These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Krall Hoar
Combined Technologies
#121 - 2012-08-13 17:23:19 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hello folks,

While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic.

This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far.

As always, constructive comments are welcome.


Suggested changes are mentioned below:

COERCER:

One medium slot is highly impractical for any kind of solo or even small gang fit and has been changed. Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1)
  • Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8)
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 900 (+40) / 800 (+70)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
  • Sensor strength: 10 Radar
  • Signature radius: 62



CORMORANT:

Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1)
  • Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 200 CPU (-15)
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 900 (+40) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
  • Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
  • Signature radius: 65 (-3)



CATALYST:

Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L
  • Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 800 (-3) / 900 (+118)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
  • Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
  • Signature radius: 68 (+3)



THRASHER:

Left untouched apart from some minor adjustments.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
  • Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (-3) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
  • Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
  • Signature radius: 56


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 radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%


I really, really, really hope this is not the main topic of the winter expansion. Maybe I am just greedy, but I think there should be more within an expansion than just balancing/redoing of existing stuff, especially if the last expansion was the same (yes the new missiles are great, but they didn't really effect the game and all the other stuff is not really effecting my low sec pirate life. [and yes I hope you won't do that crap with the sentry guns in low sec]). There needs to be some hand-tight within next epansion. OK I know you are working on incarna, fine with that. but I would like to get something real in the next expansion.
Thats it, my opinion shared
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2012-08-13 17:27:55 UTC
Quontor Zarrkos wrote:
I really like your idea to have some counter to 'afk cloakers' who just go camp systems forever. It's a bit farfetched though. maybe we just need some special kind of probes who can detect cloaked ships. (which would be easier the longer the cloak stays active).


That's basically the Idea behind "Stardust".
And the ideas are not spelled out by the point to a comma, since stuff like that must be tested on SiSi and not purely brained together. I just see that some slight modifications could give both sides entertainment.
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#123 - 2012-08-13 17:31:06 UTC
That 15 cpu is going to hurt the cormorant. So now I have to fit a cpu rig instead of a powergrid. I guess fixing one aspect and breaking another isn't the way to go about this What?
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#124 - 2012-08-13 17:41:08 UTC
Not much really to say, but FINALLY the 2nd mid on the Coercer - at least now I can fly with it without having to worry about speed or the ability to stop things; I had thought about this a while back (and I haven't really had the time to go back over it recently) and i made a thread about it here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=123292&find=unread


[/grautious thread plug]


"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
Cheekybiatch
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#125 - 2012-08-13 17:41:22 UTC
Honestly we need 2 set of destroyers, you don't need need to change the model just give them 2 skin colours and a slightly different name.

1) Focused on long range weapons, with 2 mids 3 lows, focused on shields, aglity.
2) Focused on Short range weapons, with 3 mids 2 lows, focused on armour, speed.

It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.

Projects are also still favoured over the damage spectrum they can easily do.

So just give all the destroyers the option to use missiles and their native weapon selection, 8/8. or 7/7 whatever.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#126 - 2012-08-13 17:49:36 UTC
Cheekybiatch wrote:


It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.


This is very much not true.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#127 - 2012-08-13 17:53:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Denidil
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser
.


I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#128 - 2012-08-13 18:44:36 UTC
Denidil wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser
.


I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time.


Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot"
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#129 - 2012-08-13 19:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Michael Harari wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser
.


I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time.


Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot"


Yea with watts we don't have to worry as much about the name making sense in respect to the actual capacitor consumption, which is indicated in joules.

That said these lasers consume gigajoules of energy each cycle
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#130 - 2012-08-13 19:59:22 UTC
I always happen to feel destroyers should be a little faster because cruisers and battlecruisers kill them so fast... But on the other hand it is difficult to tell with the incredible tracking from autocannons with the combination of huge fall-off bonus on tracking enhancers.

And to critics I tell you they NEED the tracking from the current role bonus. And tbh it might not even be sufficient enough depending on how strong these destroyers are supposed to be... Also as destroyers would there be a point to increase their sensor strength? After all even some noobships carry a 30% bonus towards ecm these days... 10% would seem enough if they absolutely had to do it.

Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...

Pinky
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#131 - 2012-08-13 20:01:37 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
I always happen to feel destroyers should be a little faster because cruisers and battlecruisers kill them so fast... But on the other hand it is difficult to tell with the incredible tracking from autocannons with the combination of huge fall-off bonus on tracking enhancers.

And to critics I tell you they NEED the tracking from the current role bonus. And tbh it might not even be sufficient enough depending on how strong these destroyers are supposed to be... Also as destroyers would there be a point to increase their sensor strength? After all even some noobships carry a 30% bonus towards ecm these days... 10% would seem enough if they absolutely had to do it.

Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...

Pinky


Keep the gimp fittings on the Catalyst and give it a 25m^3 drone bay+bandwidth... Twisted

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#132 - 2012-08-13 20:21:35 UTC
I'd like some explanations for the catalyst : same weapon than the cormoran, one more turret, armor like, but less PG... and the thrasher which have more PG than both of them whereas it have 7 of the easiest weapons to fit... That is a joke.
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#133 - 2012-08-13 20:33:27 UTC
---begin hijack---
Why couldn't you just come up with a similar thread for mining barges / exhumers change as it was announced? ...
In other words you came up with a decent change instead of a good one.
---end hijack---
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2012-08-13 20:49:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Alticus C Bear
Pinky Denmark wrote:

Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...

Pinky


That drone is a godsend when completing minor FW plexes in blaster cat.
JetCord
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-08-13 20:55:45 UTC
when can we test this on the test server?
Alastanir
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2012-08-13 20:59:31 UTC
I really like what I'm seeing here. Well done. o7
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#137 - 2012-08-13 21:31:39 UTC
I sometimes put an ECM drone in the catalyst. It's comical when it actually gets a jam.
Lord BryanII
#138 - 2012-08-13 22:52:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord BryanII
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Jarvin Xadi wrote:
Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking.


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.


you guys are renaming the lazors, or you were supposed to. was a dev blog written about it. /facepalmRoll

hope that has not just fallen off

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=962847#post962847
Oki Riverson
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#139 - 2012-08-13 23:03:22 UTC
Great changes for the Coercer! Finally I can put Destroyer skills to use...The Com should have missiles imo though. Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#140 - 2012-08-13 23:45:22 UTC
Guess I'll be forced to train small lasers... Cormorant seems like a blaster mirror of the Thrasher. Meh! to the rest of it.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]