| Author |
Topic |
Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless- |
Posted - 2005.04.09 16:16:00 - [ 31]
Edited by: Nyxus on 09/04/2005 19:02:44
from the Eve-Online website
Destroyers:
Anti-frigate gunboats. The middle ground between a frigate and a cruiser
Stats of Gallente ships:
Incursus
Shield: 200
Armor: 235
Mass: 29500
Catalyst
Shield: 325
Armor: 350
Mass: 1750000
Enyo
Shield: 265
Armor: 625
Mass: 1950000
Vexor
Shield: 750
Armor: 950
Mass: 11250000
Here it is plain to see that the Destroyers are short a bit in the armor department. Adding a bit more would balance them out.
We NEED Tech 2 Destroyers now. The absolute dominance of T2 frigates on the battlefield versus anything sub Battleship (maybe BC) is readily appearant to anyone who pvp's at all. Destroyers are the counter to Tech 2 Friggies. We need Tech 2 Destroyers to counter the Tech 2 Frigates, tech 1 Destroyers are good versus tech 1 frigates but are easily annihilated by T2 frigs.
Really - tech 1 and tech 2 destroyers shoulda have been released at the same time considering that frigates already had both types on the market in ready abundance.
Nyxus |
DrunkenOne
Unknown Soldiers
B O R G |
Posted - 2005.04.09 16:26:00 - [ 32]
 Originally by: Bazman
Originally by: Alexi Borizkova
It appears the problem lies in people comparign the desty(which is t1) to t2 ships.
Compare the Destroyer not to the t2 ships, but to plain old t1 frigates... now they appear nearly godlike in their offensive capability.
It seems that the Destroyers would have been great if they had existed as t1 ships all along, and now would be time to introduce a t2 version, but instead they were released into an environment where tech1 ships and modules are becoming virtually obsolete for... well, nigh on anything.
Much like my main arguments about the current market system, it would have been great if it was that way from the beginning, but inflicting it on the game now is a nerf of massive proportions.
Bah, destroyers die to properlly fitted(tm) kestrals, they suck :p
A Dessie with 7 or 8 guns firing at their normal rate can only sustain it for a little while, after that, they either have cap death, or they are dead. If dessies didn't have the rate of fire penalty, they might actually be a danger to interceptors and fast frigates, all the while still being paper thin
Thrasher with 280 IIs and micro aux in lows can 1 volley kill frigs and intys and make a serious hurting on cruisers. Destroyers should not be changed at all. They are a cheap disposable anti frig ship. If they were boosted in any way, their price needs to go up as well. |
Bosie
THE C0RP |
Posted - 2005.04.09 17:36:00 - [ 33]
To those asking for a tech II Destroyer to perform as an anti-frig platform, take a look at assault frigs.
Bosie. |
Carmen Priano
Caldari
Cascade Industries
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 17:54:00 - [ 34]
To those comparing destroyers to mid- or high-range cruisers in toughness, remember that these are between top frigates and low cruisers in survivability -- this is to say that the destroyers ought be compared with the entry-level cruiser in a group; Cormorant with the Osprey, Coercer with the Augorer, et cet., instead of with mid-range cruisers such as the Vexor, Omen, et cet. |
Thelron |
Posted - 2005.04.09 18:08:00 - [ 35]
In which case they still die a horrible horrible death. Not too many people are saying that destroyers have a low damage output, for their size they get very good dps even with the ROF penalty. The problem is what happens when their first volley *doesn't* kill their target.
Destroyers are a midpoint between frigs and cruisers in that they have frigate-sized hull/armor/shield/fittings, including some pretty limited defensive options between slots and cpu/grid, while they are hit more like cruisers between a big sig radius and not-so-great agility. So, sure they can go 1-on-1 with other paper ships, but against a few ships or any time there's something bigger around, the destroyer's only real defense is to hope there's something tastier around.
I agree with the sentiment to increase their defenses a bit and to drop the sig radius down a little as well. Offensively they don't really need any changes, they toss out plenty of fire when they're able to stick around long enough to get a few volleys in. |
Sadist
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities |
Posted - 2005.04.09 18:53:00 - [ 36]
Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 23:57:13
this post stated that cormorant be changed to catalyst. |
Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless- |
Posted - 2005.04.09 18:58:00 - [ 37]
The purpose of a destroyer is to be an anti-frigate platform.
