These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#421 - 2012-10-07 13:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sheynan
Scatim Helicon wrote:
[...]
"Its ok for the catalyst to have a stupid set of bonuses because you can mitigate the stupidity a little by using a precious lowslot for a tracking enhancer" isn't exactly a compelling argument.




Everyone and their mother fits ACs to a Thrasher, effectively wasting the optimal range bonus. Does that make it a terrible ship with stupid set of boni ? No.


P.S: Split weapon boni would awesome if only they'd been properly implemented
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#422 - 2012-10-07 13:41:34 UTC
i don't see why the existing dessies shouldn't all be close range dps fast attack ships with falloff bonuses and allow the new dessies to be the tankier range ships

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
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#423 - 2012-10-07 16:36:18 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
[...]
"Its ok for the catalyst to have a stupid set of bonuses because you can mitigate the stupidity a little by using a precious lowslot for a tracking enhancer" isn't exactly a compelling argument.


Everyone and their mother fits ACs to a Thrasher, effectively wasting the optimal range bonus. Does that make it a terrible ship with stupid set of boni ? No.


No, it means that autocannons are so hilariously effective (especially with such lenient fitting requirements) they're the no-brainer choice despite the 'missing' bonus.

The fact that one of the thrasher's hull bonuses is damage (something none of the others get) doesn't hurt either.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Lord Distortion
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#424 - 2012-10-07 21:31:47 UTC
Increase warp speed on Destroyers to 4au? ( maybe 6au to match their targets?) 3au makes them as slow as cruisers. Twisted

Speed in all forms is the biggest factor with smaller vessels 8)
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#425 - 2012-10-08 18:52:23 UTC
Lord Distortion wrote:
Increase warp speed on Destroyers to 4au? ( maybe 6au to match their targets?) 3au makes them as slow as cruisers. Twisted

Speed in all forms is the biggest factor with smaller vessels 8)


What actually needs to happen with these is that the rate of acceleration and deceleration in warp is tied in some form to the size (or a related statistic such as mass) of the ship. As it is right now warp speed is largely irrelevant because typically 90% of the time spent in warp is either getting up to top speed or slowing down to re-emerge into realspace where everyone accelerates and decelerates at the same rate (you can see this when you enter warp at the same time as a vessel with a different warp speed to your own). Changing this would have all sorts of interesting consequences for frigates and destroyers.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Lord Distortion
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#426 - 2012-10-08 20:44:23 UTC
That would be nice, Would also be a fun perk for the Combat-Recon Classes? Pirate
But the AU increase would be the lazy option for CCP 8)
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#427 - 2012-10-09 08:04:59 UTC
So, the Catalyst changes alluded to in the New Destroyer thread?

I'm assuming swapping the Optimal Bonus for a Falloff bonus?

[deadpan]Or maybe 2 x Damage bonus and a tracking role bonus, just for some Hi-sec ganker loving?[/deadpan]
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2012-10-10 20:55:03 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
You wish is my command Pirate


    After some more internal and external play testings, we are fairly happy with existing destroyers, except for the Catalyst, as mentioned in the new destroyer balancing thread.

    We want to increase the fittings on it so it is able to mount neutron blasters, or even have a hope to fit 150mm railguns (with fitting implants / rigs). However, by doing so we are removing its tiny dronebay to make its role more focused on turrets and keep a clear distinction with the new Gallente drone destroyer.

  • Powergrid increased from 60 to 70, CPU increased from 170 to 178
  • Drone bay and bandwidth removed

    • Doing so approximately keeps the same damage potential as before, except you have slightly more range as using neutrons instead of ions. It also means you don't have to rely on a destructible damage source (light drone) to compensate for your downgraded guns.

    Also, we want to reduce mass on existing destroyers to make them more noticeable against the new hulls. Changes are the most important for the ships that needed the most, while the thrasher was slightly tuned down. For instance, we estimate around 200m/s to be gained on MWD speeds for a Catalyst.

