These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#221 - 2012-08-20 17:49:46 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey folks,

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.



You can't be serious. The cormorant has more powergrid that the Catalyst despite the fact that it is a shield tanker and requires less pg to fit due to it having 7 turrets rather than 8.

There is without a doubt more thrashers being flown than Catalysts. Catalysts are used only for suicide ganks, that's all they are really good for.

The catalyst is gimped when trying to fit railguns, so its obvious you want to make it a blaster boat, if that's the case why don't you change the 50% optimal role bonus to 50% falloff bonus.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#222 - 2012-08-20 18:25:58 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


you mentioned weapon balance in there... would you mind on elaborating on that a little?

what systems are working good where there is room for improvement?

i do like that you are taking a balanced approach to this...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2012-08-20 18:48:30 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
I think destroyers would work as anti frigate better with less turrets like 6 but increased range. So they can really pop frigates , and going to be a great counter to logi frigates.

Or just trade so

That so have a set of 4 flak cannon type close range anti frigate, and then the missile and drones destoryers give range to sentry drones and long range missiles

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
Alara IonStorm
#224 - 2012-08-20 21:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
MotherMoon wrote:
I think destroyers would work as anti frigate better with less turrets like 6 but increased range. So they can really pop frigates , and going to be a great counter to logi frigates.

Or just trade so

My original idea for destroyer balance when CCP did the first round was for CCP to remove the silly -25% RoF role and the range role bonus, give them 6 high slots with 6 turrets each, one range bonus (falloff for Caty / Thrasher, Opt for the Cormy / Coercer) and one tracking bonus.

Then adjust their slots like this.

- 2 High All

+ 1 Mid Coercer
+ 1 Low Thrasher
+ 1 Mid Catalyst
+ 1 Low Cormorant

Combined with a boost in tank that = about 1000 base HP to each tank stat totaling around 3000 and a buff to fitting.

The idea was that they had about 50% more fitted buffer then a Frigate, 30%-50% more damage then a Frigate but were slower and had Sigs large enough to be vulnerable to Medium Weapons.
Lili Lu
#225 - 2012-08-20 23:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Please rethink the 10% opotimal bonus on the Cormorant. That should be 5% if you are not going to give any other destroyers a range bonus. As it is a gang of sniper corms siting in a fw plex are pretty much immune to damage and often can kill with relative ease any opposing roughly equal sized gang that enters. If not they simply warp away. Ridiculous sniper corm fits are the norm now.

You still are not fixing the blaster only "choice" you present with the catalyst fitting restrictions. And as XGallentius pointed out above you enable a blaster fit for the Corm. How is this balanced?

The thrasher is still the thrasher.

Cap bonuses blow chunks.

Figure out how to fix the "racial" problems you currently have in-game. Shield and kiting is everything now at pretty much every level, except caps and triage archons with armor buffered BSs. Everything I'm seeing from the re-balancing team is not giving me any confidence that the current ship usage stats will change or become less lopsided. They may become more lopsided.Straight

edit - oh and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=122188&find=unread
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#226 - 2012-08-21 00:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Pink Marshmellow
The cormorant will be an overall superior blasterboat than the catalyst.

It can pack Scram and Web to keep frigates pinned down and have the PG to fit a small neut, neutron blasters and mwd.

It will do less dps, but has better utility to do its job.

The catalyst will still continue to suck with having only 2 mids that work poorly for blasters and lack luster fitting that prevents putting mwd and neutron blasters together in order to utilize its full potential.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#227 - 2012-08-21 01:34:40 UTC
Testing complete. Unless Light Ion Blaster Catalyst starts fight at zero, it is completely and overwhelmingly screwed. Sorry, CCP really needs to re-think the Catalyst. It can't kill frigs. It can't kill otherr destroyers. It is limited to high sec ganks only.

Wanted: Destroyer with relevant engagement envelope.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2012-08-21 04:44:32 UTC
Is there any idea on when the new destroyers will be unveiled?!!

