These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2012-08-10 22:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
whoops double post

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-08-10 22:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:

Coercer:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
2 Mid
4 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)

Catalyst:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
3 Mid
3 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking

Cormorant:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
4 Mid
2 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage

Thrasher:
As is.

This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.



See... I'm not as much a fan of this idea personally. while it certainly "solves" the issues with the various destroyers it pretty much leaves them with no weaknesses either and while I believe they most certainly require some help (which i think generally speaking the first post covers nicely all bar the cormorant, which i think needs the 8/4/1 layout for both thematic and style reasons).

my main gripe with this solution however is that it kind of replicates the problems of the first post as well by standardizing all the destroyers; they'll all have 7 turrets, they'll all have a damage bonus, an optimal bonus, and an X bonus. I feel its particularly important that we maintain the flavour of the various destroyers which even in the non optimal situation we currently have (though personally I've got a sucess rate against thrashers in my cormorants which will make people spit take ^_^.

continuing as the cormorant as the example here, does it NEED a damage bonus? I don't personally think so. an extra turret would provide enough dps to shore it up relative to the "big leagues" with the other destroyers without stepping on the toes of the damage intensive catalyst. what the 2nd optimal bonus gives the cormorant however is something pretty damn awesome, 8km optimal blasters, thats 230 dps ALL the way to the edge of scram range and that's most certainly not to be sniffed at when the cormorant can fit a web unlike its counterparts. its not easy to do by any means but it makes the cormorant, at least for me, significantly more interesting to fly, to the point that I now almost fly it exclusively.

the same logic can be applied to the catalyst, does the catalyst feel like any of the other destroyers? most certainly not it serves as the "big bruiser" of the destroyer line and gets primaried often for that reason but it will most certainly never have any issues with making its presence felt in an engagement once it gets on top of something like any gallente hull, could it use some love? yes is making it lose a turret in order to fit full tackle in the mids the solution? I don't think so personally.


I'm rambling here (durr... late night posting) but basically what I'm saying is we should aim to do as much as we can to make the destroyers distinct without just giving us 4 thrashers with slightly different weapon systems, focus on incomparable features to strike a balance between the four. the thrashers advantage is its adaptability, the cormorant's is its range and Ewar potential, the Catalysts is its damage potential and field presence and the coercer's is its damage projection and accuracy. its on these points we should try and establish a working balance between the 4 hulls (and in turn the new four hulls we'll be seeing) rather than just making everyone a viable option by making everyone the same as the best option.

gurh... need some sleep ^_^

TLDR: we don't need 4 thrashers, we need a cormorant, a coercer, a catalyst and a thrasher :)


Quote:
I would argue that the Corm does not need a tracking bonus. With four mids and two lows it can get away without one. It is ideal at range but with TC, webs, or TE it should work. Plus I would point out that a tracking bonus is not very Caldari.


gah, missed this one while typing. I'd rather keep the tracking bonus honestly, it makes cormorants with railguns fairly effective and allows you to hit interceptors with Spike, which suits the "sniper" cormorants role as a fleet harrasser and fleet defence platform very nicely. as for the four mids two lows arguement, i'd have to disagree as those slots are already in high demand on almost all fits and would be requiring us to just fit tracking enhancers and tracking computers rather than magstabs, which doesn't solve the problems the cormorant has which in my mind, more than anything else, is the massive disparity between its CPU and its power grid. let the cormorant fit ion blasters, an MSE and a microwarp drive without fitting modules and the world will be a much happier place. hell let me do it with an afterburner and We'll be good. 280 dps corm with a half decent shield tank? easy match for the thrasher while still being a cormorant :)

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#83 - 2012-08-11 00:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
Coercer change - great, this is needed.

Thrasher - good as is

Catalyst - will remain subpar since it's got the worst damage projection, and only 2 mids.

Cormorant - This is the dominant sniping platform and will remain so with these changes (tracking computer with script gives the same optimal as a TE). However, you are nerfing its brawling ability - it used to be the shield tanking destroyer with scram, web, prop mod and extender. You could get a variety of fits like the 75mm/ab corm that would dominate a lot of destroyers and frigs if flown correctly.

The removal of one mid to another low really is a nerf, and this is why:

The cormorant has a range bonus, and the extra mids helped it to take full advantage of that bonus. By removing the mid, you have effectively nerfed the cormorant in its brawling role (combat within web/scram range).
Khaim Khal
Perkone
Caldari State
#84 - 2012-08-11 01:24:37 UTC
Could you please give all 4 ships the full 8 turret slots? I know some races like missiles, but there are plenty of other classes for that. Likewise, the Catalyst's drone is a nice touch, but can easily be cut in favor of more in-role improvements.

