Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes, please leave the cormorant's med slots as they now. Though I wouldnt be changing the high slots for all cormorants at all, probably only number of turret hardpoints, but I want to speak for all starting salvagers, its just crazy for starting players(salvagers) to train right away for noctis, for one point its expensive and too much skilling. But its not just for starting players many people prefer destroyer salvager before noctis coz of its speed and can even salvage maybe faster, I myself fly with noctis only to bigger missions or sites as it is slow.

so yeah, the coercer goes from being exceptional at everything to sucking at everything. itll be outranged by any of the other destroyers and it itll be outtanked by all of them except the newer cormorant which was the 2nd best destroyer in the game, 1st being coercer. the new cormorant went from being amazing, to complete ****.

GG

I think he may be asking, and rightly so, But what about beams? To which I would add, And why should the Catalyst be fitting restricted to blasters and no 150mm rails? And why does the Corm get a 10% optimal bonus on top of already having the best ranged guns? I do not think CCP is doing a good job at all with ship rebalancing. They are restricting/forcing fits upon each ship. What the hell would be wrong with wanting a sniping Catalyst that wouldn't necessitate 3 fitting rigs and still suck because a counterpart has an overblown bonus for that role? Meanwhile a blaster corm is possible and viable.

Oh, as for the tenor of flying dank pockets post just ignore him. There is a whole group of them in Eha that rage uncontrollably in an incoherent and illogical manner. It makes for some fun reading local if you have the inclination to laugh in amazement at the wtf is that about and decide to unblock them. But otherwise they are incomprehensible and best to just block them.

Yes but it loses a low slot and that's kinda painful. :(

-Liang

It gets even better actually as you can do this:

[Coercer]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Tracking Enhancer II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Sensor Booster II

Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S

Small Energy Collision Accelerator I
Small Energy Burst Aerator I

The only drawback is that you need Energy Weapon Rigging V to fit it all without a PG implant (the small laser damage hardwiring goes into the same slot as the engineering hardwiring)

I don't understand people who think the Coercer is getting nerfed.

It is being nerfed relative to the others as that example you presented is already a fact of life for the Coercer:
[Coercer]
2x Heat Sink II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I

8x Medium Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency S

Small Ancillary Current Router I
Small Energy Locus Coordinator I
Small Energy Collision Accelerator I

A smidgen faster/nimbler, same smidgen lower lock speed and damage but with better range.

PS: Kind of a ****-fit by the way, if you go gank you need the suitcase to last more than a few volleys from just about anything, better (and simpler/cheaper to shop for ) pulse-gank is:
8x DLPII
MWD
DCUII, 3x HSII
Rigs to taste

Stupid levels of damage .. burns 400mn plate auto Trash to the ground without breaking a sweat.

Still dislike that the hulls are being homogenized, there will be close to no difference other than the race flavoured weaponry which is borked and the rebalance doesn't factor in the insane cost of fielding them with eight guns, the price of which make up the bulk of ISK used.
Marauder them all up, 4 guns with 100% damage bonus to save a buttload of ISK in fitting them (maybe add a utility to all) .. then:
- Coercer: Slight increase in cap (~12'ish %), remove cap bonus, +7.5% damage/level. No slot change.
Who cares if you can't tackle if the lightest tap of the fire button is a super-sonic anvil in the enemy's face?

- Trash: TP or half minnie web range bonus instead of current 5% damage bonus. Depends if the high-slot TP becomes a reality I reckon.
Looses 0.75 of a gun that way but gains flavour and tactical options. Auto's + 1/2 web range bonus would be godly in the right hands just as arty + TP (if in utility) would be and is.

- Catalyst: Not much experience with it post blaster changes, but guess a drone or two would fit it nicely.

