These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#41 - 2012-08-09 19:33:54 UTC
Ok what the Coercer needed was more mids..

It did not need more DPS/Range.. It was already really powerful, just couldn't hold anything down...

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#42 - 2012-08-09 19:37:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
For me destroyers are all about gank. How much firepower can you put onto each dessie frame to kill frigates as fast as possible? Through trial and error I have stopped putting points on the things - you can't really control range with frigates. They will either come into your envelope or they won't.

Thrasher:
High:
280mm II x 7
Mid:
Limited MWD
Sensor Booster II
Tracking Computer II
Low:
Gyro II x 2
Rigs:
Ancillary Current Router x 2
Projectile Collision Rig

1854 Alpha - This kills frigates all the time before they can get out.

125mm Catalyst: - imho the only Catalyst worth fitting
High:
125mm II x 8
Mid:
Limited MWD
Sensor Booster II
Low:
MFS II x 2
TE II
Rigs:
Ancillary Current Router
Hybrid Burst
Hybrid Locus Coordinator

You need the genolution set to fit this - it would be nice if it wasn't needed to fit the middle tier rail guns and no tank. However the above fit does 381 DPS with faction Antimatter. If you throw in damage implants it easily breaks 418 DPS at 13km. To put it another way it sends 609 alpha downrange every 1.53 seconds. And it puts 4 volleys downrange before the Thrasher gets off it's second. Again, by the time a target realizes it needs to get out, it's usually dead.

Corm - it currently is a support ship. It's DPS is too weak to do what the Cat and Thrasher do - kill stuff fast. It is usually consigned to sit back and snipe in support of other ships at 70 - 100km. I have fought the dual MSE, 75mm rail corm in the cat fit posted above and wasn't impressed by it at all. It has 7 turrets while the Thrasher, with it's damage bonus, technically has 8.75. I use those four mids for a prop mod, two tracking computers and a sensor booster. Along with an ionic field projector rig I can lock out to 90km and shoot out the same. That range would have to come in alot with the slot change but I'd be able to send more DPS out as well. All in all, still consigned to be a support sniper.

Coercer - I have little experience with this ship.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#43 - 2012-08-09 19:49:09 UTC
i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid.
loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it?
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#44 - 2012-08-09 19:51:48 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid.
loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it?


For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2012-08-09 19:53:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Zarnak, this is how you would fit a Coercer for what you're doing:

Quote:
[Coercer, Full Gank]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Co-Processor II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I

Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S

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



378 dps overheat, 728 volley, 19k optimal.

I do find that the lack of warp disruptor limits the usefulness of the ship. While it kills fast, it doesn't kill fast enough to stop frigates that appear on the gate and try to warp off, adn frigate pilots know better than to willingly engage a destroyer.


Edit: unless I messed up the calculations, the new Coercer will be able to do almost the same as the above fit but with a warp disruptor. This particular fit requires Energy Weapons Rigging V or a PG implant, but there may be variations that don't.

Quote:

[Coercer, New Full Gank]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Co-Processor II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Faint Warp Disruptor


Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S

Small Energy Burst Aerator I
Small Energy Collision Accelerator I
[empty rig slot]


377 dps, 728 volley, 17k optimal,
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#46 - 2012-08-09 20:31:18 UTC
The Catalyst needs more powergrid, especially since its mounting one more gun than the cormorant.

The coercer is a much better ship now.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-08-09 20:39:18 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid.
loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it?


For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much.


I expect people who fit blasters would like it also as the corm has 8 highs but only 7 turrets,

That said I like the utility high for rocket launcher or neut although I would like the eighth turret also, just with four mids.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-08-09 21:04:04 UTC
Does [Winter] in the title mean we'll have to wait until December expansion to see these changes?
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#49 - 2012-08-09 21:06:51 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid.
loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it?


For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much.


I expect people who fit blasters would like it also as the corm has 8 highs but only 7 turrets,

That said I like the utility high for rocket launcher or neut although I would like the eighth turret also, just with four mids.


The Cormorant should have 7 turrets, 4 mids, 2 lows. Trade out the tracking bonus for a damage bonus. (optimal x 2, damage) Now THAT would be a Caldari destroyer. Twisted
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#50 - 2012-08-09 21:17:05 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
...


