These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#261 - 2012-08-28 14:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Pinky Denmark wrote:
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
Pinky, meet Cockbag Thrasher, Cockbag Thrasher, Pinky. The ability of the Cockbag Trasher to instapop frigs should be more than enough reason to nerf it in other areas. Instead we talk about how with perfect piloting a Catalyst can win against a Thrasher. BTW, will test out the neutron blaster cat with "strafing run" technique.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#262 - 2012-08-28 17:32:28 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Pinky Denmark wrote:
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
Pinky, meet Cockbag Thrasher, Cockbag Thrasher, Pinky. The ability of the Cockbag Trasher to instapop frigs should be more than enough reason to nerf it in other areas. Instead we talk about how with perfect piloting a Catalyst can win against a Thrasher. BTW, will test out the neutron blaster cat with "strafing run" technique.


I'm not an infamous name in Eve. I don't throw up a ridiculous number of kills every month. I'm not a chest pounder. But if you look at my killboard you'll see that I kill AC Thrashers solo quite a bit in a variety of fits. I also prefer the 125mm rail cat to the nuetron cat. In it you can strafe and beat arty thrashers whereas the nuetron cat can't unless you start on top of them.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#263 - 2012-08-28 19:13:12 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Pinky Denmark wrote:
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
Pinky, meet Cockbag Thrasher, Cockbag Thrasher, Pinky. The ability of the Cockbag Trasher to instapop frigs should be more than enough reason to nerf it in other areas. Instead we talk about how with perfect piloting a Catalyst can win against a Thrasher. BTW, will test out the neutron blaster cat with "strafing run" technique.


I'm not an infamous name in Eve. I don't throw up a ridiculous number of kills every month. I'm not a chest pounder. But if you look at my killboard you'll see that I kill AC Thrashers solo quite a bit in a variety of fits. I also prefer the 125mm rail cat to the nuetron cat. In it you can strafe and beat arty thrashers whereas the nuetron cat can't unless you start on top of them.


You'll also notice that is an arty thrasher.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#264 - 2012-08-28 20:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I'm not an infamous name in Eve. I don't throw up a ridiculous number of kills every month. I'm not a chest pounder. But if you look at my killboard you'll see that I kill AC Thrashers solo quite a bit in a variety of fits. I also prefer the 125mm rail cat to the nuetron cat. In it you can strafe and beat arty thrashers whereas the nuetron cat can't unless you start on top of them.
Hey man, I said I was giving it a shot! Will report what I learn soon enough. Killed a completely untanked arty Thrasher today with the 125mm rail cat. Still under evaluation.

In this first test of 125mm Cat, he didn't burn at me at 4k, he burned away. Was barely able to keep enough dps on him before he popped due to no tank. If he had a shield extender instead of an unused web the outcome would have been different. But that's fine. Will keep evaluating. I should be able to out range him and at least run him off in the future, but I was trying strafing technique and using antimatter.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#265 - 2012-08-28 23:19:44 UTC
also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#266 - 2012-08-29 13:19:24 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?


They have different roles the same hull often means nothing in this game

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
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#267 - 2012-08-29 13:33:40 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?


When destroyers were buffed, interdictors weren't.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#268 - 2012-08-30 06:17:54 UTC
So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#269 - 2012-08-30 11:24:56 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....



and the rest of usefull mods
including a dcu II
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#270 - 2012-08-30 14:52:00 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....



Well check this out:

Thrasher - First to Fight

Minmatar sent a few of those through a minor acceleration gate first to absorb DPS. It's an impractical fit for anything else. But an MSE AND a 400mm plate - with second tier guns, a nuet, and no fitting mods! I think if I put a 400mm plate on a Cat I have to go with Electrons and still need fitting help. We won't even touch the MSe.
Lili Lu
#271 - 2012-08-30 16:15:16 UTC
Reread the op. Things that stand out still.

