1300/900
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0/20/70/87.5
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50/35/62.5/80
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s): 850/300/bad at math
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210/bad at math/bad at math/4.5
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km/750/7
Sensor strength: 15 Radar
Signature radius: 85



Quantum Singularity Projector
High slot
Would deactivate all prop mods (AB/MWD/MJD/Jump drives)
Suffers stacking penalty with webs
30km Base range. 45km with max Gunships skill from hull
5 sec duration
Me ofcourse
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2013-10-31 07:16:36 UTC
so....it's supposed to be a destroyer, but with the tank of a cruiser? tracking which is able to hit an atom on a fly. the quantum singularity projector kinda half half on that idea, its good for counter frigs (which is what im guessing that's what it's meant for) but something which turns off AB's/MWD's + slows down the target by 60%. it should be one or the other, not both imo.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2013-10-31 10:52:38 UTC
...Isn't this an assault frigate with a dumb, overpowered ewar mod?
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2013-10-31 11:01:29 UTC
don't like it....
Mascha Tzash
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-10-31 12:02:08 UTC
On the on hand I would really like to see a thing like a heavy assault destroyer or something like a small variant of the command ships with all its pros and cons.

On the other hand it could be usefull to propose one thing at a time. Currently, dear OP, you are suggesting two things. A new ship and a new module, which is in my eyes clearly too strong. From my perspective the ship itself would need some real downsides, like slow warp acceleration and/or a paperthin tank to make it viable in combat.

Perhaps you create two threads for this and propose every module/ship in its own thread.

fly safe
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-10-31 12:12:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
I.. uhm...

I wanted to say something witty. Guess it'll have to wait until all that caffeein kicks in.

Until then, I want the explo radius bonus of CNR also aply to all missiles, not just torps and cruises.

That's all.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2013-10-31 13:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Bischopt
Please just come up with the ideas. Leave all the details, lore and exact stats to CCP.

edit: it's way overpowered.
Psychoactive Stimulant
#8 - 2013-10-31 14:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Psychoactive Stimulant
Lol, 10% range per level... but somehow 20km becomes 40???

Lrn 2 math.

Also, you forgot the drone bay and bonuses to ewar drones.
Residium Fall
Doomheim
#9 - 2013-10-31 14:57:18 UTC
Please, won't somebody think of the balance?
Qweasdy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-10-31 15:40:56 UTC
basically this is just straight overpowered, the stats you link there shows a destroyer with T2 resists + resist bonus + 5 low slots. wut? 90% resists anyone? not to mention it can hit as far as a cruiser and even with no damage bonus it has 6 turrets so it hits pretty hard with phenomenal tracking. Can anyone think of a stiuation where a ship like this would be at a disadvantage? I can only think of a few and they involve nados at 100km.

The module is also pretty op

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#11 - 2013-10-31 15:45:09 UTC
Residium Fall wrote:
Please, won't somebody think of the balance?

Pfffft.... who cares about balance? It gets in the way of the idea man!!
Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#12 - 2013-10-31 16:10:24 UTC
Conceptually, this is something I support. The inability to use the QSP on anything larger than a destroyer is a nice touch, else you'd see these things as they new webbing ship of choice for wormhole escalations or freighter boosting.

The stats, as presented, are definitely not great. I'd recommend an average split of 4/4 turret/utility slot and a tank at least as thin as those of the ships it's designed to be a hard counter to. It should be relatively speedy and agile, but not so much it outclasses Inties/AFs. The QSP should either have the flat -60% to speed, or the prop mod disabling, not both

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave

AnimeHeretic
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2013-10-31 17:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: AnimeHeretic
I'm not sure why half of you are so hostile towards everybody on these forums. But w/e

Changed slot layout by removing a low and adding a mid. Decreased armor HP significantly. This should keep the tank from being OP. It is a destroyer after all, and the sig radius means its much easier to hit and kill than an AF, with about the same EHP

Removed velocity reduction from the QSP. Increased range a bit to compensate.

The QSP would be only usuable on this ship. WHy would i make a seperate thread?

How about now?

Please give me some sort of contructive feedback to make a better idea instead of posting "lol op"



EDIT: Changed agility bonus to small energy turret damage

removed two turrets and 1 highslot
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#14 - 2013-10-31 17:55:55 UTC
That module should be for battleships, nothing else should be able to handle the cap drain of the module.

Plus battleships need more roles and ability to defend themselves.

