These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Combat Destroyers (contrast with existing Attack Destroyers)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-01-02 00:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
All of the destroyers we have in the game are attack destroyers, meaning they are focused on high damage output with relatively weak defenses. It is fitting to the old naval warfare lore of the name, but as "Destroyer" is an entire ship class, I think it makes sense for combat destroyers to be available. They would have fairly strong offense paired with moderately strong defense. They would be tougher and more powerful than frigates, but slower and less agile.


Consider some tech 1 options for these:

* 5-6 high slots, 7-8 total mid/low slots
* 5-6 weapon hardpoints

* Skill bonuses could be damage and range, or damage and defense.
* They would have the 50% range role bonus just like the turret-based attack destroyers -- and that tracking penalty they used to have should be brought back, for both these and those.

* They should have slightly higher hit points than attack destroyers but slightly lower max velocity
* They should have a slightly larger signature radius as well, but a faster capacitor regen
* Powergrid should probably remain about the same while CPU might need to go up slightly.



Purposes for these:
1.) as brawler-tacklers - you can have them run ahead of the fleet to catch another fleet's scout
2.) scout ships - their improved defenses allow for better escape chances in certain situations
3.) solo PVP - attack destroyers are lousy for solo PVP because they are too focused on attack without the defense to back it up
4.) ratting/running sites - these could clear frigate NPCs reasonably quickly but with less danger to the pilot than with an attack destroyer - kind of like a tech 1 version of an assault ship
5.) smartbombing destroyers!
and I'm sure others will come up with more uses for them...

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Foxicity
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-01-02 01:23:06 UTC
Well someone has to say it. This suggestion seems reasonable and I don't hate it. It is a bit bland though. Maybe add the ability to call CONCORD to help you kill something?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-01-02 01:57:20 UTC
Cute, but please try to keep it constructive. I do make troll posts from time to time, but this is not one of them. I think we all would agree that having a ship call CONCORD is pretty imbalanced.



I feel like the intrigue of these ships is solely in them filling a gap in the ship lineup. They seem more interesting to me than the new attack destroyers that were released a few expansions ago. Still, if people want to see them spiced up a bit, maybe they could have a more unique role bonus instead of the range increase and tracking penalty.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Foxicity
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-01-02 02:00:43 UTC
Well I mean it's not a "my god, this is what's been missing from my life" kind of idea, but filling a gap sounds fine. I don't fly destroyers enough to say that attack destroyers don't fill my needs.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-01-02 02:15:06 UTC
Yeah, most people don't seem that interested. Everyone likes battleships except nowadays everyone likes cruisers. Not a lot of folks like frigates and the ones that do seem mostly satisfied.

I like frigates and destroyers a lot, but it has always bugged me that destroyers are so squishy. I enjoy that battlecruisers are tanky while also dishing out damage, and I think that there should be destroyers like that, too.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#6 - 2015-01-02 02:21:49 UTC
I was halfway ok with it until you proposed modifying the existing destroyer lines as well as implementing the new ones. Leave the current destroyers alone unless you want this to turn into a discussion about why changing the current destroyers are bad instead of discussing your ideas for new destroyers.

As for the idea itself.... kind of bland.

It doesn't really address the issues you think it will solve.

1/2: They won't be better than current destroyers for forward scouting even with more HP, because with higher sig and lower velocity, you are still going to get stomped before your fleet get there due to increased vulnerability to large guns and drones (which they would not be fast enough to kite) Still better to bring a frigate or ceptor for scouting and tackling.

3: For solo PvP, being slower, and having tracking penalties with a slightly greater range means in practice that there are more opportunities for enemies to get inside your guns and kite your tracking. Basically your lower tracking means getting kited by close range frigs easier, while your bonuses force you into the midrange combat role that cruisers will stomp you at, even with a bit more dps and a bit more ehp.

4: Um I guess. a bit more range and fitting would mean they are better than the other dessies at PvE, but since destroyers occupy a PvE niche of "Lv 2 missions and I can't afford a cruiser", it's not a huge endorsement.

5: Small smartbomb range is so bad. So incredibly bad. Barring a 200% bonus to smarty range, I don;t think there's any chance to salvage it. Just about the only use for them is bombing light drones that have already settled into attack orbits. But that's a problem with small smartbombs in general, not your idea.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2015-01-02 02:49:16 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
(which they would not be fast enough to kite)

I'm not so certain of that--though you do bring up a decent point. They might need to have speed matching attack destroyers but I think even with a bit less, they will still outmaneuver cruisers well enough to go toe to toe with one. The big difference between doing that with a combat destroyer vs. an attack destroyer is that the combat destroyer won't die as quick to one lucky volley when your ship suddenly decides to change its orbit direction.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#8 - 2015-01-02 03:50:44 UTC
I think the field of ships - particularly small ships - is so crowded already that I wonder what niche you are trying to fill with these new ships. What is their purpose?

I proposed a faction frigate with a bonus to smart bombing range and damage several months ago - the idea was to have a ship that would be good at helping to clear drones off and also good at damaging or decloaking ships (it was a very fast accelerating, very agile design). It was not particularly well-received, but sometimes that's just the mood the forums are in on a particular day.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#9 - 2015-01-02 03:53:38 UTC
Part of the reason why using the attack bc meta on destroyers is awkward is that their sig radius leaves vulnerable to medium weapons, and destroyers in generally will be comparably slow compared to frigates, and less tanky than AFs or even other t1 frigs. Perhaps making them very fast on their feet and having a leveled bonus to reduce sig radius per level might be a good route to go?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-01-02 05:00:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
FT Diomedes wrote:
I think the field of ships - particularly small ships - is so crowded already that I wonder what niche you are trying to fill with these new ships. What is their purpose?