I'm not a huge fan of the destroyer changes:
- I really liked the old 2 HS/2 TE Coercer... but I'm probably the only one who did. I can see why you're making the change, even if I'm not a big fan.
- Dropping the 4th mid slot on the Cormorant feels like a nerf.
- Why does the Cormorant have so much higher grid than the Catalyst?

Really, I think the biggest problem with destroyer usage right now is the cost of the hull vs the cost of T2 weapons. It's literally cheaper to buy a better frigate like the Retribution or Slicer than fit T2 weapons to a destroyer. Have you considered the old 100% bonus and 3-4 weapon slots?

Quote:

MODULES:

The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.


  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%


I admit I'm not sold the change to Med Pulse/Beams is enough - particularly in the case of Med Beams. The range on them is just so long that it rather eclipses frigate engagement ranges. The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-08-09 21:34:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Liang Nuren wrote:


I admit I'm not sold the change to Med Pulse/Beams is enough - particularly in the case of Med Beams. The range on them is just so long that it rather eclipses frigate engagement ranges.

-Liang


That makes no sense. Med beams have lower optimal than 150mm rails and the same optimal as 280mm arty. With lower falloff than both, they're actually the "shortest" long range weapon system. Or was that what you were trying to say?

I think they're underused in part because they're too similar to pulse lasers with scorch and the extra range over scorch isn't that helpful with frigate speeds.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#52 - 2012-08-09 21:46:02 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

That makes no sense. Med beams have lower optimal than 150mm rails and the same optimal as 280mm arty. With lower falloff than both, they're actually the "shortest" long range weapon system. Or was that what you were trying to say?

I think they're underused in part because they're too similar to pulse lasers with scorch and the extra range over scorch isn't that helpful with frigate speeds.


You're probably looking at Multifreq optimals where they just don't track. Try moving out to longer ranged ammos and you'll see what I mean. Still, tracking is a problem but it doesn't matter much because you can't lock that far out anyway.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tanaka Aiko
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2012-08-09 22:24:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

We are talking about the small sized turrets here, that like to call themselves "medium" just to confuse everyone. We should probably rename them to something that actually match their proper size.

+1 for rename
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#54 - 2012-08-09 23:20:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
Liang Nuren wrote:
The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.

-Liang


It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a damage-appliance boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#55 - 2012-08-09 23:27:01 UTC
Madner Kami wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.

-Liang


It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a damage-appliance boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40.


That makes a lot more sense, TBH. Ytterbium?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#56 - 2012-08-09 23:27:07 UTC
Madner Kami wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.

-Liang


It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a damage-appliance boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40.


That makes a lot more sense, TBH. Ytterbium?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-08-10 02:26:40 UTC
Definitely rename any light (small) modules that have 'medium' in their name, they're confusing.

Loving the change for light missiles, they sorely need that buff. And consider making all the long-range missiles and guns more like artillery, in that they are about volley damage (cruise missiles would really benefit from this, but I disgress).

The Corm desperately needs an 8th turret slot, please consider adding this since it doesn't get a damage bonus. You can make a dedicated missile destroyer later Blink

I'm not entirely sold on the concept of destroyers still being anti-frigate hulls. Does that mean we will get anti-destroyer cruisers? And anti-cruiser battlecruisers etc? Stick to your ship lines model - what category are destroyers really in? With poor mobility and poor defence, they don't really fit into the combat OR attack lines, and they're not support. They're in a class of their own at the moment.

That destroyer gun-range bonus; are the tier 2 destroyers going to get that too, even if they're missile or drone based? It just doesn't fit.

Consider removing that and folding the range bonus into the regular attributes for the class to normalise them with the upcoming tier 2's. Hell, if you're still planning to release Line Skills (attack, combat etc) attach that range bonus to the attack ship line skill.

The tier 1's are gunboats, meant for damage, and therefore should be in the attack line and should probably have more speed to fit with the category. Or more resilience to fit them into the combat line. Take your pick, but don't leave them swinging in the wind as they are now. Even the tier 3 BC's would be considered attack line ships as they have speed AND damage output. Food for thought.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2012-08-10 03:25:48 UTC
Dear CCP Yitterbium, CCP Fozzie, and CCP Tallest,

So I've heard a lot about the reasons why historically, as in near the beta, lasers were so good none of the laser ships had damage bonuses and had cap use bonuses instead from players.