  • Coercer: mass decreased from 1665000 to 1650000, agility increased from 2.75 to 2.77 to keep close align time
  • Cormorant: mass decreased from 1892000 to 1700000, agility increased from 2.5 to 2.78 to keep close align time
  • Catalyst: mass decreased from 1761000 to 1550000, agility increased from 2.45 to 2.76 to keep close align time
  • Thrasher: mass increased from 1542000 to 1600000, agility decreased from 2.96 to 2.8 to keep close align time

    • We also had a look at the Catalyst bonuses, but we find them acceptable as they are right now - swapping turret optimal range to falloff would be detrimental to long range Catalyst setups, especially with the fittings changes, that's why no modifications are planned on that front.


Well, hang on for a second, I thought Caldari Hybrid systems were more about optimal range and sniping than Gallente Hybrid systems..? This is shown in their faction turrets with Caldari/Guristas having more range (and less fitting requirements) and Gallente/Serpentis being more about damage..

So wouldn't it make sense for the Catalyst to be more of a close range brawler (especially with the additional +200m/s with MWD) and the Cormorant to be the long range type? I mean - come on - as things currently stand you're using the same skills for the same weapon system and the same skill for -BOTH- destroyer types so it's not like you're having to choose between the two....

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama
Lili Lu
#429 - 2012-10-10 21:09:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Nomistrav wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We also had a look at the Catalyst bonuses, but we find them acceptable as they are right now - swapping turret optimal range to falloff would be detrimental to long range Catalyst setups, especially with the fittings changes, that's why no modifications are planned on that front.
[/list]


Well, hang on for a second, I thought Caldari Hybrid systems were more about optimal range and sniping than Gallente Hybrid systems..? This is shown in their faction turrets with Caldari/Guristas having more range (and less fitting requirements) and Gallente/Serpentis being more about damage..

So wouldn't it make sense for the Catalyst to be more of a close range brawler (especially with the additional +200m/s with MWD) and the Cormorant to be the long range type? I mean - come on - as things currently stand you're using the same skills for the same weapon system and the same skill for -BOTH- destroyer types so it's not like you're having to choose between the two....

Roll Relax fella. What Ytterbium was trying to say is the 50% optimal "role bonus" that all destroyers get is not going to be specially changed for the Catalyst to a 50% falloff role bonus, which some people itt were asking for. The ship bonus itself though will still be 10% per level for falloff and not optimal.

The catalyst got a buff with the mass change as it will translate to more speed. So if you blaster fit you should be able to get on top of your target much faster. Whether that will be anough to cure the deficiency of the blaster catalyst awaits testing.

Meanwhile, the pg buff also allows rail fits now, which is a good thing for role choices. It means if your gang is deciding to take out a group of sniper destroyers the Catalyst is not left out. However, I still think they should be paring back the optimal bonus on Cormorant because at its present 10% strength it compounds too well with the role bonus. It should be 7.5% or even 5% imo.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#430 - 2012-10-10 23:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
I have no idea why some in this thread seem more interested in falloff over optimal. These destroyers were made to use long range weapon systems, so a optimal bonus makes sense. Also, some of the new destroyers will be subpar to the old ones.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2012-10-11 03:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Nomistrav
Major Killz wrote:
I have no idea why some in this thread seem more interested in falloff over optimal. These destroyers were made to use long range weapon systems, so a optimal bonus makes sense. Also, some of the new destroyers will be subpar to the old ones.


Well currently the new Gallente destroyer over-shadows the Catalyst by a long shot as Drones (assuming they aren't destroyed, which is still a rather pressing issue considering they're "dumb" in a sense you can't tell them how to behave) can dictate range. The catalyst is restricted to either extremely close range (blasters) with high damage output or long range (railguns) with... Well, we'll not get into that.

Gallente behavior as a whole focuses on high damage output and I like the way things are going with the new destroyer.

Thank you for the elaboration as well Lili Lu - that makes a lot more sense than changing the entire role bonus around. However, I will say that destroyer's role bonus should be getting the addition of orbital bombardment with Dust 514 coming out, so I'm still a bit curious as to whether the optimal range bonus will be axed entirely in favor of that or if the orbital bombardment role bonus will simply be tacked on.

Either way - Sniping Destroyers really don't work out well in any case so it's a moot point. Unless you have a high alpha (which arti is better for in the first place) the moment the enemy (frigate) gets within range (something that all frigates are generally good at) you might as well just roll over and **** yourself. This is why the new destroyers of both Gallente/Caldari factions will -completely- overshadow the Catalyst/Comorant in terms of long range warfare.