The Thrasher's 56 sig seems unusually low next to 62 / 65 / 68.
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#85 - 2012-08-11 04:29:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Bad Messenger
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:

Coercer:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
2 Mid
4 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)

Catalyst:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
3 Mid
3 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking

Cormorant:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
4 Mid
2 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage

Thrasher:
As is.

This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.


Trasher
7 high/ 7 turrets
3 mid
3 low

then we have balance !

anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit.

You can sure find some good balance by adding one slot and nerfing some other stats.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#86 - 2012-08-11 05:08:17 UTC
The fourth mid of the Cormorant is going... Why?

It was capable of getting some decent defense, which I think is it's main selling point because it's not nearly as offense oriented as the other three destroyers, it seems. Making it so that it can neither match them offensively, NOR have any semblance of a tank, makes no sense. Fragile snipers don't have much of a place in this game, it seems.

I'm aware that you can put a mag stab or something in the lows, but really, without damage bonii it's still falling behind.

So how does this benefit the Cormorant, at all?
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#87 - 2012-08-11 05:35:10 UTC
Connall Tara wrote:

my main gripe with this solution however is that it kind of replicates the problems of the first post as well by standardizing all the destroyers; they'll all have 7 turrets, they'll all have a damage bonus, an optimal bonus, and an X bonus. I feel its particularly important that we maintain the flavour of the various destroyers which even in the non optimal situation we currently have (though personally I've got a sucess rate against thrashers in my cormorants which will make people spit take ^_^.


I understand what you're saying. Right now though, all the destroyers have an optimal bonus, a tracking bonus and an X bonus. They weren't very original to begin with.

Connall Tara wrote:

the same logic can be applied to the catalyst, does the catalyst feel like any of the other destroyers? most certainly not it serves as the "big bruiser" of the destroyer line and gets primaried often for that reason but it will most certainly never have any issues with making its presence felt in an engagement once it gets on top of something like any gallente hull, could it use some love? yes is making it lose a turret in order to fit full tackle in the mids the solution? I don't think so personally.


The catalyst is annoying in many different ways. It's power grid is horribly tight. It has three precious lows to try to fit MFS, TE, and a tank. It's DPS, it's most endearing feature, takes a nose dive if you try to fit even the most light of tanks on it. It has an optimal AND a falloff bonus. It is trying to compete with the Thrasher, which very easily as an AC platform puts out 450ish DPS with a 7.5k EHP buffer tank. The catalyst simply can't match that. I've given up on it as a blaster platform and only use it with rails. It honestly thrives in that kind of role. So damage, optimal, and tracking - three things a rail platform needs.

Bad Messenger wrote:

Trasher
7 high/ 7 turrets
3 mid
3 low

then we have balance !

anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit.

You can sure find some good balance by adding one slot and nerfing some other stats.


Destroyers - cruiser level DPS, frigate level tank, higher sig radius to make them vulnerable. An extra slot could be over the top.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-08-11 06:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
I don't like the idea of adding slots to destroyers as some have been suggesting. They're supposed to be very focused ships. Extra slots dilute the focus and make them more versatile. Also, they all eat frigates for breakfast, there is no need to make the class better as a whole.

Extra slots are justified only when the entire ship class is terrible.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#89 - 2012-08-11 06:57:14 UTC
It seems to me that this change will accomplish little in terms of rebalancing the destroyers. The Thrasher remains the go-to destroyer for most roles, the catalyst remains a throw away suicide boat with high dps. The only change you've really brought about is to remove the tanking abilities of the cormorant and the coercer and in return the coercer gains a much needed mid for tackle.

Given the excellent job to date on frigates I don't see how you can stall so quickly with destroyers.

Oh, and why does the Catalyst (a boat that uses cap hungry weaponry) get the poorest cap/s recharge rate? Surely that should be the Thrasher which needs cap much less?

To rebalance destroyers I think you need to add a single slot to each of the existing formats and use that to plug the deficiencies in their relative performances along with bonus changes and how many turrets each has. Utility slots on destroyers are less serviceable than on other ship types.

Please also remember that the only truly useful tank for most of these ships now is either buffer or ASB, and the ASB is head an shoulders above buffer with the slot layout of these boats. This makes a mid slot pure gold for a destroyer, please don't underestimate just how much of a game breaker this module makes to these ships. Without a low slot equivalent ( which I personally don't favour) then for such a low number of mids/lows combined the value of a low slot is far below that of a mid.
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-08-11 09:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
Quote:
The catalyst is annoying in many different ways. It's power grid is horribly tight. It has three precious lows to try to fit MFS, TE, and a tank. It's DPS, it's most endearing feature, takes a nose dive if you try to fit even the most light of tanks on it. It has an optimal AND a falloff bonus. It is trying to compete with the Thrasher, which very easily as an AC platform puts out 450ish DPS with a 7.5k EHP buffer tank. The catalyst simply can't match that. I've given up on it as a blaster platform and only use it with rails. It honestly thrives in that kind of role. So damage, optimal, and tracking - three things a rail platform needs.