Assault frigs have the armor of a low end cruiser, combinded with massive resists. While they have fewer guns than a destroyer, they have damage bonuses and no rof penalty. This leaves tech 1 destroyers at a severe disadvantage (as they should be).
T2 Destroyers should have armor equivalent to a tier 3 cruiser and resists and pg/cpu bonuses like the Assault frigs. Give em a -15% rof and I would be thrilled to have em.
Alternatively, give them a strong hp boost and a -25% rof penalty.....and that is given a +5% rof for every lvl of Destroyer. So at lvl 5 no rof penalty.
Nyxus
|
Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless- |
Posted - 2005.04.09 19:05:00 - [ 38]
Quote:
Are you [bleep]? Cormorant is caldari, which rely on shield. Comparing them to other 3 gallente ships isnt going to prove anything.
WOOPS! Typo. Said Cormorant, but anyone who looked at the stats would know that it was Catalyst stats. Corrected the orginal to read cormorant. Thanks for catching that.  Nyxus |
James Draekn
X.E.N.O.
OWN Alliance |
Posted - 2005.04.09 19:39:00 - [ 39]
I'm just hoping that a DEV will read this and act, because in reality a T2 Destroyer would be a nightmare to most ships especially Assault frigs. Making it a happy medium between Assault Ships and Heavy Assault Ships. |
Kashre
Minmatar
Imperium Technologies
Sodalitas XX |
Posted - 2005.04.09 23:37:00 - [ 40]
There is nothing wrong with the current destroyers. Like has allready been said, they are made for killing T1 frigates, which they do fairly well.
Id welcome T2 destroyers as a mid point between AF and HAC, but god leave the T1 DDs alone, there are plenty of other more important things to do first. |
Letifer Deus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.04.10 01:07:00 - [ 41]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 10/04/2005 14:06:18
delete |
Letifer Deus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.04.10 01:09:00 - [ 42]
|
Letifer Deus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.04.10 01:47:00 - [ 43]
Originally by: James Draekn
Does anyone here think that the Destroyers should be beefed up some? What I would suggest is that that CCP boost the hitpoint to Sheild, Armor, and Structure to around 550-600 to make these ships balanced. I am comparing it to the Battlecruiser which has about the double the strength of a cruiser yet half the strength of a Battleship. The destroyer is basically a bigger frigate with more guns and a larger signature radius right now and doesn't last long in combat. Would make a perfect change to allow younger players a cheap yet tough ship. Anyone?????
1)A destroyer does have about half the HP of a cruiser. Cormorant has 1000 total HP, Osprey has 2075. 2) With lvl 5 skills, one can run a cormorant with 7x 125mm rail II, std launcher, mwd, web, scrambler, smalls shield booster II, micro aux and mag. stab. II. Doing 144 dmg/sec. The 125mm T2s will have .146 tracking, an optimal of 9.375km with antimatter and an optimal of 30km with iron. 3) A Catalyst with 8x light electron IIs and 3 dmg mods will outdamage a taranis with 3x light ion IIs and 3 dmg mods by ~32.7%. 4) lvl 5 on all relevent skills, a Thrasher with 7x 280mm IIs (15x dmg mod,) a dmg mod and a micro aux, can easily insta-kill a frig/inty. |
Isonkon Serikain
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2005.04.10 02:06:00 - [ 44]
a properly setup rupture/thorax/maller/moa makes a great anti AF boat...For half the price... |
Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2005.04.10 05:02:00 - [ 45]
Edited by: Lygos on 10/04/2005 05:03:49
As much as I like the idea of destroyers being restricted in ability against only other destroyers, ordinary frigates, drones, and interceptors one on one, (not counting pilot skill) I believe that such limitations are still kind of pointless so long as smaller ship classes don't have greater envelope of immunity from significantly larger hulls. (Currently that envelope is either in a safespot or farther than 150 km away from any battleship sized foe. The impropriety in that is both obvious and staggering.)
If destroyers can only hurt frigates, or badly piloted interceptors, and battleship sized weapons can knock frigates and even drones out of the sky with ease.. then there is really no role for destroyers.
This easily trumps my contention that wealthier people are better than others. Wealth is only a tool for maintaining good habits and bringing order to the frontiers of society. The chain of purpose in ship classes is essential for order on the battlefield and jus ad bellum as well as jus in bello.
