These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Gameplay Center » Wormholes » Tech 3 destroyerness (D3's)

Topic is locked indefinitely.

Tech 3 destroyerness (D3's)
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

University of Caille Gallente Federation 2,269
Rek Seven University of Caille Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,269	#41 - 2014-10-21 05:12:25 UTC \| Edited by: Rek Seven I'd take a 20% nerf to the hitpoint defence subsystems for the ability to change roles mid flight. Throw in a little more pg for my alpha loki and the a sub that lets cruisers through frig holes and i'd be a happy man. Unfortunately when you throw Fozzi into the mix, things could go either way. The wishlist is pretty much complete...

Ministry of War Amarr Empire 164
Faren Shalni Ministry of War Amarr Empire Likes received: 164	#42 - 2014-10-21 08:07:04 UTC Its probs will be fozzie who will look at the jump changes and how well they are received then balance T3's according to null sec instead of W-space. Watch as the T3 becomes the most worthless ship in the game all because one guy doesn't give a dam about w-space So Much Space

Winthorp

Likes received: 3,875

#43 - 2014-10-21 08:15:28 UTC

Faren Shalni wrote:

Its probs will be fozzie who will look at the jump changes and how well they are received then balance T3's according to null sec instead of W-space.

Watch as the T3 becomes the most worthless ship in the game all because one guy doesn't give a dam about w-space

This is prob an excessive over-reaction. I have listened to Fozie discuss T3's before and he made me excited for a possible rebalance. But i do hope the T3 destroyers are not a test platform for T3 cruisers as this way forward was never spoken about and would be a simplistic development path for them and not a good outlook.

Mea Culpa. Shadow Cartel 330
King Fu Hostile Mea Culpa. Shadow Cartel Likes received: 330	#44 - 2014-10-21 08:41:31 UTC T3 cruiser rebalance: - remove rigslots - give love to the unused subs (those without any direct bonuses, small range bonus to RR subs) - give drone Proteus more cargo bay (to make it possible to carry subs and drones) done


Rek Seven University of Caille Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,269	#45 - 2014-10-21 08:50:55 UTC Why remove rig slots? all you would be doing is making the ship less customisable. It would be better it T3 ships had the ability to remove rigs without destroying them... Maybe have a separate rig and sup system bay. The wishlist is pretty much complete...

Phoenix Jones

Small-Arms Fire

Likes received: 1,637

#46 - 2014-10-21 11:06:30 UTC

Rek Seven wrote:

Why remove rig slots? all you would be doing is making the ship less customisable. It would be better it T3 ships had the ability to remove rigs without destroying them... Maybe have a separate rig and sup system bay.

The idea's been bounced around, whether to allow them to remove rigs and swap stuff, or just remove rigs altogether because they don't allow you the freedom to modify your ship as needed.

Yaay!!!!

King Fu Hostile

Mea Culpa.

Shadow Cartel

Likes received: 330

#47 - 2014-10-21 11:23:07 UTC

Rek Seven wrote:

Removing rigs would also bring down the power level of T3s. I appreciate what you are saying about the lost customisation options, but making all the unused subsystems actually worth fitting on a T3 would remedy this to some extent.

Even without rigs, T3s would be considerably more powerful (think tank and gank) than HACs, but not overpowering battleships anymore.

Rek Seven

University of Caille

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,269

#48 - 2014-10-21 11:31:30 UTC | Edited by: Rek Seven

King Fu Hostile wrote:

Rek Seven wrote:

If my jamgu, alpha loki, 11au/second warp speed tengu could talk, they would strongly protest Blink

I understand the theory but it would be a nightmare for CCP to balance T3 cruisers if they removed rigs slots so i doubt it will happen. Either way only time will tell.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...

King Fu Hostile

Mea Culpa.

Shadow Cartel

Likes received: 330

#49 - 2014-10-21 11:54:47 UTC

Yeah, it's been a topic for constant debate since forever, and it seems that CCP is trying to avoid T3 rebalancing as long as they can :D

But I do think that removing rigs would make them easier to balance, less variables.

Then there's also the question of SP loss, currently it's cool mechanic, but I'm not sure if would be appropriate with my suggested rigless T3s.