And these days destroyers can tear up anything larger or smaller than them, especially in a small fleet.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#15 - 2013-10-31 19:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Quote:
Please give me some sort of contructive feedback to make a better idea instead of posting "lol op"

Okay... I'll be constructive.

Why is this needed?

Destroyers (Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants) are already VERY good at mulching frigates... provided they can catch them... which is the point behind destroyer and frigate designs.

Frigates may be fast and furious... but they wont stand up very well to a stiff enough tank and/or wall of high-tracking firepower... which is what current destroyers provide.


And then there is your conceptually overpowered module that effectively leaves frigates as sitting ducks (because speed and being hard to catch IS their tank). Why is this needed?
AnimeHeretic
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2013-10-31 20:37:16 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Quote:
Please give me some sort of contructive feedback to make a better idea instead of posting "lol op"

Okay... I'll be constructive.

Why is this needed?

Destroyers (Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants) are already VERY good at mulching frigates... provided they can catch them... which is the point behind destroyer and frigate designs.

Frigates may be fast and furious... but they wont stand up very well to a stiff enough tank and/or wall of high-tracking firepower... which is what current destroyers provide.


And then there is your conceptually overpowered module that effectively leaves frigates as sitting ducks (because speed and being hard to catch IS their tank). Why is this needed?




Try to take on an AF or two with a destroyer, and then tell me you won. destroyer have a tank as thin as a SB. The IDEA (its jsut an idea, i dont know if its needed or not) was to make a counter to a large group of fast tackle (AF, interceptors, dictors).

Something that can take them off the field fast before they cause problems, like bubbles. It would ahve the optimal and tracking to hit something quick, and a module to make sure it can catch it. But would of course still die quickly to concentrated DPS, jsut not quite as fat as a t1 destroyer.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#17 - 2013-10-31 21:09:32 UTC
Wait...I thought the Tier 1 desis were gunships....




Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2013-10-31 21:33:31 UTC
AnimeHeretic wrote:
I'm not sure why half of you are so hostile towards everybody on these forums. But w/e

Changed slot layout by removing a low and adding a mid. Decreased armor HP significantly. This should keep the tank from being OP. It is a destroyer after all, and the sig radius means its much easier to hit and kill than an AF, with about the same EHP

Removed velocity reduction from the QSP. Increased range a bit to compensate.

The QSP would be only usuable on this ship. WHy would i make a seperate thread?

How about now?

Please give me some sort of contructive feedback to make a better idea instead of posting "lol op"



EDIT: Changed agility bonus to small energy turret damage

removed two turrets and 1 highslot


You're rebalancing the ship now? That is very much unnecessary. Even if CCP liked this idea they would NOT just use these stats you've come up with. It's not your job to create the ship(s).
You're not CCP Rise, CCP Fozzie or any other CCP employee as far as we know. Just stop taking the example so far.

AnimeHeretic wrote:
Try to take on an AF or two with a destroyer, and then tell me you won. destroyer have a tank as thin as a SB. The IDEA (its jsut an idea, i dont know if its needed or not) was to make a counter to a large group of fast tackle (AF, interceptors, dictors).

Something that can take them off the field fast before they cause problems, like bubbles. It would ahve the optimal and tracking to hit something quick, and a module to make sure it can catch it. But would of course still die quickly to concentrated DPS, jsut not quite as fat as a t1 destroyer.


Destroyers are supposed to be anti-frigate platforms, which they are. Artillery thrashers can take out interceptors and some t1 frigates in 1-2 volleys. Close range destroyers can easily do several hundred dps. It's true that destroyers are generally poorly tanked but they have decent base hp. A destroyer and an AF can have a good slugfest and it's difficult to predict who's going to be victorious.

What you're proposing here is some kind of super destroyer that can easily pwn any frigate out there. If these things were implemented, frigate pilots might as well just quit and go play something else.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#19 - 2013-10-31 21:40:13 UTC
What kind of destroyer fits are you using that have a weaker tank than an Assault Frig? (excluding kiting ones) And if you are lacking that sort of tank you should be able to hit farther, harder, be faster, or some combination of the three.


And i regularly deal with both Assault Frigates and Destroyers. 1 on 1 a destroyer will usually kill an AF (and outright murder any T1 frig in range).
Liesje Allister
Doomheim
#20 - 2013-10-31 21:41:41 UTC
no.


I prefered the idea of T2 destroyers with new retribution hulls as "light" command ships.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=284733&find=unread
12Next page