The Catalyst is still gimped for fitting in some crazy racial straightjacket attempt to force blasters. Do you not realize that this means the Catalyst struggles to fit rails at all, while the Cormorant has no problem fitting blasters? What? This is not balanced. One race has viable short and long range fits, but the other doesn't. Can you not up the pg on this ship to something at least equal with a cormorant's? And really it should be more.

Not changing the extreme 10% optimal bonus for the Cormorant means it can still be fit for crazy sniping and no other destroyer can get even close to it's range. That bonus should be 5%, or at most 7.5%. Should only Caldari be able to use their long range guns effectively? (well except for arty alpha at relatively short ranges)

The Thrasher's signature radius is still a relative order of magnitude less than the others. It has plenty of room to retain the smallest sig radius but still be in the ball park with the other destroyers. And again what is with the new bloated signatures on Gallente ships?

Please read up. People want to have options. They want to be able to fit long range guns and not be forced into fitting their racial short range guns. Even if in the larger scheme of things they will have an advantage with fittings that harmonize with their racial predilections. And again, 10% range bonus on top of the already longest range guns is unbelievable.Ugh
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#272 - 2012-08-30 18:02:10 UTC
how come their isn't any mass stats on there?

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
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#273 - 2012-08-31 00:46:18 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Reread the op. Things that stand out still.

Not changing the extreme 10% optimal bonus for the Cormorant means it can still be fit for crazy sniping and no other destroyer can get even close to it's range. That bonus should be 5%, or at most 7.5%. Should only Caldari be able to use their long range guns effectively? (well except for arty alpha at relatively short ranges)

The Thrasher's signature radius is still a relative order of magnitude less than the others. It has plenty of room to retain the smallest sig radius but still be in the ball park with the other destroyers. And again what is with the new bloated signatures on Gallente ships?

Please read up. People want to have options. They want to be able to fit long range guns and not be forced into fitting their racial short range guns. Even if in the larger scheme of things they will have an advantage with fittings that harmonize with their racial predilections. And again, 10% range bonus on top of the already longest range guns is unbelievable.Ugh


The corm, overheated, does 124 dps at 95km. It can lock out to 110km with the current cookie cutter fit. Really - that's it's niche. That's what it does better then the other destroyers. If you put AM into it you're still only looking at 214 DPS. It's the biggest, slowest destroyer with the least DPS. It's only scary when you get four or five in a minor plex 100km off of the warp in.

And as annoying as the cormorant is, it has nothing on a Naga in a major. Twisted
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#274 - 2012-08-31 06:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
The problems with destroyers is not Damage oriented. The problem balance wise is slots/tank among them.

If you have this obsession with 13 slot count, why not reduce the high slots to 6, 4 weapon mounts -- 100% damage bonus
* it's not even an artisitic problem, it just means you use 4 of the mounts and the other 4 go unused graphically until the art department gets to it later.

reallocate the 2 other highs to mids/lows

Then give them all a role bonus of 100% web range, and remove the %lvl tracking bonuses in place of other better choices.

Then give them a role bonus where they get a 50% reduction on PG/CPU for small weapon platforms, and reduce their ship stats accordingly based on all these changes.


Doing all these steps allows you to limit the tank they can get with plates/extenders because the powergrid/cpu won't be there. It will also enable them to do the things they currently have issues doing such as fit long range weapons w/o getting massive PG stat boost and still dictating range on ships with webs.

Their DPS at those 20-30km web ranges will be enough to harm frigates while dictating range, but be nothing to challenge cruisers who can easily hit to those ranges, and have the tracking at those ranges to annihilate destroyers.


You guys really need to start playing more with weapon fitting values on individual ship classes because they are the single largest reason why it's hard to balance the game atm. Oracle is a prime example. You guys wanted to give it the ability to fit tachyons, so some dev lazily gave it way too much power grid and now the paper tiger design just got a 1600 plate. I mean how did the guy not just increase the fittings buff more on that ship and lower the total PG so that you don't see 65,000 ehp pulse oracles.