Cruisers should obliterate all frigate classes and contend with other cruisers. The assault frigs and HACs are the only ones which should cross the line slightly. Battleships should only be able to obliterate cruiser classes, and contend with one another provided they fit to do one or the other. Likewise, single frigates should have a pretty hard time breaking the ordinary passive shield regen on battleships when solo while contending with anti-frigate drones. (heavier drones are wanted against other battleships and cruisers) Hence the great circle of consumption that makes all ship classes useful provided CCP spaces them out. When dreadnaughts come out, or whichever ship hull carries XL turrets, they should have a hard time scratching cruisers, pwn battleships solo, and contend with one another if they are fitted properly with an anti-dread setup. (mega drones) Solo cruisers should have a hard time breaking the passive shield tank on a dread or XL turret platform. That way the great chain would be continued.
|
Shasinaha |
Posted - 2005.04.10 05:30:00 - [ 46]
I totally agree with there needing to be a set limit between the class of ships. Primarly two classes need a bit of an over haul and thats both Battlecruisers and Destroyers. Now with BCs they only need a slight GP and CPU upgrade. The only thing I don't understand about BCs is that in actual naval warfare (Talking at a time when countries actually still used them) BCs carried near BS grade weapons, while sacr. armor for speed. Example is that in general Cruisers carried 8-10 inch Guns (Light Cruisers 6-7inch) While BCs carried 12-14inch (Most BS carried 15-18inch)
So now to link this concept to this game. Since im Amarr im going to use this as a bases for my examples. The Apoc has a PG of 19500 and a CPU of 500. While the Prophecy has 1200 PG and 350 CPU. Now the armor is perfect, about half of a BS, while getting some more speed. What the BCs all need across the board is a PG increase of about 70% across all of them, and only a very slight CPU upgrade. This would allow a BC to carry and use BS type weapons (Since they could pretty much do this in the true concept.) However limiting them to running out like a BS, since they can't carry nearly as much of them. Which also means they need a Cap increase as well. The slots on all of them are pretty good.
Now to look at Destroyers. Okay these ships need some lovin badly lol. Especially the Coercer, the Cormorant is a good ship over all. Now lets look at the ships. I think removing that -25% RoF pen might be a bit over doing it, but lessening it might help. Maybe a -10% pen. and increasing its armor/shield/speed and a little more PG and Cap.
Now about the T2 Destroyers, I really don't know about that one myself. All in all feel free to correct me on something that ive placed. Its only my 2 cents. |
Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2005.04.10 11:01:00 - [ 47]
Edited by: Lygos on 10/04/2005 11:03:26Well, I agree that there is no point in making the Destroyer substitute for an assault frigate. Hence, if we want the lowest common denominator setup, and less skill intensive, then we are probably looking for a frigate that hits close to as well as an assault frigate, but moves a good deal more quickly and with more nimbleness. But finally it has a reduced signature radius though little armor and unremarkable resistances. Hence, prey to cruisers and assault frigates (and torpendoes). If we do that though, it is impinging on the domain of both the assault frigate and the interceptor, perhaps doing neither function well. I see such a destroyer as a defacto interceptor killer. It is unfortunate that the current destroyer doesn't fill this roll well though, but it is only a tech1 ship I suppose.  It's not much fun, but I guess that makes enough sense to pass muster. |
Max Payne |
Posted - 2005.04.10 11:53:00 - [ 48]
I agree with previous posters that destroyers came a little bit too late and the role they tried to play was already taken by AF. As it is now I don't think tech 1 destroyers can be salvaged, they're good VS tech 1 ships of similar and smaller size but they can't compete with a T2 AF.
What can be done in terms of survivability is to reduce their weight even further and make em way more agile than they're now (probably signature decrease too) and in terms of usefulness give em a special function. I can think of a very good one - bonus to decloaking range 5km per level - this way a pilot with a level 5 destroyer can protect the fleet from incoming stealth bombers and with their fragile hulls a destroyer can shoot them down with 7 well placed hits ... weren't destroyers used for defending againts submarines...
btw I gather comparing the stealth bombers with submarines is way more acurate... fragile hulls , but pack quite a punch, enough to down a BS. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
|
Posted - 2005.04.10 12:53:00 - [ 49]
Edited by: Tobiaz on 10/04/2005 13:11:19 Originally by: Letifer Deus
Originally by: James Draekn
Does anyone here think that the Destroyers should be beefed up some? What I would suggest is that that CCP boost the hitpoint to Sheild, Armor, and Structure to around 550-600 to make these ships balanced. I am comparing it to the Battlecruiser which has about the double the strength of a cruiser yet half the strength of a Battleship. The destroyer is basically a bigger frigate with more guns and a larger signature radius right now and doesn't last long in combat. Would make a perfect change to allow younger players a cheap yet tough ship. Anyone?????
