open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Do you think Destroyers need a sig radius decrease?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Vladimiru
Gallente
Nanite Industries
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.10.08 06:58:00 - [1]
 

If so, by how much?

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.10.08 10:31:00 - [2]
 

Yes, and they need to lose about a third IMO.
60m looks reasonable for a Cormorant - it'll still be the speed of a cruiser, with the ehps of a frigate, but it won't automatically be dead meat for anything cruiser sized that sneezes on it.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.08 10:40:00 - [3]
 

I think they need to be physically smaller then cruisers. :P (A thrasher is bigger then a Stabber)

Vladimiru
Gallente
Nanite Industries
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.10.08 16:49:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
I think they need to be physically smaller then cruisers. :P (A thrasher is bigger then a Stabber)


It would say about an equal 30% decrease in physical size as well.

Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth.
Posted - 2010.10.09 00:26:00 - [5]
 

yes, destroyers need to lose some sig radius and maybe some kilos.

Overall at this point anything you do to destroyers will make them a bit better than what they are now.

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2010.10.09 02:40:00 - [6]
 

5 minmatar, 10-15 everyone else on descreased sig.. no more. And yeah.. shrink them a touch visually n lose some kilos.

I don't want them competing with cruisers.. they are designed frig smashers and in the right hands, they do that quite well. But I don't think they should be so paper thin to cruisers on the defensive front as they sit already.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2010.10.09 03:56:00 - [7]
 

They should all have the same sig radius the same way BC do. 55m - 60m would be good. The caldari destroyer is almost 100m right now. Instapop anyone? Even at 75m the thrasher is easily tracked and torn apart.

If you wanted to create a unique ship: (Thrasher Example)
Reduce high slots from 7 + utility to 5+ utility.
Give the thrasher two more mids and reduce it's sig radius to 60m.
Lose the ROF penalty AND the optimal bonus.
Give it (and all other destroyers) an AB bonus as suggested for the AFs a while back.

This gives some room to work w/ fixing AF's as well.

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2010.10.09 07:02:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
They should all have the same sig radius the same way BC do. 55m - 60m would be good. The caldari destroyer is almost 100m right now. Instapop anyone? Even at 75m the thrasher is easily tracked and torn apart.

If you wanted to create a unique ship: (Thrasher Example)
Reduce high slots from 7 + utility to 5+ utility.
Give the thrasher two more mids and reduce it's sig radius to 60m.
Lose the ROF penalty AND the optimal bonus.
Give it (and all other destroyers) an AB bonus as suggested for the AFs a while back.

This gives some room to work w/ fixing AF's as well.

I do not agree with the optimal bit, Destroyers still wont have the ability to catch up with frigs.
The trashers optimal bonus should be split into 5% optimal and 5% falloff. ( AC's )

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2010.10.09 09:18:00 - [9]
 

I'd argue that you could use the two mids to rebuild some of that optimal range via tracking computers. The key more then anything else would be choice. Right now, why would you fly an arty AF, whether it's the jaguar - or hopefully the wolf down the line - when you can get the same range with the thrasher?

It's all open for debate - the basic point though is that destroyers and AF are so close in nature/roles that you have to be on the same overall page for what you want to do before you just change one class.

La redangel
Posted - 2010.10.09 09:40:00 - [10]
 

yes, it does lol, my thrasher stuck out like sore thumb thur., at mass test fleet battle round.Shocked

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.10.09 10:02:00 - [11]
 

Just a smidgin more grid would be nice for my Cormorant, whilst we're at it. Being able to fit 150s without a grid mod would be nice.

Nalia Shanalar
Amarr
Tanaka Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.09 11:47:00 - [12]
 

Just from the back of my rather unexperienced and theorycrafting head:
150% of a frigs signature, (currently ~200%)
75% of a cruisers HP (currently ~50%)

Their main problems in small gangs seems to be surviveability.
Due to other factors like their general fitting issues,
as well of low agility and speed, those changes probably wouldnt make them overpowered.

The Trasher of course is an issue all by itself and more related to the artillery alpha situation ;)

Salpad
Caldari
Carebears with Attitude
Posted - 2010.10.09 20:03:00 - [13]
 

Yes, lower sig radius, and one more MID or LOW slot, would help a lot.

Regarding the many weapon hardpoints and the RoF penalty, the idea is to enable Destroyers to do a massive alpha, without having high DPS, so that should probably stay,

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2010.10.10 00:35:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Salpad
Yes, lower sig radius, and one more MID or LOW slot, would help a lot.

Regarding the many weapon hardpoints and the RoF penalty, the idea is to enable Destroyers to do a massive alpha, without having high DPS, so that should probably stay,



That idea looks great on paper but in practice it benefits one race more then any other and the destroyer class as a rule is a failure. Kind of like active armor tanking ships using shotguns for weapons. Laughing CCP is rolling out a ship dedicated to salvaging. I hope I'm not giving them too much credit in hoping that indicates a redo of the destroyer class into true combat vessels.

Vladimiru
Gallente
Nanite Industries
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.10.10 04:11:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
CCP is rolling out a ship dedicated to salvaging. I hope I'm not giving them too much credit in hoping that indicates a redo of the destroyer class into true combat vessels.


You know, you just may be right!

Feikno
Posted - 2010.10.10 21:58:00 - [16]
 

Call me crazy, but why not have a alternative Tech 2 Variant like a Assault Ship for combat.

Perhaps some minor changes here and there, but T2 Resists.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2010.10.11 01:20:00 - [17]
 

If there was a T2 assault destroyer who would bother w/ assault frigates? Eve does not need new ships as much as it needs some old ones looked at. Destroyers, our current example, get used as salvagers. Solo roaming by high SP characters. LOL fleets. Level one missions. That's it.

It's been brought up by CSM that they need to get changed. They're on the list. What I suggested in this thread would create the same synergy at the small class level that you find between sniper hacs, close range hacs, and battlecruisers. Keep it short and simple.

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2010.10.11 09:12:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
I think they need to be physically smaller then cruisers. :P (A thrasher is bigger then a Stabber)


Please explain logistics ship signatures? Or LSE/MWD bloom?

tl;dr: Physical Size =/= Signature Radius

Tanaka Reina
Caldari
Happy Penquins
Posted - 2010.10.11 09:20:00 - [19]
 

We had a talk in the AF thread about gang links boosters and stuff. How about add a range bonus to RR? Destroyers could get a new role in wolfpacks.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only