With that in mind - I'd honestly rather the existing destroyers get re-worked entirely and act more as Battlecruisers of the small-craft world, having a little more formidable defenses and sacrificing their high damage output. Perfect world though Blink

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#432 - 2012-10-11 17:11:21 UTC
I have been flying destroyers more then any other ship since 2008 and I will tell you point blank that the rail catalyst is the most lethal dessy I have ever been in. It puts out over 400 DPS to 13 km with another 13km of falloff. When you overheat it's guns you get a shot off every 1.53 seconds. You can get under the guns but it is very challenging to do so. Dramiels are on the menu when I'm in a rail cat- something I wouldn't even consider in an arty thrasher.
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#433 - 2012-10-16 07:56:24 UTC
MJ Incognito wrote:
Are you guys seriously missing the 20km 329 dps coercer and the 6km 460 dps coercer fits after this change? In what ******* joke of a world would you ever pwn a coercer with a thrasher again?

...snip

By default, all these ships should be high base CPU and low base PG so that they are encouraged to fit weapon upgrades and not extenders/plates.


Please post the 460 dps coercer fit with the existing slot layouts, as I can only get it to 400 dps heated at the moment! :)

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#434 - 2012-10-16 09:34:33 UTC
Hazen Koraka wrote:
Please post the 460 dps coercer fit with the existing slot layouts, as I can only get it to 400 dps heated at the moment! :)


[Coercer, I'm a sentry]
Co-Processor II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Tracking Enhancer II

Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script

Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S

[empty rig slot]
[empty rig slot]
Small Energy Burst Aerator II


543 dps OH with a 3% implant. Big smile

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#435 - 2012-10-16 12:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Hazen Koraka
Oh I've never tried conflagration S before... thought they were beam crystals.

Hmm the T2 rig will be very expensive I think?

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#436 - 2012-10-16 12:19:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Reppyk
Uh... Conflag is the T2 short-range ammo for pulses.

Gleam is the short range ammo for beams.

Dude. C'mon.

EDIT : you evil ninja-editor :<

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#437 - 2012-10-16 12:25:24 UTC
Ok, sorry for the ninja-edits :P I posted again, then thought about it :P wrong way around!

I guess my missing dps is mainly from using INMF which I thought were the highest dps crystal to use. I'll check out the conflag ones and see.

I basically had same setup, so wondering where all the missing dps has gone.

My skills aren't maxxed though, but missing 100 dps is a lot!

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#438 - 2012-10-16 12:26:16 UTC
who can explain the tier 1 and tier 2 destroyers to me?

They seem to be the same. There is a ship - Caracal, it can outperform and WTF destroy both of them. And caracal has more DPS, more tank, missiles that kick small ship's aaaaas.

Destroyers offer poor survivability, especially compared to assault frigates.

In fact destroyers are one shot ship wrecks. Their match is shuttles and capsules.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#439 - 2012-10-16 12:28:10 UTC
The caracal has a poor tank also, and is a kind of one-shot pony, as it needs high alpha to kill said destroyers quickly. Plus... a caracal is a cruiser... oO

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#440 - 2012-10-16 14:48:18 UTC
Opertone wrote:
who can explain the tier 1 and tier 2 destroyers to me?

They seem to be the same. There is a ship - Caracal, it can outperform and WTF destroy both of them. And caracal has more DPS, more tank, missiles that kick small ship's aaaaas.

Destroyers offer poor survivability, especially compared to assault frigates.

In fact destroyers are one shot ship wrecks. Their match is shuttles and capsules.

It's slow, bulky, takes a while to target smaller ships (compared to dessies), if it fits those, it's sub-par against other cruisers. It gives frigates plenty of time to warp off, and all but the slowest frigates can burn away from a Caracal at will.

Destroyers on the other hand, are still slow, and can't fit a tank. Except the Thrasher. But the benefit is extreme amounts of damage, and solid range. Destroyers have high tracking speed, significant DPS, and are a bit smaller, and so a *tiny* bit less vulnerable to larger ships.

AML Caracals actually have quite low DPS, but they're good because all the DPS is actually applied to frigate sized targets, and they can fit a solid tank.