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#229 - 2012-08-21 05:08:56 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
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 have to say, I really dislike the slot argument presented here. High slots do not directly equate to med/low slots, or even high-slots in a larger hull size, so totalling them towards some sort of arbitrary ceiling for each class is just frustrating. It's the combination of different numbers of highs and meds/lows that should define/seperate ship classes. Try thinking of it this way instead; post changes, all T1 frigates will all have around 6-7 meds/lows. Destroyers currently have 5 meds/lows, while present-day cruisers and AFs have 7 or more meds/lows.

By your own admission updated T1 cruisers will have 14ish slots which, if 5-6 are highs, the remaining 8-9 are meds/lows. It seems then that cruisers and battlecruisers will be getting similar slot layouts except for high-slots (which is a good thing), so why not port this logic down to destroyers and make them at least as good the frigates they're designed to counter.

Bumping this combined figure of meds/lows up to 6 for destroyers gives the Coercer its much needed second med-slot, and a second low-slot for the Cormorant. The Thrasher gets a third low-slot and the Catalyst gets a third med-slot. Yes, this will make them somewhat more powerful than they are now, but the pending cruiser buff (sorry, "rebalancing") will necessitate this later anyway, no?
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#230 - 2012-08-21 08:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Lili Lu wrote:


Figure out how to fix the "racial" problems you currently have in-game. Shield and kiting is everything now at pretty much every level, except caps and triage archons with armor buffered BSs. Everything I'm seeing from the re-balancing team is not giving me any confidence that the current ship usage stats will change or become less lopsided. They may become more lopsided.Straight

edit - oh and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=122188&find=unread



+1

The game favors kiting as a tactic and there is no solution in sight.

This is not something that can be solved with tiericide. The ships designed to be good brawlers will continue to be niche without a place in gangs even with more slots and better bonuses.

You could make everyone a kiter, but wouldn't it be better to enable brawling as viable tactic in gangs by separating these two playstyles through unique modules that exclude each other?

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of removing speed penalties associated with armor to enable these ships to kite (or catch up with kiters) but that doesn't change the underlying problem of brawling being the inferior tactic.
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#231 - 2012-08-21 08:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
anyways, thanks for responding ytterbium even if a little delayed. I still attain that the cormorant would be significantly better served with a 13 unit swing down in CPU and the same up in PG rather than a slow layout alteration.

it would expand the selection of fitting options for the bright eyed capsuleer while still preserving what makes the cormorant stand out among its peers. dps should of course be kept lower than its counterparts as a balancing feature (i'm pretty damn happy with how it is at the moment personally dakka wise, the optimal bonus serving the same role for those willing to play a little more clever) and have to take advantage of the 4 mids as a way to control the engagement rather than the raw facemelt of its compatriots, the 8/3/2 layout would surely be better preserved in favour of the newer intended missile destroyer?

my other main gripe is that with an 8/3/2 layout the cormorant will simply become a blaster clone of the thrasher but with more fitting problems, less speed, less firepower and less agility. I'd much rather maintain the current stats and layout and secure the individuality of the hull rather than just become a generic "blaster thrasher" :(

Edit: Off topic part removed, CCP Phantom

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#232 - 2012-08-21 09:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pink Marshmellow
Well if you'll excuse me the destroyer class has largely been broken for a long time.

With some obvious glaring disparity between the Thrasher and the rest of the destroyers.

The catalyst is one of the most broken destroyers of all, it has a confused mixed of optimal and falloff which only makes it half effective for both blasters and railguns.

It is poorly suited to railguns due to its gimped powergrid and now it has less powergrid that the cormorant which is shield tanked and has one less turret.

As a blaster boat, it fails quite miserably as it is only able to fit a point and no web, which is absolutely essential for blaster ships.

Other than for suicide ganks, it has to be the worst destroyer out of all.

The coercer has good dps and good damage projection.

The cormorant can snipe at extreme ranges of 100km and shoot down interceptors well.

The thrasher is without a doubt the king of all destroyers being small, fast, mobile, and has alpha strike of artillery. Or the option of fitting an MSE and 200mm autocannons and neut with 400 dps.

If you have flown the catalyst and you will realize its just a paper tiger.

You'll find that you will be absolutely destroyed, unless you are right on-top of your opponent, you better kill him before he flies out of point range, otherwise he will kite you to death or simply running away while laughing at your meagar range and clumsy flying.