1)A destroyer does have about half the HP of a cruiser. Cormorant has 1000 total HP, Osprey has 2075.
2) With lvl 5 skills, one can run a cormorant with 7x 125mm rail II, std launcher, mwd, web, scrambler, smalls shield booster II, micro aux and mag. stab. II. Doing 144 dmg/sec. The 125mm T2s will have .146 tracking, an optimal of 9.375km with antimatter and an optimal of 30km with iron.
3) A Catalyst with 8x light electron IIs and 3 dmg mods will outdamage a taranis with 3x light ion IIs and 3 dmg mods by ~32.7%.
4) lvl 5 on all relevent skills, a Thrasher with 7x 280mm IIs (15x dmg mod,) a dmg mod and a micro aux, can easily insta-kill a frig/inty.
Oh yeah, people we're in the presence of a genius! T2 guns and mods on a ship that gets hit like a cruiser but with the defences of a frigate.  If you have that much money to waste just buy a assault frigate and take on ravens. You'll lose a lot less money. Destroyers are meant for destroying T1 frigates using T1 equipment. Sadly pretty much anything can kill frigates just as easily, so destroyers are out of a job except for very cheap effective miners and level 2 agents. EDIT: Destroyers do have purposes though. One for example is being the damagedealer in a fleet of expendable ships, where the T1 frigs do the tackling and jamming. |
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2005.04.10 13:22:00 - [ 50]
Originally by: Tobiaz
Edited by: Tobiaz on 10/04/2005 13:11:19
Originally by: Letifer Deus
Originally by: James Draekn
Does anyone here think that the Destroyers should be beefed up some? What I would suggest is that that CCP boost the hitpoint to Sheild, Armor, and Structure to around 550-600 to make these ships balanced. I am comparing it to the Battlecruiser which has about the double the strength of a cruiser yet half the strength of a Battleship. The destroyer is basically a bigger frigate with more guns and a larger signature radius right now and doesn't last long in combat. Would make a perfect change to allow younger players a cheap yet tough ship. Anyone?????
1)A destroyer does have about half the HP of a cruiser. Cormorant has 1000 total HP, Osprey has 2075.
2) With lvl 5 skills, one can run a cormorant with 7x 125mm rail II, std launcher, mwd, web, scrambler, smalls shield booster II, micro aux and mag. stab. II. Doing 144 dmg/sec. The 125mm T2s will have .146 tracking, an optimal of 9.375km with antimatter and an optimal of 30km with iron.
3) A Catalyst with 8x light electron IIs and 3 dmg mods will outdamage a taranis with 3x light ion IIs and 3 dmg mods by ~32.7%.
4) lvl 5 on all relevent skills, a Thrasher with 7x 280mm IIs (15x dmg mod,) a dmg mod and a micro aux, can easily insta-kill a frig/inty.
Oh yeah, people we're in the presence of a genius!
T2 guns and mods on a ship that gets hit like a cruiser but with the defences of a frigate.
If you have that much money to waste just buy a assault frigate and take on ravens. You'll lose a lot less money.
Destroyers are meant for destroying T1 frigates using T1 equipment. Sadly pretty much anything can kill frigates just as easily, so destroyers are out of a job except for very cheap effective miners and level 2 agents.
EDIT:
Destroyers do have purposes though. One for example is being the damagedealer in a fleet of expendable ships, where the T1 frigs do the tackling and jamming.
But does this mean you have to upgrade a T1 ship class to compete with the t2 ship classes that are out there? IMHO hell no. Main things of a destroyer are volley damage and tracking. All things considering assault frigates do their job better, but they're t2. As a step in between I think destroyers and battlecruisers do their job nicely, if you let that job be stepping stones between frig and cruiser and cruiser and battleship. Not if you think their job is to compete with t2 ships that are also out. |
Letifer Deus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:05:00 - [ 51]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 10/04/2005 14:06:53 Originally by: Tobiaz
Oh yeah, people we're in the presence of a genius!
