Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Avarege AFs speed like 1,7-2km/s.
T3d can fit 10mn ab that gives 3-4km/s w/o penalty to sign.rad.

That would be fine, if T3Ds couldn't reach 3.5-4.1 km/s speeds by default with MWD.

This whole 3-buttans concept is cancerous

Except that the specialization of T3 Destroyers shouldn't be to neutralize T2 frigates . . . [Tech II frigates] shouldn't be getting chased down and killed reliably by T3 Destroyers.

If you don't like the concept of "destroyer", just say so. I sympathize. Destroyers are just big 'ole bullies of frigates, really.

I think the balance changes to make t3d balanced have to go way further than they do now as theyre still a flat improvement above t2d and t1d.
At the same time I feel that the concept of "versatility above all" has a lot of unused potential.

First just flat nerf the damage bonuses these ships get as together with the slot layout and fitting resource they allow t3ds to outdps t1ds and t2ds way too much and make them flat better. They also dont even need that kind of damage to fulfill their role of being a frigate killer as they are going to have different tools available afterwards. Its still going to be able to outdps their lesser tech counterparts but its going to require some tradeoffs.

Confessor:
Amarr Tactical Destroyer bonuses (per skill level):
7.5% (-2,5%) bonus to Small Energy Turret damage
10% reduction in Small Energy Turret activation cost
5% reduction in module heat damage amount taken

Svipul:
Minmatar Tactical Destroyer Bonuses Per Level:
7,5% (-2,5%) bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret optimal range
5% reduction in heat damage generated by modules

Adding of course the 50% bonus from the Fozzie post.


Second thing I would remove the damage projection/application bonus in sharpshooter mode from both ships as those are a bit too powerful in the case of the Confessor and a bit dull in the case of the Svipul. We could have so much more fun things instead while retaining balance and following the versatility theme. Sharpshooter mode should be renamed afterwards probably.

confessor "whatever mode" would look like this:
25% bonus to tracking disruptor effectiveness
100% bonus to sensor strength, targeting range and scan resolution
Might aswell bump it up to 33% tracking disruptor effectiveness. Important is that its less than Sentinel and 33% is a bit too close to the Sentinel bonus.

Svipul "whatever mode" would look like this:
100% bonus to Stasis webifier optimal range
OR
33% bonus to target painter effectiveness
100% bonus to sensor strength, targeting range and scan resolution
Now the web range bonus is a very strong bonus but the core is here that its going to be half as much as a fully trained Hyena.

Next lets look at the tank modes which are too powerful at times and some decisions straight not balanced and boring.

Confessor Defense Mode
20% bonus to all armor resistances while Defense Mode is enabled
20% bonus to armor hitpoints while Defense Mode is enabled
Im not quite sure if its possible to code the hitpoint bonus that way. It would go well with the general direction of heavy amarr armor tanking. About the resistance nerf: I have no idea how CCP could think that a 33% bonus would be balanced in any way especially after nerfing old resist bonuses down to 20% instead of 25% because they were too strong.

Svipul Defense Mode
20% bonus to all shield and armor resistances while Defense Mode is enabled
20% bonus to ship Signature radius while Defense Mode is enabled
The svipul is getting the signature radius bonus of the Confessor which would allow for old Stabber Fleet issue inspired gameplay and generally offer more options for armor tanked svipuls aswell as open interesting tradeoffs for shield tanked svipuls regarding the amount of tanking rigs and mid slot modules used. Generally a more interesting bonus on the Svipul than on the Confessor.

And last lets look at the Propulsion modes:


Propulsion Mode:
50% bonus to maximum velocity while a Propulsion Module in Propulsion Mode is active
20% bonus to ship inertia modifier while Propulsion Mode is active
The first bonus is a bit silly formulated, please correct me on this one, you get the idea. The idea is to drastically tone down their ability to signature tank as the propulsion mode offers too much base speed at the moment allowing them to effectively signature tank and therefor hard tackle better than Assault frigs. Fast hard tackling in gangs/fleets should be left as a role to Assault frigs.

I am not going to touch on base ship stats as those are a bit too far reaching for a forum post and there are people there getting paid to do that.
Afterwards they wouldnt be better than any of the tech 2 hulls frigate/destroyer size in any way, but more flexible than them fitting the theme of versatility.



LYK DIS IF YOU SUPPORT THE GENERAL IDEA, PLEASE SUGGEST IMPROVEMENTS.

Edit:
If you think that the Sig bonus on the Svipul is too strong lets try a shield regen bonus equal to 75% of the shield regen lost due to the possible regen nerf.
Edit 2:
The web range bonus if at all should probably be weaker aswell, rather 75% or 50% even, if at all.

Being a destroyer with superb DPS and damage projection - that is the purpose. However, at the same time reaching and far exceeding the next closest comparison in both tank & speed, is not. That includes AF & dictors.

No where in any of the info about the T3 Destroyers does it say "these ships are/should be a counter to T2 Frigates"

Ummm . . . DUH-stroy-er. The description is the name of the ship type.
Why would you expect uniform success when conducting a rapid assault against a ship that was intended specifically to repel rapid assault? Fast attacks work best against targets that are not ready. Destroyers are the epitome of readiness, but if you like to assault things so much, consider a heavier assault ship, like, maybe, a heavy assault ship. I think Ishtars are pretty good, if you can fly Gallente.

"Why is this hammer beating all my nails?"

You sunk my battleship.

Cade, both of those threads only have 16 pages each - So few saw the disaster coming.

New stuff is rarely subject to as much debate as change to old stuff, even if that old stuff isn't so old...

I must say that the Svipul is far more powerful than the Confessor. These changes will make the gap bigger..
It is a shame that the confessor is more beautiful than the Svipul.

Hey everyone!
Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary.

So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships.

These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one.

Confessor:

• New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
• Highslots: 6 (-1)
• Turrets: 4 (-2)
• Powergrid: 62 (-18)
• CPU: 180 (-10)
• Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
• Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
• Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
• Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
• Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)

Svipul:

• New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
• Highslots: 6 (-1)
• Turrets: 4 (-2)
• Powergrid: 59 (-19)
• CPU: 205 (-10)
• Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
• Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
• Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
• Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
• Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)

Material Requirements (unchanged):
+1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core

Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.