These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#441 - 2012-10-19 15:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
The Cormorant needs the 4th midslot a LOT more then two lowslots, because as an anti-frigate sniper, tracking is more important than damage. really don't think the Cormorant was imbalanced as it is now and fits it's role as sniper well.

The new slot layout is breaking something when trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#442 - 2012-10-19 16:20:19 UTC
Slot layout of destroyers as they stand is pretty much fine. Coercer suffers somewhat from not having a second mid slot for tackle, but it is great in gangs and with right fit you can actually solo kill many things in your weight class before they can realize they're boned and warp out.

The Cormorant and Catalyst can both use the fittings buff they're getting, but they should leave the Cormorant's slot layout. The speed buff is good, but it doesn't go far enough. It bugs me quite a bit that many cruisers are going to be faster that dessies. I would aim for about attack cruiser speed for destroyers. But I'm biased.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#443 - 2012-10-25 06:20:22 UTC
How about you remove that pointless highslot on the cormorant and move it to a mid. Makinga 7/4/2 layout.

The catalyst needs 3 mids to be effective unfortunately, it cannot pin down frigs that come within scram range.

The coercer is much better now and it fairly awesome.

The thrasher is the thrasher as usual.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#444 - 2012-10-27 17:54:18 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
The Cormorant needs the 4th midslot a LOT more then two lowslots, because as an anti-frigate sniper, tracking is more important than damage. really don't think the Cormorant was imbalanced as it is now and fits it's role as sniper well.

But Tracking Enhancer > Tracking Computer.....
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#445 - 2012-10-27 23:45:30 UTC
The cormorant needs 4 mids, one way or another.


Think of the nifty ewar setups, the double mse setups, the double asb setups :(
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#446 - 2012-10-28 17:01:29 UTC
I appreciate trying to make it so all of the destroyers aren't the same, but realistically you need to have a web in order to be able to kill a frigate, particularly when you're in a hull with a lower base speed than a frigate and particularly considering that most frigates nowadays can fit their own web.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#447 - 2012-10-28 18:57:08 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I appreciate trying to make it so all of the destroyers aren't the same, but realistically you need to have a web in order to be able to kill a frigate, particularly when you're in a hull with a lower base speed than a frigate and particularly considering that most frigates nowadays can fit their own web.


Precisely, the gallente destroyer needs another mid to be any good, its supposed to be a blaster boat but it only has two mids for MWD and scram, no way can it hold anything down to blast them.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#448 - 2012-10-28 19:34:24 UTC
Does an AC MSE Thrasher get roundly criticized for a lack of a web? The future Catalyst trades places with it as the fastest destroyer. It will also be able to fit Nuetrons. Add a TE and your optimal plus falloff is 6.3km + 7.2 km with Null compared to 1km + 9km for barrage with the Thrasher. More DPS farther.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#449 - 2012-11-05 19:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
The problem here is that not every ship should be viable in solo PvP. Giving every Destroyer the ability to fit a 1MN MWD, a fat tank, enough guns to do 200 DPS, and a scram/web to "pin down" Frigates... all at the same time... is just stupid.

There should be trade offs between tackle, speed, tank, DPS, etc. Not every Destroyer should have all of them at the same time. For example: Your Catalyst has 3-4 LowSlots and only 2 mids? Cool, you get to choose between damage/tracking or armor tank. Alternately, you could fit damage mods and go for a shield tank, but lose your ability to tackle anything. Trade offs.

Every Destroyer should have at least two midslots for better gang support; prop mod + point/web. You're either an auxiliary point or you can web down drones and blap them. But I certainly don't think that armor-tanking destroyers need to fit both a scram and a web. And I don't think that shield-tanking destroyers need to have a lot of lowslots, either. There should be more consequences for choosing to fit a certain way over another, not making all the destroyers perform the same with different tools.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#450 - 2012-11-11 14:18:06 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I appreciate trying to make it so all of the destroyers aren't the same, but realistically you need to have a web in order to be able to kill a frigate, particularly when you're in a hull with a lower base speed than a frigate and particularly considering that most frigates nowadays can fit their own web.

