Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Here is a feedback thread for some awesome new ships, Command Destroyers!

So here's the basics. We are adding a new line of Tech II destroyers based on the Algos, Dragoon, Corax and Talwar along with a new type of module called the Micro Jump Field Generator, which the new Destroyers will have exclusive access to. I'm going to go through some basic questions here at the top and then give you all the details after.

First, why Command Destroyers? We have always wanted to do a line of smaller ships that could provide gang support, but we expected to wait until after a rework of the ganglink mechanics, but here we saw a perfect opportunity to bring you this awesome new module and combining the role with gang support seems ideal. We still want to rework links and think these will slot in perfectly to that rework when it happens, but in the mean time you guys get a few awesome new tools.

Second, how exactly does the Micro Jump Field Generator work? This module is exactly like a Micro Jump Drive except that when it fires, it pulls any ships nearby along with it for the jump. There's a lot of specifics to consider here but the big restrictions you need to know are that you cannot use this module in high sec, you can not pull invulnerable targets (ships that have just undocked or just jumped through a gate and are still cloaked), you can not move capitals, and you can not jump into starbase shields. You CAN however do a lot of really crazy thing such as pull bombs that are midair, pull dictor bubbles or chain multiple jumps in a row using several Command Destroyers. As for numbers, we have a base spool up time of 9 seconds, a reactivation delay of 160 seconds, a pull radius of 6km from the ship and a jump distance of 100km. The module requires 5 PG and 31 CPU to fit and requires the same skill as normal MJDs to use.

Now, for the ships themselves. We are aiming to have a set of destroyers that are both faster and more resilient than either their Tech I counterparts or Interdictors, but sacrifice offense. This should make the support role, whether with MJFG or links, easier to fill while leaving them vulnerable to abuse in combat. Their weapon systems will be missile or drone based, like their base hulls.

Here are the bonuses:

MAGUS
Gallente Destroyer Per Level:
10% Bonus to Drone Damage
4% bonus to armor resists
Command Destroyer Per Level:
2% to Armor and Skirmish Warfare link effectiveness
5% reduction in MJFG spool up time
Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links
Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom
Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators
Role: Can fit one Warfare Link

PONTIFEX
Amarr Destroyer per Level:
10% Bonus to Drone Damage
4% bonus to Armor Resistances
Command Destroyer per Level:
2% to Armor and Information Warfare link effectiveness
5% reduction in MJFG spool up time
Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links
Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom
Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators
Role: Can fit one Warfare Link

STORK
Caldari Destroyer per Level:
10% to Rocket and Light Missile Damage
4% Bonus to Shield Resistances
Command Destroyer per Level:
2% to Siege and Information link effectiveness per level
5% reduction in MJFG spool up time
Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links
Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom
Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators
Role: Can fit one Warfare Link


BIFROST
Minmatar Destroyer per Level:
10% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile Damage
4% bonus to shield resists
Command Destroyer per Level:
2% to Siege and Skirmish Warfare link effectiveness
5% reduction in MJFG spool up time
Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links
Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom
Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators
Role: Can fit one Warfare Link


And for their attributes I'm using a google doc this time for better readability: ATTRIBUTES

As always, we look forward to your feedback. With these ships I'm especially interested in any opinions or insights on the powergrid and CPU numbers, as the ships will probably get used a few different ways and I'm not positive we've accounted for all of them.

If you have any questions or need clarifications please ask, and don't be surprised if there's a typo here and there that needs fixing :)

Thanks !

The Magus slot layout doesn't seem right. If it has t2 resists to armour, it's low slots and armour HP should reflect that. However, It only has 4 low slots and 800 armour HP, whereas the Pontifex gets 5 low slots and 850 armour HP. Unlike the T1 version, making the magus a hull tanker would be inefficient as you would be wasting the T2 resists.

All other command destroyers can dedicate at least 5 slots to tank (in the case of shield ships they can use mids and lows) so the magus is clearly the odd one out.

Give the Magus an extra low or more hitpoints.

Has it been confirmed that the MJFG is a mid slot and not a high? ...I would assume the latter.

Shield ships can use both mid and low slot modules for tank.

My argument stands. I still think the Magus' tank needs looking at.

The Magus slot layout doesn't seem right. If it has t2 resists to armour, it's low slots and armour HP should reflect that. However, It only has 4 low slots and 800 armour HP, whereas the Pontifex gets 5 low slots and 850 armour HP. Unlike the T1 version, making the magus a hull tanker would be inefficient as you would be wasting the T2 resists.

All other command destroyers can dedicate at least 5 slots to tank (in the case of shield ships they can use mids and lows) so the magus is clearly the odd one out.

Give the Magus an extra low or more hitpoints.

From what testing shows, the Magus is really well suited to use in very small gangs, especially thanks to that 4/4 layout mid and lows. You get a flexible fit with anything from dualscram+MJDG and mwd for kidnappings to a more general 10mn+web/CB+scram+MJDG to survive in something like a c4/c5 gank. The caplife on each of them is splendid, you can run a SAR II on both pontifex and magus almost stable next to a 10mn, or supplement with a CB thanks to that generous cargohold - and remain operational for ages.

The Magus with 10mn+web+scram with a SAR II has for me legitimately brawled down hecates and confessors, I'd be careful dismissing any ship with a 4mid+4low layout. The Pontifex in comparison is a lot weaker in small gang setups, and imo needs RR or other stuff on grid to really shine.

In short: 800 or 850 armor hp is unimportant, you won't notice a difference. 4/4 layout is great for small gang stuff, 3/5 should be better with large gangs, when going from local tanked to 400mm with eanm, dcu and EM/Therm specifics.

Edit: Certain it does bloom your sig, and the bifrost/stork will have ridiculous tank coupled with good mobility when neglecting damage, relying on their solid baseline.

Ships in this game have slowly become far too homogenized, and these destroyers are a perfect example of it.

More ships that use links are the last thing we need in this game.