However when you bring up the stats today, they are in terms of tracking, range and damage seem to be in line roughly with other weapons minus the fact they use so much more cap. Which makes many Amarr ship fits quite more cap unstable especially in long fights when compared to other races. Much more so than Caldari missile boats or any Minmatar in terms of ability to project damage. I think all these points are facts that most people who played recently would agree upon.

I had asked in the attack frigate thread, though rather late in the thread.

Quote:
What are the broad design goals, choices for each of the races combat ships, what are they supposed to be good at?

To me it seems, that Amarr is supposed to be good at lasers, passive armor tanking, and capacitor.

With secondary weapons being drones and missiles, though it looks like your giving most races drones or missile ships eventually.

Minmatar, projectiles, missiles, speed, and active shield tanking. Though by far the most versatile race.

Gallente, Blasters, drones, active armor tanking, agility(?).

Caldari, Railguns, Missiles, passive shield tanking, um 4th thing(?)

These of course don't list the EWAR of each race which is much more obvious.


So I was wondering what the devs think about the general balance of laser cap use, compared to there abilities, and how this factors in recent balance changes where some ships have had their inherent cap changed to make room for a real second bonus on Amarr ships but not all.

Don't get me wrong, I love that you are bringing Tech 1 back into a useable state. And I appreciate many of the changes. I just want some love for my Amarr ships in long fights.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2012-08-10 03:27:08 UTC
So instead of Medium Beam and Pulse. How about Small Overcharged Beam/Pulse?
Azula Kishtar
Lonely among the Stars
#60 - 2012-08-10 04:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Azula Kishtar
I guess the change to the slot layout of the Coercer was bound to happen sooner or later. Too many people complained about it.

I am a bit sad about the changes, to be honest. I liked to fly the Coercer and actually successfully soloed in it.

[Coercer, Flare of Enlightment - High DPS]
Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I

Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S

Small Energy Locus Coordinator I
Small Energy Locus Coordinator I
Small Energy Locus Coordinator I


That fit is a great combination of DPS, Range and Tank (yes, the DCU II does make a difference, even on a Destroyer without any other tanking mods).

I managed to slaughter many Frigates (including Pirate Faction Frigates), Destroyers and even a few Interdictors with it.
I was able to do so because people often underestimated the abilities of the ship.

They would attack me and then die long before they realized they have to warp. Kiting Frigates were especially prone to that, because their tank is often very weak.

The thing is: For killing kiters, a point really just isn't needed. If they don't attack you and get into your range then you can't catch them anyway. If they do attack you and get into weapon range, their best bet for survival is actually burning away with the MWD, not warping away. If they try to make a quick emergeny warp, they often just end up staying in weapon range for too long and die before they actually warp, because the MWD ruins their ability to warp quickly.

Brawlers can be killed by attacking with Scorch first to weaken their tank and then getting caught by them intentionally. They will think they have easy game with you once they are in close range, but that is not true. You just switch to either Conflagration or IN Multifrequency (Conflag usually has enough tracking in my experience). You will do high damage at close range and the DCU II will keep you alive long enough to kill your target (many of my fights ended in hull for me; it actually makes up a large part of my EHP on that fit). That is how i killed a Sabre with the Coercer without ever pointing it.

In smaller gangs, the Coercer is better than any Destroyer at doing what it is supposed to do: Protecting larger ship from Frigates. It doesn't have the tank to live long if it gets called primary in bigger fights, but that is a thing for all Destroyers and working as intended i guess.

In a way, the recent Destroyer buff has made my solo tactics harder to execute, because people have learned to fear the damage output of the buffed Coercer.

I admit that the missing med slot is a disadvantage and not a small one at that. But the Coercer isn't broken. I also admit that a lot joy in flying the Coercer and killing stuff with it solo comes from the "WTF, a solo Coercer killed me!?" - effect :)

The Coercer won't be bad if the changes mean it can fit a full rack of (small) Medium Pulses, an MWD and point. It should have about the same DPS, range and tank as my old fit despite losing a low slot then. But i would still miss the old Coercer.


On the Corm, i can only say that it should keep the fourth mid. Just give it a 8th turret slot and a lot more PG.

- Azula