Personally, I'd like to see PG/CPU gun reduction bonuses on all ship classes and much lower ship stats so that oversized plating/extender/prop mods and tanks are much more rare. But then again, I'd also fix the tracking formula first... call me crazy.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#275 - 2012-09-01 15:19:45 UTC
It seems that you guys need a dictionary. There is a difference between balancing and homogenization that you guys seem to fail to understand. You are making all the races the same and ruining the complexity of the game.

The Amarr have always been short on mid slots and hard to fit the guns. However to offset that they have very strong tanks and the most DPS in game. Despite their drawbacks Amarr ships are some of the most popular in game from what I see. currently I think the Coercer is the best destroyer for running level 1 and 2 missions.

Missiles can hit at any distance the exact same and you don't have the issues with tracking that guns have. To offset that they are low potential dps but actual and potential are very close to the same where guns are literally hit or miss. You can hit on one volley and completely miss on the next one so you have to learn how guns and tracking works to use them effectively or avoid them effectively.

So if you are making lazors easier to fit and giving the coercer another mid are you going to increase the range of blasters? Are you going to boost the dps and tracking of autocannons?

Missiles are immune to tracking disruption and kind of immune to ewar in general with fof missiles. So since you are boosting missile dps are you going to remove tracking, optimal and falloff from the game and just make guns hit with in a certain range like missiles do?

When you guys do stuff like this it makes me wonder if you have ever played the game before. You are making the same mistake Blizzard did with WoW and you are ruining the game by listen to the whiners that complain about balance. This is not WoW it is Eve. We don't have classes we have ships and anyone can train to fly any ship which makes imbalance impossible. If you like another destroyer better than the one you are flying then crosstrain, it's that simple.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#276 - 2012-09-01 18:17:48 UTC
ergherhdfgh wrote:
I. If you like another destroyer better than the one you are flying then crosstrain, it's that simple.


yes,if training a frigate to and guns to t2 and lvl 4`s specs would take 20 minute who the **** would mind??
Pleniers
Appetite 4 Destruction
#277 - 2012-09-02 02:56:40 UTC
Please maintain the 4 slot layout on the cormorant. It's really the feature that make it more distinct than any other dessy.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#278 - 2012-09-03 13:23:49 UTC
Still no changing my arty Thrasher for another one

Still not changing from my Sabre to another one

I can fly all of them, why do I get the feeling I don't have much of a choice?

brb
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#279 - 2012-09-03 13:32:17 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?


CCP has a way of significantly buffing t1 and leaving their t2 variants unchanged. Another great example other than the destroyer buffs in inferno that lead to this inconsistency is the 6+ year old BC hp buff that for some reason never was applied to command ships. Prior to this hp buff command ships had higher base hp values in a similar ratio as t1 cruisers to hacs... However after the t1 bc hp buff they ended up having more raw base hp value than the t2s, seems a bit silly if you ask me Roll.

The truth is that CCP has an amazingly long list of oversights. I think it has to do with the quality assurance reps being drunk all the time (just kidding), just look at how many model/texure bugs/fails are present on many ships/stations even after these models go through weeks and weeks of quality assurance.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#280 - 2012-09-05 17:21:22 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Well check this out:

Thrasher - First to Fight

Minmatar sent a few of those through a minor acceleration gate first to absorb DPS. It's an impractical fit for anything else. But an MSE AND a 400mm plate - with second tier guns, a nuet, and no fitting mods! I think if I put a 400mm plate on a Cat I have to go with Electrons and still need fitting help. We won't even touch the MSe.

Catalyst can do something like this but with no point and a micro auxilliary core in the low. 7x 75mm gatling rails, and a small neut too.

Do we concur that the blaster version of the Catalyst is sub par but that there may be hope for a 125mm "hull tanked" version? Still evaluating...