These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Winter] Existing destroyer rebalancing

First post
Author
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#201 - 2012-08-18 13:18:07 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Galphii wrote:
Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's.


Remember that cruisers and battlecruisers are in line for rebalancing too though, so the slot ratios that exist now may not be sticking around for ever.

Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Lili Lu
#202 - 2012-08-18 14:08:39 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's.

Would be better if that was the other way around. The slot and hp differentials between cruisers and BCs should not be so pronounced. There were the statements out of the dev team that they wanted to disuade the rush to tier 2 BC. Regardless, we will be waiting a long time before they do anything with BCs it seems.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2012-08-18 18:38:42 UTC
Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.

How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based?
Lili Lu
#204 - 2012-08-18 20:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.

How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based?

Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats.Smile
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2012-08-18 21:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Lili Lu wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.

How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based?

Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats.Smile


I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. Using drones also means committing to the fight, whereas the fragile destroyer hulls need to stay aligned and ready to warp out.

I would rather see a rocket based destroyer with a +50% rocket velocity bonus. With missile speed & flight duration rigs it can reach out to 30 km using javlin rockets. That's more than adequate range, offers selectable damage types like drones and suffers less from delayed damage.
Lili Lu
#206 - 2012-08-18 21:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. Using drones also means committing to the fight, whereas the fragile destroyer hulls need to stay aligned and ready to warp out.

I would rather see a rocket based destroyer with a +50% rocket velocity bonus. With missile speed & flight duration rigs it can reach out to 30 km using javlin rockets. That's more than adequate range, offers selectable damage types like drones and suffers less from delayed damage.

And, of course the Caldari one will have an additional 10% missile speed bonus so it won't need rigs to do that, and it will be faster than the gallente one and even possibly the amarr one.Roll

I posted that not because I was necessarilly thrilled with a Minmatar, Amarr, or Gallente drone-based destroyer. It was just that your post did make sense pointing out the tech II amarr frigates where the skills would be directly transferable. And, it would be a kick to train some drone skills for a minmatar destroyer (one that might actually have some speed to combat kiting missile boats) that would not be wasted sp in view of the phoon (well pretty much any ship has some dronage anyway).
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#207 - 2012-08-19 02:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
Lili Lu wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.

How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based?

Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats.Smile

It does seem to be happening that way - typically, Minmatar have had better drone ships than Amarr (arbitrator hulls not withstanding) so this is a very new direction. We might be seeing more Matari missile hulls than drone hulls.

I see no reason to assume that all destroyer hulls will be flimsy. The current batch could almost fit into the attack line, with tons of firepower and very little defence, but slots could be arranged for a combat line destroyer. 6 high slots, 4 mids, 3 lows, providing a lot more combat endurance, as that line of ships is supposed to have. I'd like everyone to stop thinking of destroyers as 'suicide ganking ships that have no defence', and accept that they are more like 'heavy frigates', in the same way BC's are more like 'heavy cruisers', but it probably won't happen.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#208 - 2012-08-19 04:55:42 UTC
The frigates have received replies to the feedback from CCP.



Why have we not heard anything from Yttribium besides the first page posts, don't tell me he's gone to vacation.

With the current state of how frigs are being adjusted and changed, I think it would be fairly reasonable to give destroyers an additional slot.

Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#209 - 2012-08-19 18:45:02 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:

Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking.

They do excel at destroying frigates.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#210 - 2012-08-19 21:48:59 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Ashera Yune wrote:

Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking.

They do excel at destroying frigates.


If you look at the buffs that the frigates are all receiving then you would realize that it won't be long before destroyers are pointless again.

All the tech 1 frigate are receiving buffs that make them fairly crazy compared to their current state.


While destroyers are only get a minor adjustment, throwing off the balance.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#211 - 2012-08-19 23:27:16 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:
While destroyers are only get a minor adjustment, throwing off the balance.

Destroyers in numbers > All frigates in numbers. Solo frigates (all types) > Dessies (if done right)

Not a problem.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#212 - 2012-08-19 23:36:17 UTC
Destroyers can already kill AF and these new frigates are not better than AF. BTW, they are getting a buff ; that is the whole point of this thread.

If you want to make destroyers as OP compared to frigates as BC currently are compared to cruisers, I think you are wrong. If frigates have been buffed, they still are on a frigate level, because their buff is basicaly based on the rifter. And BTW, I checked the forums : main complaint is ASB, not merlin killing destroyers even though they seem very good at killing rifters and other frigates.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#213 - 2012-08-20 05:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Pink Marshmellow
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Destroyers can already kill AF and these new frigates are not better than AF. BTW, they are getting a buff ; that is the whole point of this thread.