T2 guns and mods on a ship that gets hit like a cruiser but with the defences of a frigate.
If you have that much money to waste just buy a assault frigate and take on ravens. You'll lose a lot less money.
Destroyers are meant for destroying T1 frigates using T1 equipment. Sadly pretty much anything can kill frigates just as easily, so destroyers are out of a job except for very cheap effective miners and level 2 agents.
EDIT:
Destroyers do have purposes though. One for example is being the damagedealer in a fleet of expendable ships, where the T1 frigs do the tackling and jamming.
So take off the T2 weapons. I merely put them on to show the possibilities. And just because it is a T1 ship does not mean it can't use T2 weapons (though admittedly an unlikely choice.) Only thing destroyers should get is sig. radius reduction. |
KamikazeHamster |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:17:00 - [ 52]
Edited by: KamikazeHamster on 10/04/2005 14:21:39
Someone said this: the trick would be to not make ships in lower tiers obsolte this go round, leave the basic destroyer as "the anti frig" then add the next tier with a different niche, perhaps a gunboat capable of being a threat to cruisers, though soft yet agile.
A well equipped destroyer will be a threat to cruisers. My Cormorant is
edit: I'm quite happy with the destroyers as they are to be honest. I think CCP did a good job on them. I don't find CPU or PG a real problem (nothing a MAPC can't sort out)
|
Alexi Borizkova
Caldari
New Age Solutions
The Laughing Men |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:29:00 - [ 53]
Edited by: Alexi Borizkova on 10/04/2005 14:30:40 Originally by: KamikazeHamster
Edited by: KamikazeHamster on 10/04/2005 14:21:39
Someone said this: the trick would be to not make ships in lower tiers obsolte this go round, leave the basic destroyer as "the anti frig" then add the next tier with a different niche, perhaps a gunboat capable of being a threat to cruisers, though soft yet agile.
A well equipped destroyer will be a threat to cruisers. My Cormorant is
edit: I'm quite happy with the destroyers as they are to be honest. I think CCP did a good job on them. I don't find CPU or PG a real problem (nothing a MAPC can't sort out)
As "someone" I figure I should respond... Yes, I'm sure you are, I have no doubt of it in fact. The rules of the game more than allow for that. It just bothers me a bit that little guns tear through the armor and shields of capital ships, and that it would seem far more dramatic and appropriate if it was a single(or pair) of large guns on the ship doing the lion's share of the damage. At least to me in my mind's eye, that is. [EDIT] I am as well quite contented with the destroyers as is, the yare damn fine ships, and a welcoem addition to any fleet or group. Fitting is fine and dandy for me as well, but as you pointed out takes some moderately high skills. I have often told people in various default corps that the destroyer is NOT a tier IV frigate, it is NOT the step between frigate and cruiser, but a whole new spur of ship training all it's own, and requires skills on par with an elite frigate to use to it's full potential(yes, with suboptimal skill it is a useful good ship, but can never truly be it' best without uber{as compared to new players} skills). I like the basic Destroyers jsut fine as they are, but would like to see an ECM specialist, a communications specialist(a kind of wee support ship), a long range tackler(bonus to webs and disruptor rang,e anyone?) and otehr roles that would be nice to have i na fleet but are not nice to lose big heavy ships to fill. However this is all in a perfect world(to me) where every corp doesn't jsut say "why not send em out in a battleship, it isn't like our hangar doesn't look liek the fight club in the old test server" as it seems to be now. a 1-2m isk investmetn for a specialized role ship is not bad, and if the skills were kept to what the yare now(multiple level III and IV skills, isntead of a few level Vs) to fly, it gives low to mid level players soemthign worthwhiel to do i nfleet iwthout puttign all their resources in one ship that is doomed to die. |
James Draekn
X.E.N.O.