But for anyone to think that the catalyst is "fine" brings to question rather or not they have flown it.
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#233 - 2012-08-21 10:24:35 UTC
there we go! see, didn't that make you feel better rather than casual disregard for our fine host?

Remember folks, CCP are people (or in the case of CCP Guard; Olympian demi-gods who have decided to walk the mortal land). explain our concerns in a friendly and concise manner, its clear that the re-balancing team are reading these threads, even in ytterbium was a bit slower to respond than we'd like.

as for the catalyst however, I'm inclined to agree. there are significant issues with the design in standard play which I feel need to be addressed, while it indeed sports the most mighty of dakka in the destroyer line it has significant issues applying that damage against aware opponents and the low PG escalates this problem. an inability to field a reasonable tank alongside ion blasters a chief concern as often the dps application of the catalyst is made moot by an opponent hitting it with web/scram, while it sill applies damage in fall off its often far from enough to ensure it can deal with its targets, most notably frigates.

all told it shares critical issues with the cormorant, problems in fitting. where the cormorant however has verging on the excessive CPU to throw around against its handicapped powergrid the catalyst is hampered in both areas. often the catalysts only defence if fitting ion blasters as you previously mentioned is a damage control and without a web to ensure close hull hugging or the tank to weather incoming fire its often the case that a cataylst will explode like a wet fart before it can vanquish the foes of the federation

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#234 - 2012-08-21 13:47:33 UTC
I think the Coercer is going to be a beast. It will have alot more fits as options. I'll probably go the Medium Beam Laser route and throw a sensor booster into that second mid. It's all about the gank baby.

The Cormorant will also get alot more fitting choices. Most sniper fits will trade out a TC for a TE and be good to go. Also - a double optimal bonus gives Null with Nuetrons around a 7km optimal. A quick DPS graph comparison between a Corm using Null and a standard MSE Thrasher using barrage shows the corm edges out the Thrasher in Damage from 5km - 15km. The difference isn't really enough to justify 2k less EHP for me though- I'd probably still use it as a sniper which is it's forte.

Thrasher - it's the easiest destroyer to get into and the most forgiving to fly. The others have traditionally needed top skilled pilots to shine. Hopefully the easing of the fitting grid on the previous two destroyers alleviates this.

The decision on the Catalyst was a bit dissappointing. I'm not as pessimistic about it as others are on this thread. I personally like the 125mm rail cat. It might not hit as far as the corm but it hits a hell of alot harder. I posted a fit earlier that I like and have used it very successfully. As for a blaster boat - very hard to use outside of a group and in a high TD environment like FW. But:

High:
Light Nuetrons II x 8
Mid:
Limited MWD
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
Low:
F85 Perilpheral Damage System
MFS II
TE II
Rigs:
Small Ancillary Current Router x 2
Small Processor Overclocking Unit

364 DPS with Null Overheated. 5.4km optimal. 8.5km falloff. Once you get beyond 4km it has much better damage projection then an AC Thrasher. At 10km the Cat is still doing close to 300 DPS. An AC thrasher is only mustering 170. Laughably the Cat should kite an AC Thrasher for as long as possible should they meet.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#235 - 2012-08-21 14:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
that's ridiculous that all 3 rigs are needed to fit neutrons the top tier guns it needs more pg and cpu clearly the other destroyers can fit top tier guns so why not the cat?
and its a shame that most gal blaster frigs have to hull tank to be effective

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#236 - 2012-08-21 14:27:55 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
364 DPS with Null Overheated. 5.4km optimal. 8.5km falloff. Once you get beyond 4km it has much better damage projection then an AC Thrasher. At 10km the Cat is still doing close to 300 DPS. An AC thrasher is only mustering 170. Laughably the Cat should kite an AC Thrasher for as long as possible should they meet.


Nice find with the setup. Thrasher controls range and has larger tank. But otherwise it looks feasible. Will try this setup next, but not hoping for best..

Edit: Compare these numbers to your Coercer with Scorch. Not close. Win for Coercer at all ranges. So now Catalyst must switch to antimatter or void and ram him. But then Coercer switches to Conflaguration. Win for Coercer.

