Player Features and Ideas Discussion

These two gun-based destroyers have 7 turret and 1 launcher slots, and I never understood the reason of this. The best explanation I could come up with was the defender missile, since they were made in a missile heavy environment.
But now, as the defender missiles become utility modules and completely useless against missiles, I suggest we should unlock the full power of these ships, by replacing the launcher hardpoint with an 8th turret hardpoint.

I still can't see a good reason for it.
If you want that utility high module you could use... almost anything else with more benefits than a launcher that gets no bonuses at all. Why is a launcher better than a gun with bonus?

Instead of slapping on a gun or missile lahncher, have you considered using the following;

- energy neutralizers (can kill an active tank with enough time)
- energy vampires (can keep your active tank going for an extra cycle or two... or even give you a counter against an energy neutralizer)
- salvager (hey, sometimes you have enough time to pick through that Tech 2 wreck... you may be take extra 50 to 200k worth of loot)
- tractor beam (because real loot whores don't **** around)
- probe launcher
- remote rep

You do not NEED to fit every ship for max DPS.
But the option is still there if you want to fit for such.

Thing is... if all the high-slots on a ship were turret/launchers, it would be compulsory to fit as many turrets/launchers as possible as you would be "wasting" a slot and the bonus.

With the current system, you get a little fitting flexibility which opens up options in tactics and strategies.

So... the reason to replace the turret with a launcher is to balance these ships by forcing people to use utility modules instead of guns?

Isn't the niche role of the destroyer class to have max DPS with a small hull? The next ships with 8 high slots are the attack BCs. I fact, destroyers have more high slots than most of the batleships!

The Thrasher and Cormorant were the two "killingest" T1 destroyers in November and, so far, that trend has continued in December. In prior months, the Catalyst and Cormorant have occasionally traded places.

The Thrasher has been in the lead, by a wide margin, for many months, occasionally having about twice as many kills for the month as the second place destroyer.

You seem to be ignoring the actual performance of the ship, looking at some paper stats, and declaring, based on nothing else, that they need more damage.

Ship performance is a lot more than any one stat, and certainly not one that is as meaningless (when absent any additional context) as "number of turret hardpoints".

It's not the habit that's bad, it's the execution.

If you think an all-weapon destroyer is so great, try a Corax sometime. It doesn't have that pesky high slot left over to fiddle with your OCD.

It's also just... really terrible.

Neither the Coercer nor the Catalyst get a damage or ROF bonus, which means that raw DPS-wise, their 8 turrets count as 8 turrets. The Thrasher has an effective 8.75 turrets, thanks to its damage bonus. Which would you prefer?

Granted, the catalyst's DPS is blaster-DPS, so if you can apply it, it's pretty amazing. It's also slower than a thrasher, lacks that utility high, is more vulnerable to cap warfare, needs extreme close range to really apply its damage, yet lacks the mid slots for solid range control.

It's not bad, but it's certainly not automatically better just because it gets 8 turrets.

trasher is fine as it is

cormorant does need some love though