true enough, but It seems to me that the problems here are much the same ones that the cormorant suffers, poor fitting. much like the cormorant the catalyst is simply unable to match up to the phenominal fitting prowess of the thrasher which can not only fit 200mm autocannons but a micro warp drive, a medium shield extender AND still have CPU and grid spare to add a small neut, 2 low slot damage modules and a scrambler before even looking at rigging. in comparision the cormorant can't even fit ion blasters to a comparative afterburner layout such is its massive CPU to powergrid imbalance. lemmie just show a screenshot in here to explain what I mean.

http://i.imgur.com/qbS8l.jpg

as you can see I'm not trying to fit anything outlandish here, its a fairly tanky layout, compariable to the average AC thrasher with a MSE, shield rigs and a damage control it gets around 500 extra EHP but to be fair, its caldari and has around 20% less speed and 50 less paper dps (which can only be applied at ranges the thrasher has no damage loss at either). unlike the similar thrasher I'm completely out of PG the moment i slap on some weapons, the only way I can compensate is to either trade my lowslot damage control for an MAPC (weakening tank, and still resulting in less dps than the thrasher) or chance down to electron blasters (80-100 less dps with CNAM vs AC's with RF phased plasma). now as I've said before, I don't want the cormorant to just be a caldari thrasher, but what I think this illustrates is just how much redundant CPU there is on this thing. not only am I over powergrid by a whopping 20% I'm under CPU by the same again. swapping down to an afterburner doesn't solve the problem either as I'm still over by around 12pg units. the thrasher by comparison?

http://i.imgur.com/dKipM.jpg

fitting to spare on both PG and CPU, fair bit extra grid available but that can be exploited by fitting projectile weapon rigs or swapping out the rocket launcher in favour of a neut or nos. and of course permitting the fitting room for the artillery thrasher layout.

This is, I feel the problem with the cormorant in the current situation. the slot layout is fine, awesome even. as it lets the cormorant stand to one side of its otehr destroyer bretheren with less firepower but the advantage of a utility mid for a web or tracking disruptor or hell, even a sebo.

at the moment I can get by on my double web, scram, afterburner mids and damage control low layout and honestly i'm quite happy at the moment with it but if there has to be changes for the cormorant (which I believe there is) I don't believe it should be to turn it into a blaster thrasher which i feel the 8/3/2 layout most certainly will. nor do I particularly see the need for the cormorant to recieve extra slots or have its 8th highslot moved (which in my mind seems overkill to solving the problems with the hull.


Alternately, there is the medium ancillery shield booster, which at first impressions seems like a good interm solution for the pilots but should we shackle the effectiveness of a hull to one specific way of flying it? its a problem which thankfully is being addressed with the frigate rebalances but should, in my mind, be something we don't fall into with the destroyers.

swing the cormorant's PG and CPU around a bit, maybe a 10-15% swing both ways, give us the option to fit half way decent weapons along sidea decent shield tank. the only thing we may lose with this will be the 100km sniper cormorant, but seeing as such a PG swing would allow it to drop a tracking comp in favour of an afterburner or even a MWD with some extreme fitting-foo, It won't lose a huge amount of effectiveness.

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2012-08-11 11:15:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
The new Cormorant will be able to fit this:

[Cormorant, New]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Warp Scrambler II (or Warp Disruptor II)

Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
[empty high slot]

Small Core Defense Field Extender I
Small Core Defense Field Extender I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer

308 dps with navy AM, 246 dps with Null, 8703 HP. Fitting 125mm Railguns is also possible with a 4% PG implant or by adding an ACR.

Is it as good as an AC Thrasher? Not quite, but it's much closer. It could certainly use a bit more powergrid and another turret hardpoint.

The real complaint by many people here is that they want a blaster Cormorant optimized for close range combat. Would people be happier with losing the 10% optimal bonus for a 5% damage bonus (without getting an extra turret)?
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-08-11 11:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
I'm sorry takeshi, I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least from my own perspective. Its not that i want the cormorant optimised for short range combat, its more that i don't want it to be a carbon copy of the thrasher, which sad to say as your fitting of the new proposed layout clearly demonstrates.


lows:

damage control
damage mod

mids

medium shield extender
microwarp drive
warp scrambler/disruptor

highs

7 turrets + utility slot

rigs

3X shield rig


its essentially a carbon copy of the thrasher just with less speed, range, HP, damage selection options, overall damage and what looks at face value to be fitting issues to attach the medium shield extender II. Its for this reason I believe that it's important we maintain the cormorant's 8/4/1 layout and adjust the CPU and powergrid values and not the slot layout. I'm happy to accept less dps if it means that I can compensate for it through more versitile midslot options. as for the optimal bonus, I ADORE the double optimal bonuses, it allows the cormorant to fight at the edge of scram range as a counter to the rawr dps of the thrasher and the catalyst, particuarly when both of these opponents lack a web to counter the cormorant's own and it becomes a much more even engagement. encouraging people to fight smarter than just turning it into a raw "orbit at 500" dps race.