MSE Thrasher disagrees.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#451 - 2012-11-14 16:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
edit. wrong spot.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#452 - 2012-11-15 00:47:41 UTC
RIP cormorant

seriously though these utility highs on long-range ships have got to go, they're totally useless.
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#453 - 2012-11-16 20:32:08 UTC
A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!

Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#454 - 2012-11-16 20:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
chatgris wrote:
A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!

Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed.


Thats exactly what I told CCP earlier in the thread. However, the new caldari destroyer has 4 mids, and is superior for everything but super long range sniping
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#455 - 2012-11-16 21:07:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
It seems to me that CCP Ytterbium already has his mind set on the current setups and doesn't seem to listen and interact like our fave dev fozzie all these dessies in this page suffer from having to have 8 highs unlike the new dessies which rather limits them to certain roles.
The catalyst which really ought to have a more flexible slot layout as a blaster boat 2 mids is really not good.
coercer should have another low.
Cormorant is too obsessed with sniper role and ought to have more opportunity to be a blaster boat with less optimal range bonus and more damage and extra mid.
Thrasher why isn't this a traditional fast falloff ship? extra low
He still hasn't updated the OP why?

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
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#456 - 2012-11-16 22:07:12 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
It seems to me that CCP Ytterbium already has his mind set on the current setups and doesn't seem to listen and interact like our fave dev fozzie all these dessies in this page suffer from having to have 8 highs unlike the new dessies which rather limits them to certain roles.
The catalyst which really ought to have a more flexible slot layout as a blaster boat 2 mids is really not good.
coercer should have another low.
Cormorant is too obsessed with sniper role and ought to have more opportunity to be a blaster boat with less optimal range bonus and more damage and extra mid.
Thrasher why isn't this a traditional fast falloff ship? extra low
He still hasn't updated the OP why?


From that list, only the Coercer might have issues. The others are fine, especially Thrasher and Catalyst.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#457 - 2012-11-16 22:22:05 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
chatgris wrote:
A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!

Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed.


Thats exactly what I told CCP earlier in the thread. However, the new caldari destroyer has 4 mids, and is superior for everything but super long range sniping



Its a missile ship. So for close range you will likely need to put a web on it if you want to do damage to an ab frigate. So I would say its really different. And in any event there is no need to make the corm an inferior thrasher.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#458 - 2012-11-16 23:24:28 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
chatgris wrote:
A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!

Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed.


Thats exactly what I told CCP earlier in the thread. However, the new caldari destroyer has 4 mids, and is superior for everything but super long range sniping



Its a missile ship. So for close range you will likely need to put a web on it if you want to do damage to an ab frigate. So I would say its really different. And in any event there is no need to make the corm an inferior thrasher.


With the recent missile changes and its bonus to explosion velocity it will still hit an AB rifter for about 80% damage and any (non overheating) AB-Incursus for full damage with navy rockets. Also precision light missiles on the other hand will hit almost anything for full damage.

Not to lessen any concerns about the new niche of the Cormorant though.
Luscius Uta
#459 - 2012-11-18 11:26:31 UTC
I don't like the new destroyer names (assuming they are final), they don't follow racial naming theme and don't seem to have meaning (as opposed to tier 3 BC names which were very good). Especially The Dragoon...Congregator would be much better name for a drone boat and would fit with standard religious theme of Amarr ships.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Aurelius Vicci
Perkone
Caldari State
#460 - 2012-11-18 16:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Aurelius Vicci
Luscius Uta wrote:
I don't like the new destroyer names (assuming they are final), they don't follow racial naming theme and don't seem to have meaning (as opposed to tier 3 BC names which were very good). Especially The Dragoon...Congregator would be much better name for a drone boat and would fit with standard religious theme of Amarr ships.


a rose by any other name..

edit: also, wrong thread