- Cormorant: As above, little experience. Would gain a smidgen damage from being Maraudered, if given grid to use/abuse rails then it should also have neutron option with little issues, setting it apart from the Catalyst

In short: Make the choice of ship matter for more than what weapon will be used. Make them cheaper to field (read: spam)!

i am so sick and tired of ******* trasher.and sabers.these 2 ships are the most ships i encounter and i dont have with what to kill them solo what so ever.earlier i lost a 600 dps catalyst vs 400mm plate trasher.

so,someone was complaining about catalyst having too much pg and cpu than trasher.absolutly not true.

trasher has so many fitting options (i dont even need have to argue,but if you`re looking for an arguement check eve-kill.net)
so besided the fact that has better fitting options,also has quiteee a lot of dps.somehwere around 500 if i`m not mistaken.
more tank.do no doubt.more speed,more agility,less signature radius and so on.what is ccp planning on doing about this?

all the fights i had this years vs a trasher/saber all ended up in me loosing a ship.

so,i suggest ccp do something else,if they really want balance,altough i quite doubt about that.

BALANCE = EVERYTHING MUST BE AT THE SAME LEVEL

SO

all slots on each destroyers to be the same / all bonuses to be the same / all guns/missiles damage/rof etc whatever to be the same.that is balance! not the **** that they sell

It's really a lost cause because mwd, scram, and "keep at range 6,000" don't work too well. No way for catalyst to control range whatsoever. Thrasher is faster and can overheat mwd, etc...

Recoil IV : BALANCE = EVERYTHING MUST BE AT THE SAME LEVEL


Balance isn't the same as homogenization. Balance is about creating interesting ship designs that do the role that they are designed for well. To make all current destroyers anti-frigate rubbish where the only difference is what you could put on it is a poor effort in my opinion.

The bonuses the hulls get should be based exactly on the role they intend to fill. At this point a lot of the ships you see in pvp tend to be cookie cutter fits and usually the same hull type e.g. Thrashers when it comes to destroyers.

Why?, because for every class of ship there is usually one stand out (e.g. Thrasher). Be it the combination of weapons, slots, utility (omni-fit), game mechanics, background fluff etc. Even down to the combination of fighting tactics, which for some races seems a very bizarre combination...e.g. blasters, armor tanking and no speed. I mean really how do you expect this guy to close to short range when he's a pillbox. On the opposite end is a few of the minmatar ships. Fast, agile and massive falloff on their weapons, all of this good on it's own. But you then add damage and tracking bonuses, mods with more tracking / sig radius bonus (ie TP), no cap usage and suddenly shooting outside optimal doesn't matter as much when it comes to damage projection.

So that is where I see the balancing issues. The hulls themselves, even the coercers 1 mid slot, aren't so much the issue as the bonuses and the racial philosophies / module + bonus combinations. Both of which I know would be much harder to align than the hulls themselves. I mean the Amarr and Minmatar have been fighting for a while, but there is still no Amarr weaponry designed that allows them to target a Minmatar hulls weakest resists, so they fit Minmatar guns on their hulls to be able to swap ammo types. Caldari have great ECM, so why no ECCM bonus on a Gallante ship?, or why can some cruisers outpace frigates or destroyers for speed?

So if you want to make destroyers good for certain rolls do so. If you want me to be the passive armor tanked pillbox, then give me resist bonuses and maybe web / scram bonuses, possibly a range bonus but no damage bonus or even a combination of a bonus and a fixed negative modifier (oh no, sacrilege ). Make the hull fit the role and not a hull for all occasions. Fitting hulls for multi-role isn't supposed to be easy, if it was we would be in WoW not EvE.

Those are the sorts of things I think should be looked at more so than making all hulls exactly the same, it's also an opinion and we all know opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. Some are just nicer to look at..like mine

One thing that really bothers me about destroyers is the limited amount of slots available makes it rather difficult to boost scan resolution enough to lock and shoot frigates before they burn away or warp out...
Even when frigates are dropping out of warp directly on top of you the destroyers lock so slow most frigates get away before you can start applying damage to them :o

To me it seems the destroyers could easily benefit from a 20% increase in scan resolution putting them about even with the scan resolution on combat frigates (Merlin, Rifter, Incursus and Punisher)

With much less mobility and a really poor tank this buff will not get destroyers into a competition with the other frigates or new Interceptor frigates Atron, Condor etc in this area

Pinky