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2012-08-11 11:40:34 UTC
Connall Tara wrote:
its essentially a carbon copy of the thrasher just with less speed, range, HP, damage selection options, overall damage and what looks at face value to be fitting issues to attach the medium shield extender II. Its for this reason I believe that it's important we maintain the cormorant's 8/4/1 layout and adjust the CPU and powergrid values and not the slot layout. I'm happy to accept less dps if it means that I can compensate for it through more versitile midslot options. as for the optimal bonus, I ADORE the double optimal bonuses, it allows the cormorant to fight at the edge of scram range as a counter to the rawr dps of the thrasher and the catalyst. encouraging people to fight smarter than just turning it into a raw "orbit at 500" dps race.


Okay, you have convinced me that changing the slot layout would be bad.

Why are you making the comparison with a blaster fit Cormorant though? Fitting a blaster Cormorant means trying to emulate the Thrasher (and failing because it's meant to use railguns).
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#94 - 2012-08-11 13:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagarythe Tinurandir
i guess we all want 4 mids on the cormorant and have it balanced through fittings.
concerning the catalyst. maybe it needs to be bonused more around its brawling nature. falloff will not help there in my opinion.
maybe give it a bonus to speed or armor hp. so lvl destroyer would equal something like an 200mm plate, without the speed reduction?

EDIT: is there a reason for the intaki, quafe, interbus.... catalyst which are currently registered in the market on TQ?
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#95 - 2012-08-11 17:17:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
takeshi: at first impressions aye, but there is distinct advantages to a blaster cormorant over the thrasher gentlemen and possible ladies I give you, the Wundercorm.



[Cormorant, Wundercorm]
Damage Control II

Experimental 1MN Afterburner I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S
[empty high slot]

Small Ancillary Current Router I
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Hybrid Locus Coordinator I


web and scram target, hold range at 7-8km and unleash Thorium Tungsten plasma bolts into the opposition :D


This is the distinction the 4 midslot layout makes for the blaster cormorant over the thrasher, admittedly a VERY specialised fit it goes a long way to show how you can approach the same kind of situation (scram range destroyer combat) while featuring a drastically different play style to its counterparts :D

the 4 mids does a lot to alter how the cormorant wants to fight in my opinion differening from the catalyst and thrasher by being a hull which WANT to hold range but rather than using 20km death lazors like the coercer it uses Ewar to hold distance and deal with foes and I really hope CCP keeps the cormorant as the hip and trendy cool kids boat it is and not turn it into a conforming hipster dessie :>

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#96 - 2012-08-11 18:40:11 UTC
No reason that empty high slot couldn't or shouldn't be moved to a low though. Cool
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2012-08-11 19:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
true, but all told we don't want another merlin situation where it becomes the top dog and that extra high has some uses in other fits and can always be filled with a rocket launcher. or small neut, particularly once we get the PG and CPU fixed. I also think its important that the cormorant STAYS with less dps overall than the thrasher and catalyst, giving it room for a magstab on top of a damage control would be taking the micky I reckon :S

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2012-08-11 19:33:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Connall Tara wrote:
takeshi: at first impressions aye, but there is distinct advantages to a blaster cormorant over the thrasher gentlemen and possible ladies I give you, the Wundercorm.


I'm not convinced by this. Rails give you a better ship overall. Trying to use blasters for kiting in web range is counterproductive.
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-08-11 19:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
You'd be suprised, I actually used to use a 75mm rail CNAM layout for the same job but I found the null blasters with a single locus rig do the job a bit better, 8.2km optimal is pretty damn snazzy for 233ish dps :>

feel free to check my killboard Takeshi, all my recent cormorant kills have been in that layout and I'm still going strong ^_^

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#100 - 2012-08-11 19:44:46 UTC
Bad Messenger wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:

Coercer:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
2 Mid
4 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)

Catalyst:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
3 Mid
3 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking

Cormorant:
7 High/ 7 Turrets
4 Mid
2 Low
Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage

Thrasher:
As is.

This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.


Trasher
7 high/ 7 turrets
3 mid
3 low

then we have balance !

anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit.

You can sure find some good balance by adding one slot and nerfing some other stats.


+1