OWN Alliance |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:30:00 - [ 54]
Whats even worse about the Destroyer is that as soon as you put a MWD on it (the only way to make it more survivable on the Battlefield) its signature radius jumps to the size of a Battleship.  One of the bonuses this ship should have added is a decrease to its signature radius per level as well as no increase to signature radius for MWD. If I'm correct I think that signature radius is part of the chance to hit computation. The only way this ship will survive in combat is to avoid being hit as much as possible. CCP needs to turn this ship into a Heavy Interceptor/Assault Frig eater. If the signature radius didn't go up after installing a MWD this ship might just pull that role off, its fast, small and packs a punch. Now if they could just get it to take a few as well, or give it the ability to avoid them. |
Famine Aligher'ri
V i L e
|
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:38:00 - [ 55]
New ECM comming out. Destroyers will be able to jam frigates, cruisers and maybe a battleship given V EW skills to all. Destroyers will become a better ship due to the new unbalanced ECM changes. That's if the current ECM on the test server is the same changes in the new patch. So, all of you should have no problems strapping on 1 racial jammer and jamming people well.
If anything, was to change. I would be in support of upping the "Amarr" current med slots.
|
MaiLina KaTar |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:42:00 - [ 56]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 11/04/2005 11:43:16
Let's see how they pan out after the EW & missile overhaul.
|
Hotice |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:58:00 - [ 57]
Destroyers need longer target lock range. Instead of 24km, it should be around 35km lock range. In many case, guns on destroyer can shoot a lot further than the lock range. Also, what is with the single midslot for amarr destroyer? There should at least 2 midslots for that ship. Destroyer should be able to mount 2-3 cruiser size guns for long range attack however with less shield/armor, after all, it does have the room for them. Destroyer should also be missile defense ship just in real life. If nothing else, destroyer should have more midslots than frigates for EW.
Over all, I think destroyer should be made as close air defense ship against all frigate size ships and drones. However, as where it stands, cruiser can do it better and last longer. I fly both minmatar and amarr destroyers. They are fun little ship to play around but cannot really do anything serious. I used them to assiste friends to do lvl 4 missions. Frankly, I had to fly back and get rupture/maller. A ship that is designed to take out small ships/drones cannot really get the job done. |
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2005.04.11 12:50:00 - [ 58]
cruiser guns? on something that's obviously ment to put it's firepower on small targets?
Missile defense ship? EW platform
If people would stop trying to get ships changed into something they're not but focus on using them what they're made for 50% of the posts in this forum would dissapear.
And cruisers using frig guns are indeed not that far behind destroyers in damage, but they ARE behind, while costing more etc. etc. for more survivability assuming that that is true, and I think it's not.
Perhaps a cruiser is better at assisting at lvl 4 missions, but saying destroyers cannot do the job of taking out small targets is bull****.
|
Famine Aligher'ri
V i L e
|
Posted - 2005.04.11 13:18:00 - [ 59]
Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 11/04/2005 13:19:47 Originally by: Gariuys
Perhaps a cruiser is better at assisting at lvl 4 missions, but saying destroyers cannot do the job of taking out small targets is bull****.
I've killed a lot of destroyers in pvp. I find them very good on damage however, they still have a hard time hitting someone with agility that doesn't just orbit. Remember these are anti-frig ships. You know how hard it is to hit someone who is swooping in and out your turrent range? However, the new EW will add support to either A) Draw a frig closer or B) Stop damage all together. So yes "Amarr" does need another mid slot. Don't understand why it only has 1. Just a thought. |
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2005.04.11 14:14:00 - [ 60]
Originally by: Famine Aligher'ri
Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 11/04/2005 13:19:47
Originally by: Gariuys
Perhaps a cruiser is better at assisting at lvl 4 missions, but saying destroyers cannot do the job of taking out small targets is bull****.
I've killed a lot of destroyers in pvp. I find them very good on damage however, they still have a hard time hitting someone with agility that doesn't just orbit. Remember these are anti-frig ships. You know how hard it is to hit someone who is swooping in and out your turrent range?
However, the new EW will add support to either
A) Draw a frig closer or
B) Stop damage all together.
So yes "Amarr" does need another mid slot. Don't understand why it only has 1.
Just a thought.
Destoyers aren't EW ships and if there's one race that is the absolute worst at EW it's amarr, don't see why this would be different for their destroyer. And they don't need webbers or scramblers for frig destruction. And while you might indeed miss a couple of times, this doesn't change the fact that of anything using turrets destroyers are the best of making a shot stick on a frig. Personally I don't have much trouble getting those hits to land, fast base speed frigs using a afterburner are hardest, but still doable. |
|
All Channels
Ships and Modules
