Ships & Modules

So now that we have teir 1 to 3 in battle cruisers how about giving some thought to the other in between class of ships? It's my view that destroyers like battle cruisers straddle/marry/bridge two hull classed(frigate/cruiser for destroyers and cruiser/battle ship for Battle cruisers). This is why I've chosen to pattern the tier 2 & 3 hulls of Destroyers after Battle Ceuisers ( Sept the Ammar one )

I also feel the T2 versions I've made fill rolls that I wish I had ships for(and I think one you read them YOU'LL find a use for them too). so with out further adue...



Destroyer Tier 2- races other weapons platform: Caldari/missiles"little drake", Gallente/drones"little myrm" If a drone damage bonus is to strong on a hull that small then speed and optimal of drones to allow them to apply there DPS to frigs better), Ammar/drone&missiles(I guess like there T2's do), Minmatar/6turrets with RoF&Dam bonus "little hurricane"


Destroyer Tier 3- just like how normally BC's pray on cruisers but in teir 3 can take the size above so...Medium gunz* Galente/7gunz, Ammar/8 gunz, Minmatar/7 gunz, Caldari/8 gunz


* I asume the Minmatar & Gallente ships will have a better low/mid slot lay out so gave them one less gun (the Ammar & Calldari ones will probly get only one mid/low)



Tech T2 Tier 2- force logistics, cov cloak, can fit 1 ganglink, bonus to small remote repairers*. Not intended for battle feilds, but to stay off grid and suport with gang link and as a rally/safe point that reps. Why cloak, well becouse this is how the meta already is.....so lets be realistic and make a ship that can do it on a 1 Gang Link per ship bassis.

*I want the bonus to small repairers cuz they get no love + the out of sight use favors fast cycles and cap efficiency. and I think that with a rep amount and a cap reduction bonus they would be viable in the context provided



Tech 2 Tier 3- Anti-insurgent sniper, long range, High damage uses "Ambant signal reader"

"Ambient signal reader"- mid slot module that after a 15 sec delay allows you to see and lock cloaked units (cloaked units that become locked will of course decloak) VERY visible animation for module and should have a long activation and a post efect cool down and should "take effect" at end of cycle, cant activate/move well running. 15 sec should be enuff that a cloaked ship can leave if it sees the module go off. {this is already pre-nerfed if ya look at it, with a 15 second clock + cool down it could be brought down over time}




this is for the most part a post made in a different tread- https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=49096&find=unread

but the topic was derailed and it wasn't about destroyers!!!



so what do you think? Any comments? Ideas? Hate/rage?

Friggs have tier 1-3 and multiple tier 2's, and many many T2 ships based off all thier hulls
Distroyers have 1 tier 1 hull and one T2 ship
Cruisers have tier 1-3 and multiple tier 2's, and many many T2 ships based off all thier hulls
Battle Cruisers have 1-3 in tiers and two T2 ships types
Battle ships have Tier 1-3, and have two T2 ship types

I'm not against the idea. More choice is always good. BUT....

I would like the existing ships balanced first - which would grant a lot more choice than implementing one new hull per race.

Even just a Navy Issue of the existing Tier 1's would be a nice place to start. Extra tank, CPU, power, cap, speed, and an extra mid / low accordingly.

I do like the idea of a cloaked, destroyer hulled logistic ship, a sort of tender vessel. Like a WWII milch cow submarine. I also like the anti-cloak sort of convoy escort corvette role. I enjoy the parallels to the Battle of the Atlantic. Maybe a type of destroyer that has bonuses to Defender missiles or a special Close In Weapon System sort of low-caliber turret that specializes in shooting down drones and incoming missiles.

The fact that destroyers are the only t1 class with 1 tier is NOT a compelling reason to add more tiers.

I agree that other friggs and cruisers need balance first, but also would like to point out that as it stands destroyers are a non-factor to that equation, so balancing the other 2 will require Desy's to be part of that equation (would be sad to do all the work to find out that tier 2 desy's crush/get crushed buy them)

As far as the little logics go's, the idea is that it will go with the-force recon, cov-ops, black ops fleet because as of now T3's can't jump with them. I think the desy hull would be perfect as its small enuf to make quick scanning it a pain, and I could keep up with SB and the like.

I don't like the idea of navy/pie desy's and BC. There omni skills so the ship would have to be like SB's are and be almost identical because every one will be able to fly them all realy easly so which ever one is best will turn in to the only one rather quickly.









If you look at real world stuff that roll is one of the most used/needed and one of the most diverse. Out riders, skirmishers, point defenders, hell even the "Destroyer" class of oceanic ship is exactly for/like what I've presented. Because there is just one desy hull at tier one there job is still vacant and often filled buy AF & Ceptors. There potential is left fallow based solely on the inherent inadequacy.