Coercer is better at being a close range ship than Catalyst. In every single Scenario. And out to 17km. Medium Pulse Laser Coercer will be devastating.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#237 - 2012-08-21 15:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
X Gallentius wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
364 DPS with Null Overheated. 5.4km optimal. 8.5km falloff. Once you get beyond 4km it has much better damage projection then an AC Thrasher. At 10km the Cat is still doing close to 300 DPS. An AC thrasher is only mustering 170. Laughably the Cat should kite an AC Thrasher for as long as possible should they meet.


Nice find with the setup. Thrasher controls range and has larger tank. But otherwise it looks feasible. Will try this setup next, but not hoping for best..

Edit: Compare these numbers to your Coercer with Scorch. Not close. Win for Coercer at all ranges. So now Catalyst must switch to antimatter or void and ram him. But then Coercer switches to Conflaguration. Win for Coercer.

Coercer is better at being a close range ship than Catalyst. In every single Scenario. And out to 17km. Medium Pulse Laser Coercer will be devastating.


You can fit a medium pulse coercer with the genolution implant set currently. I've tried one out since the beginning of this thread. They're quite fun. All three rigs need to be used for fitting rigs but I can squeeze three heat sinks and a TE onto it. It does (with a damage implant) 397 DPS out to 19.4km. That is almost an 800 alpha every 2 seconds. I think with the future Coercer I can get rid of some of the fitting rigs, throw on a locus coordinator to replace the TE, and be good to go. The only thing I don't like about it is it's super vulnerable to tracking disruptors. It has no falloff to... ahem... fall back upon. There are also people fitting dual sensor dampners onto the new condors too. Again, no defense.

I like the Rail Cat. 381 DPS at 12km. 261 DPS at 23km. 229 DPS at 42km with Spike. That is without implants. With I can get a bit more range via a locus rig and alot more damage with damage implants. Looking at a future Medium Beam Coercer fit in a similar manner - a little more dps at the same ranges, but again, no falloff. Less versatility. I still think a rail cat is the best cat.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2012-08-21 15:36:08 UTC
CobaltSixty wrote:
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 have to say, I really dislike the slot argument presented here. High slots do not directly equate to med/low slots, or even high-slots in a larger hull size, so totalling them towards some sort of arbitrary ceiling for each class is just frustrating. It's the combination of different numbers of highs and meds/lows that should define/seperate ship classes. Try thinking of it this way instead; post changes, all T1 frigates will all have around 6-7 meds/lows. Destroyers currently have 5 meds/lows, while present-day cruisers and AFs have 7 or more meds/lows.

By your own admission updated T1 cruisers will have 14ish slots which, if 5-6 are highs, the remaining 8-9 are meds/lows. It seems then that cruisers and battlecruisers will be getting similar slot layouts except for high-slots (which is a good thing), so why not port this logic down to destroyers and make them at least as good the frigates they're designed to counter.

Bumping this combined figure of meds/lows up to 6 for destroyers gives the Coercer its much needed second med-slot, and a second low-slot for the Cormorant. The Thrasher gets a third low-slot and the Catalyst gets a third med-slot. Yes, this will make them somewhat more powerful than they are now, but the pending cruiser buff (sorry, "rebalancing") will necessitate this later anyway, no?


I agree with the general assessment in this post.

If there is some magic reason that total slots have to increase between ship sizes in the Tech 1 line of ships then I think it would be better to reduce the highslots to 6 and add some role bonus to ROF or Damage for all the destroyers. The role bonus should be a little less then what we would get for having 8 guns, but still significant.
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#239 - 2012-08-21 17:34:51 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
Reppyk wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey folks,

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

We are mostly fine with the changes so far
I don't want to be harsh, but it really sounds like "sup dawg, I (may) have read the 11 pages, and I think my first idea was the best, I won't change anything, see you later on TQ o/".


That's not really true - looks like they will put the cormorant back at 4 mids thankfully. Apart from the catalyst sucking in actual combat, the rest of the changes are nice.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#240 - 2012-08-21 18:21:58 UTC
One way to limit Catalyst overall dps without completely gimping the ship would be to remove a low slot and give it an extra mid slot (webs). Just sayin'