If you want to make destroyers as OP compared to frigates as BC currently are compared to cruisers, I think you are wrong. If frigates have been buffed, they still are on a frigate level, because their buff is basicaly based on the rifter. And BTW, I checked the forums : main complaint is ASB, not merlin killing destroyers even though they seem very good at killing rifters and other frigates.


Destroyers are supposed to be Anti-frigate ships. They are OP vs frigates, but everything bigger is OP against them.

Destroyers adjustments must be made with the frigate buffs in mind. If destroyers are no good against frigates, then they are no good at all.

A lot of frigates are receiving a big makeover such as more slots, more ehp, more fitting, better ship bonuses.

What is the destroyer getting? A very minor and questionable change, the cormorant loses with mid for a low, all the destroyers are getting their sig radius bigger again. The thrasher still remains the only real destroyer to fly. The catalyst sucks for anything except suicide ganking and still has the same terrible fitting, its worse than the cormorant which fits shields and has one less turret.

Yttribium were making adjustments based on old data, which shows how out of touch he is with destroyers.

After the first page, he disappears off the face of the earth, leaving us in the dark of what he's planning so far.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#214 - 2012-08-20 11:19:28 UTC
Is there *any* evidence of destroyers being less effective at killing frigates than they were ? First wave of frigates is released for several months now, and they are the mightest of the bunch and yet, I didn't heard any evidence of destroyer becoming unable to kill them. All we hear is "buff destroyers, just to be sure".
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#215 - 2012-08-20 11:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Is there *any* evidence of destroyers being less effective at killing frigates than they were?


There isn't. The notion that destroyers need a buff across the board is just crazy talk. Destroyers are overwhelmingly favored against frigates in general. Some exceptions apply but these are individual cases and not a systemic imbalance. For example double TD fits can mess with destroyers but only a few frigates can do them, so it's something related to these frigates in particular. Once destroyer hulls that don't use turrets get released this will be a non-issue.
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2012-08-20 16:49:44 UTC
My only problem with dessies is that they are slow, give them better speed and agility and boost the warpspeed to 6 au. They are closer to frigs than anything else so why do they handle like cruisers?
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#217 - 2012-08-20 17:05:00 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Hey folks,

Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply.

We are mostly fine with the changes so far - we may change the slot layout back on the Cormorant if 4 meds are preferred, but there is no large incoming buff to be expected on the destroyer class itself as we feel they are faring quite well since the last set of buffs during Crucible.

Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role.

The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts.

The Thrasher, despite its bonus, still has a relatively low damage output - what matters on it is the alpha with the artillery fit and the plentiful fittings left with autocannons - both of which are questions that need to be solved on a weapon system level, not ship hull itself.

We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ.

Regarding the questions about possibly introducing missiles and drones for destroyers, we agree, that is why both these weapon systems will be introduced with the new four destroyer hulls also coming for Winter. More information on this blog.


It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#218 - 2012-08-20 17:19:09 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts.


Could you comment on my idea that was making it 6 turret hardpoints on it?
That would reduce the damage enough so we could fit 6 neutrons and still have about the same dps, but with more range. Range is the problem. Unless you fit 125mm railguns on it, you are going to have a bad time. Simply because armor is too slow to catch up and apply your 1km+1km ranged dps.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#219 - 2012-08-20 17:23:18 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role.


I don't agree, but it's a valid reason. :)

Quote:

The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts.


I... don't agree. Is this internal testing that's with the new hulls or with the old ones?

Quote:

We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ.


Turn it into an Optimal bonus and I'll love you long time. Also, that would be OP as hell.

Quote:

It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though.


Truth. I look forward to it. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#220 - 2012-08-20 17:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts.
*le sigh* /me going to try out ion blaster cat for a while and see what's up. I expect many deaths of my ship.

Edit 2:
Corm overheated dps: 577 (7 light neutrons, 1 rocket, medium shield extender II as tank)
Catalyst overheated dps: 593 (8 light ions, 1 drone, damage control as tank)

Not that much of a difference (Corm has larger tank), and Corm can do other stuff (like long range) better. At least buff Catalyst hull HP to make it more survivable at close range (even though it will never be able to control range because of only two midslots).