The medium gun thing has to be taken from the prospective of what tier one desy's started like, they had built in restrictors to ROF. The same could be done with the medium guns EX-tracking penalty.

This will go even further towards guaranteeing the obsolescence of cruisers in PvP. We have more than enough ships and ship-classes, half of which are already utterly useless wastes of dBase space and bandwidth, we don't need more ships, and we especially don't need more ships exacerbating this situation.

As for the "ambient-signal" thingy...No. Just, no:

As long as there remains a local chat, then cloaking is working just fine.

So after looking at how cloak works, looks like doing things to it will not work. So i guess the snipers get insane lock speeds or some thing to help them in there role of anti-stealth or just forget them. Any ideas?

I don't see how a desy with even less EHP and medium guns (remember "like the tier 3 BC's" this means good and bad) and starting with a pre-nerf would kill cruisers any more than the tier 3 BC killed BS's.

I honestly don't care personally about the tier 3's But really want the tier 2's as I am a Caldari pilot and hate Hybrids, and I know that there are Gallente pilots that loves them some drones, amarr pilots than would love a chance for mids, and Minnmatar pilots that could use a change of pace and a little reprieve for the constant "U OP...U lucky U got the only good one" well there out ganking hulks. Every other sub-cap hull type has a show case for at least 2 of the races wepon types.


P.S.
Every ones "we have to meany ships and most are bad" talk is sad. Have you forgotten being a noob? One going up a tier meant some thing to how you played and your game experience, cuz thats why its there people. just like real life you have your learner stuff, your cheep stuff, and your top shelf stuff, and with out ever tasting a sour apple and a sweet apple, you would never know witch one you are eating. The creation of variety and divergence of form are central to the human mind set, look around how may types of vodka are there? its a simple dilution of alcohol in water do we need that many no, do we want that many yes.

I can see the lower damage, more slots, more tank destroyers being useful L2 missions and various PvP tactics.

Keep in mind, current destroyers are more like tier 3 BCs w/o the price tag (higher than a tier 1 BS).

Decloaking modules = crustch for people like the OP who cannot keep Local chat open long enough to keep themselves safe.

A module which you could pulse, even like an ECCM, to decloak enemies would not save you in a wormhole, nor k-space. An area-of-effect decloaking object, like a probe for an Interdictor, would be OK I guess, but again, no excuse for Local or d-scan.

I would support more varieties of probes for Interdictors, such as web field, TD field, SD field, ECM field probes. But that doesn't address more variety for the T1 destroyer hulls.

Command bonused destroyers I would not support. It would be a cheaper, easier way to create AFK boosting alts, which are already a big enough bone of contention and crutch anyway. No need to make this easier to skill for and afford.

EW Destroyers could, at least, replace EW frigates. Extra tank, slots, spank afforded by a destroyer hull could revitalise 'light ECM'. These could be tech 1 ships with a light bonus, followed by a tech 2 variant with tech 2 bonuses. eg;

Amarr
6 high slots (5 turret/1 utility)
5 mid slots (allowing point, MWD, utility, TDs)
4 low slots (allowing 400 plate, 2 tanking/utility modules)
Base bonuses (t1);
5% bonus to energy turret optimal range per level
5% bonus to tracking disruptor optimal range / effectiveness per level
Would have +400 armour over the Coercer, making it a tougher, EW focused ship with less DPS and far, far more utility

Tech 2 EW Destroyer
+1 midslot
Role Bonus:
5% bonus to small neutraliser range per level
5% bonus to small neutraliser cap neutralised per level

Gallente
5 high slots (4 turrets)
6 mid slots
3 midslots
40m3 drone bay
Base bonus (t1)
5% per level tracking speed or damage for small hybrid turrets
5% bonus to sensor dampener effectiveness per level
Would be second-fastest dessie, with 4 Hammer II's, but lack of mids/CPU would prevent zomgwtfbbq levels of gank vs Cat when everyone inevitably piles in a shield tank.

Tech 2 Gallente EW Destroyer
+1 lowslot
Role Bonus:
5% warp disruptor/scram range per level (or, even webs)
90% reduction in CPU requirements of drone upgrades - allowing a drone nav comp or omnidirectional tracking comp for cheap, and creating Valks which would pwn ceptors, drams, etc.


Etcetera, etcetera. I haven't thought about this for more than 5 minutes so sue me if it sucks.

That sort of thing, to me, would be more sensible than covops cloaky dessies. i mean, what is their role in BLOPs fleets that the force recons can't provide, or gank that SB's or BLOPs can't provide? Nothing I can see.