The niche is a small ship that is good for solo operations, having a solid arrangement of both high slots and mid/low slots. It would make a good hull for fitting in a wide variety of ways, fitting whatever your needs are at the time. This is much like combat battlecruisers, or battleships like the Raven, Megathron, Tempest, and Armageddon. Small tech 1 ships have nothing like this. You either have very few high slots or very few mid/low slots. To give an extreme Swiss Army Ship example, there are no small ships that can fit guns, a tractor beam, a salvager, a cloaking device, a probe launcher, a prop mod, an ECM burst, an analyzer, a codebreaker, and an active tank. You can do that with combat battlecruisers and battleships, and you could do that with a combat destroyer, but you can't do that with any frigate nor any attack destroyer.


Catherine Laartii wrote:
Perhaps making them very fast on their feet and having a leveled bonus to reduce sig radius per level might be a good route to go?

Perhaps it is not that combat destroyers should be slower than attack destroyers are now, but that attack destroyers should be faster.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
MBizon Osis
Doomheim
#11 - 2015-01-02 05:10:34 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Part of the reason why using the attack bc meta on destroyers is awkward is that their sig radius leaves vulnerable to medium weapons, and destroyers in generally will be comparably slow compared to frigates, and less tanky than AFs or even other t1 frigs. Perhaps making them very fast on their feet and having a leveled bonus to reduce sig radius per level might be a good route to go?


I agree with this +1. The gun/missile dessies are in a bad spot right now. The main issues are:

1 Stuck with out a good prop option: The small ABs are not near enough and the small MWDs are sure death given the more than double the base sig size over frigs(exception Talwar). Lastly the over size 10 MN AB is too much PG.

2 Too light on the fitting resources (PG, CAP, CPU, and low number and crappy lay out of Fitting Slots.

These all ensure that the gun/missile dessies will always be over matched by some T1 frigs. And fit for lvl1 missions and the occasional extra DPS for frig gangs.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-01-02 05:16:25 UTC
I'd ask for a 2MN afterburner and microwarpdrive but then we'd need to increase the mass of destroyers. But maybe that would make more sense!

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2015-01-02 06:16:24 UTC
I think the existing destroyers should be combat destroyers and a 3rd T1 destroyer be added

Attack destroyer

8 high 8 guns
current dessi mid and low slot layout

5 damage per level
10 application / projection per level

95 reduction on medium gun fitting.

so ABCs baby brothers.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#14 - 2015-01-02 06:21:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I think the existing destroyers should be combat destroyers and a 3rd T1 destroyer be added

Attack destroyer

8 high 8 guns
current dessi mid and low slot layout

5 damage per level
10 application / projection per level

95 reduction on medium gun fitting.

so ABCs baby brothers.


Posting in a buff suicide ganking thread.

10 effective turret, medium gun packing hull that only costs a mil or two? Think 1100dps gank destroyers. Just say no.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2015-01-02 06:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
A Catalyst with 8 medium neutron blasters would hit harder than a Brutix!



I'm actually of the mind that the attack battlecruisers would have been fine with just medium guns.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Nikolai Leonov
Moira.
#16 - 2015-01-02 09:39:55 UTC
The problem with your idea is that a Destroyer is designed to do exactly what it's name implies. Its a combat roll fulfillment, if you want something tanky, move a size up.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#17 - 2015-01-02 10:06:30 UTC
I think destroyers have plenty attack power. What's lacking is one with a bit of meat. A destroyer that can actually survive combat with cruisers given they have a large enough sig radius to be vulnerable to cruiser weaponry.

So, a combat destroyer really needs some tanking bonuses, not more damage bonuses. Still, there's not a WHOLE lot of room for new T1 destroyers, regrettably (though I would like to see more T2 options as well as faction options)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2015-01-02 10:29:43 UTC
They should have made the new destroyers into combat. Think of it:

Dragoon: 25mb/s drone bandwidth, 5 high slots, 3 mid slots, 5 low slots, zero turret/launcher hardpoints
Skill bonuses: drone damage/HP and neutralizer/vampire cap drain amount
Shines at: dismantling them with drones while sucking their capacitor dry and kiting weapons
Roles: drones, disruption

Corax: 6 high slots, 5 mid slots, 2 low slots, 5 launcher hardpoints, 1 turret hardpoint
Skill bonuses: missile velocity and missile damage
Shines at: kiting them at high speed and moderate range while assaulting with missiles
Roles: missiles, range

Algos: 25mb/s drone bandwidth, 5 high slots, 4 mid slots, 4 low slots, 3 turret hardpoints
Skill bonuses: drone damage/HP and armor repair amount
Shines at: brawling with high defense while remaining mobile and dishing out good DPS
Roles: drones, defense

Talwar: 6 high slots, 4 mid slots, 3 low slots, 5 launcher hardpoints, 3 turret hardpoints
Skill bonuses: max velocity and shield boost amount
Shines at: skirmishing at high speed with a flexible weapon setup and good defenses
Roles: missiles, defense

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2015-01-02 10:33:41 UTC
Hmm, maybe just start with faction destroyers with appropriate bonuses, like they did with BC's?

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Kendarr
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#20 - 2015-01-02 12:39:02 UTC
Pizza seem to make good use of the existing destroyers.

Zebra-Corp
12Next page