Winthorp Likes received: 3,875	#50 - 2014-10-21 12:14:49 UTC King Fu Hostile wrote: But I do think that removing rigs would make them easier to balance, less variables. The last CCP Fozzie comment i remember was that he thought it would be good if you could install multiple sets of rigs and change them.... But again we all have to wait for the inevitable.

Rroff

Antagonistic Tendencies

Likes received: 1,155

#51 - 2014-10-22 00:02:01 UTC | Edited by: Rroff

Not a fan of losing rigs, stuff like being able to use a T2 burst aerator rig, etc. and make up the loss of tank, fitting or whatever with implants or more expensive modules and so on is part of what make T3s fun IMO.

I do like the idea of being able to swap between (but not remove without destroying) sets of rigs though.

I guess on the versatility front though it would be a huge amount of effort to develop having 3 custom modes for a t3 that you could toggle between (with cooldown) each with their own set of rigs and sub-systems would be an immense way forward for them - I wouldn't complain too much if these new destroyers were a template for that end goal heh. (Would be hugely complicated with fittings mind).

IMO main changes needed to T3s:

A review of the lesser used or not used for their bonus sub-systems like hardpoint efficiency configuration, tactical targeting network/cpu efficiency gate, etc. and in combination with this look at reusing them to create more opportunities for setups that are a more generalised version of current T2 that aren't covered very well - i.e. the thread about for instance a more generalised guardian could be facilitated through repurposing the tactical targeting network sub-system on the legion.

A review of sub-systems that allow for significantly out of cruiser specification setups and apply more representative levels of penalties for having those bonuses (I'm very much not in the for instance nerf EHP into the ground camp - if for no other reason that viewpoint is too focused at a very specific set of setups and not looking at or even caring about the knock on effect on other setups that savaging those stats would have).

Trinkets friend

Sudden Buggery

Sending Thots And Players

Likes received: 3,048

#52 - 2014-10-22 01:29:53 UTC | Edited by: Trinkets friend

Back on topic, these destroyers have some promise. I however have some concerns in my mind about the mechanics of their "stances"or modes. Like, if you have 3 modes how do you change between them? Rightclick on your capacitor would seem sensible (also, right click for the radial menu) but there's already a million things on the radial and list menus. Or is it a module, like the bastion module, with a cycle time?

The thing is, I'd see this mutability of modes as being fine if you have a cycle time, and you can switch between them only every couple of seconds. Knowing CCP it's either going to be 30s or 60s. This then enforces a certain behaviour on the pilot; if you choose tank mode you get stuck in a tanky, slow moving ship and can be tackled before switching to manoeuvre mode, to move away and tank up again or snipe mode. If your opponent is a BS, well, that then pushes your choices down one particular set of choices, andd if it's a fast frigate it forces you to make a different set of choices.

The usefulness of this whole concept for a large-sig, low-tank destroyer hull will be very much dependent on the length of any cycle time on the module or ship.

I'm awaiting more details like this before really committing to liking or disliking the ships.

As for the ships themselves, well. if they are anywhere near the fitting layout of the current destroyers, they'll be pretty damn useless. There's a reason why you hardly ever see Destroyers in wormholes, and that's the sig radius and tank of them. They just blow up.

They will need, IMO between 25-35K EHP in tank mode, 40-60 sig radius, 300-350 DPS in shoot mode, and mobility in excess of AFs in manouevre mode, if they are going to be useful. DPS will have to be at better ranges, too, for the ONLY dessie which can do anything at any range is the sniper Cormy or the arty thrasher.

I think they'll deploy with 6 highs, 4 turrets/missiles, 2 utilities. One of those highs probably gets devoted to the module for stances (lets call it the Transgender module).

I'd hope the Transgender Module would give several benefits, including;
Shoot mode: +100% damage, tracking/explo velocity, blah blah, +sig, -speed
Tank mode: Hey, mini-bastion resists, -sig, -speed
Move mode: 100% speed, +sig, -tank, -DPS

Eg; 4 x unbonused 200mm ACs + 2 gyros = ~180 DPS, so in shoot mode it would hit 360 DPS
Assuming a base doubling of EHP to 14K, a min-bastion effect would double it to 28K
Doubling the speed would see AB speeds around 2200m/s, and MWD speeds of 4,500-5,500 pre-links. Which is fine for burst speed to tackle ceptors (and, lets just say, a bit wrong in Black Holes)

This is kind of a range of EHP, sig, DPS and speed i'd be comfortable seeing. And let's also talk price - would you pay 100M ISK for that? Yes. 300M? No. A T1 cruiser would whip your ass out of it.

I'm hoping they have more mids and lows than T1 dessies, because there's an overabundance of utility mids in the frigate arena at the moment (eg; damp Condor, TD Slasher, etc) which provide frigates with the ability to solo and kite. But dessies? 2 mids for the Amarr dessies is a joke. Even the Executioner gets more midslot spam than that.

Midslots are lacking. The armour Thrasher is about the only destroyer with utility mids, beside the EWAR Corax, which is created by taking a Corax, fitting absolutely no tank, and turning it into a kiting EWAR jokebird. Which is actually more powerful than any other Corax, because the Coraxx sucks and needs more CPU, PG badly. But it languishes un-buffed for #fozzie reasons.

I would hope that the T3 dessies get 9 slots split between mids and lows. This would see, eg;
Caldari: 5 mids (Prop + Invul + MSE + Point + MSE?), 3 lows (DCU, BCU, BCU)
Gallente: 4 mids (Prop, Tackle, Web, util), 4 lows (Plate, EANM, DCU, DDA or magstab)
Minmatar: 4 mids (prop + MSE + point + invul), 4 lows (DCU, 2 Gyro + TE)
Amarr: 3 mids (Prop + point + injector), 5 lows (Plate + EANM + DCU + Sink + Util)

Will they blow frig holes open to frig-dessie-dictor-HICtor gangs?

I have tried, and failed, to justify bringing any T1 destroyers into wormholes to exploit the frigate holes. They are just too useless.

I won't give away all of our nascent frig hole doctrine, but destroyers are outcompeted in all situations except massed Talwars, or gank W-R suicide Catalysts due to their slow speed, basically frigate-level tanks (less than most AF's) and double frigate sig radius which leaves them as punching bags. They literally take double the inbound damage of all AFs and even pre-HIC rebalance, they get the same anaemic DPS as all the HICs and 10% the tank. You're better off rolling a HIC around than a Dessie.

You have literally NO EWAR capability in the Dessie hull range save for the pathetic Dragoon where the neuting is mediocre and the rest of the ship aa sluggish punching bag of failure, and therefore have no ability to affect your engagement beyond bringing more Dessies, or something else like a fragile EWAR frig. Which, as we know, no one does because it's instantly dead.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~

Faren Shalni

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 164

#53 - 2014-10-22 09:03:49 UTC

Winthorp wrote:

Faren Shalni wrote:

Excessive over reaction maybe but I would rather be surprised by CCP doing something interesting than being disappointed when they screw it up again

So Much Space

Artificial Memories 1,356
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories Likes received: 1,356	#54 - 2014-10-22 10:16:00 UTC Trinkets friend wrote: Tank mode: Hey, mini-bastion resists, -sig, -speed This time, with insane mass penalty please. Drifting destroyers would be so damn amazing!

Binary Aesthetics 250
Ilaister Binary Aesthetics Likes received: 250	#55 - 2014-10-23 01:02:20 UTC Trinket - as ever you are full of wisdom but you neglect T2 destroyers in your writeup entirely. Just because they can fit bubbles doesn't mean that's all they can do. Sabre is still a lot of people's most-used/most-fun ship to fly in w-space. Flycatcher changes put her up there now too. Expand your mind man :)

CTHS 82
Paul Vashar CTHS Likes received: 82	#56 - 2014-10-25 15:18:06 UTC I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs

Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 270
Aladar Dangerface Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation Likes received: 270	#57 - 2014-10-25 17:14:33 UTC Paul Vashar wrote: I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs Care to expand on this? I don't need twitter. I'm already following you.


Paul Vashar CTHS Likes received: 82	#58 - 2014-10-25 18:14:16 UTC Aladar Dangerface wrote: Paul Vashar wrote: I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs Care to expand on this? Everyone says they like triple Ds, but really nobody does, not even the person who has them. Also, I hear that they give you back trouble.