open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked True T2 Destroyers
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.13 11:52:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 11:53:15
Originally by: McEivalley

...
2) Mine layer - A new weapon will be created along with the ship. Basically a mine is a cloaked bomb, that decloaks on proximity to targets. It can be programed to decloak andengage due to standings (Ranging from any but self to only -7.51 and below). Would be less powerful than a bomb, and with a smaller AEO.

Mines can be locked and shot at, much like drones. Basically, they will be stationary cloaked drones, that will decloak and act as bombs do once they sense a target around them.

Decloaking mechanics will apply to it (so trying to deploy one next to another will require them to be 2501m apart or more for their cloak to work). A friendly ship (i.e. one the mine would not decloak to attack) approaching in decloaking range will decloak a mine.

Mines can be anchored, which will make them more resilient and powerful, as well as magnify their proximity activation range. However, anchoring time will compensate for the added power, maybe requiring the mine layer dessie to linger near it for a penalty calibration time to make it so.

The ship itself will sport a covert ops cloak as well as the ability to warp cloaked. Once again, less hi slots, and a bit more med/lows and PG/CPU enhancements in order to bring it into the t2 game. However, tank/speed should not be much better than the t1 version. Faction bonus to mine type/damage should apply rather than an all around bonus. It will be able to mvoe via covert jump portals.

....

i like the idea but i would do it a bit different:

role bonus:
can mount assault launchers
99% reduction for mine layer

destroyer bonus:
40% to light and defender missile velocity per level
20% to racial light, defender missile and mine damage per level

t2 destroyer bonus:
20% assault launcher ROF increase per level
10 additional mines per level

the mines would basically be like probes with bombs attached that are remotely detonated.
most probe rules apply, they have a time out, they stay, when left behind but they are not cloaked and can not be moved around.

the idea is that the mines require remote detonation by an operator in the system. an enemy fleet would send in its scout and its t2 dessie in to clear the minefield with defender missiles, which slows them down, unless there is no one in local.

it is ideal for laying traps, but always requires an operator. and also has a counter in form of t2 dessies clearing minefields...

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.13 13:09:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: silken mouth
Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 11:53:15
Originally by: McEivalley

...
2) Mine layer -
....

i like the idea but i would do it a bit different:...
the idea is that the mines require remote detonation by an operator in the system. an enemy fleet would send in its scout and its t2 dessie in to clear the minefield with defender missiles, which slows them down, unless there is no one in local.

it is ideal for laying traps, but always requires an operator. and also has a counter in form of t2 dessies clearing minefields...


I think most of the bonuses you placed there are way over powered, but exact stats are irrelevant at this point of the discussion. What you're suggesting is a claymore layer. I believe that's a nice idea but it's too over-powered. Part of the charm - and danger - of AEO weapons is your inability to control who will they hit. With smartbombs/DDs, you pay for it by being there, sacrificing a mod and cap and damaging FoF alike. With bombs, its just a mod and the risk of being hurt by your weapon, as well as hurting FoF.

Mines are a cross between the two, inclined more towards the bomb. Claymores would be a cross more inclined to SBs/DDs, but not needing cap and reduce the chance of self infliction significantly. Mines should still be powerful enough to alpha a frig - something SBs can't do (unless you're going disco on a BS, but its more lol than a serious role).

Claymores, on the other hand, will reduce the chance of f*ck-ups (wrong standing settings, mutual decloaking on deployment, activation when a cloaked hostile moves near one just as you finished deploying one etc), reduce the deployment time significantly (you don't need to set anything for it), and are much dumber, thus potentially should do a lot more damage over a larger area (they don't need sensors and a brain to decide when to activate = more space for bang powder).

Their inability to cloak and being stationary are definite cons as well as the need for an operator around... but as I mentioned, the fact that the operator can basically avoid any damage from his own claymores offsets everything, except them being totally obsolete due to price etc... being bombs as they used to be.

I didn't think about clearing them out - that's a good one on your side. I believe a certain module fit on a med slot should be created to jam a mine till one can scoop it to the cargo hold (at which point it is neutralized). Obviously, only the t2 mine layers should be able to equip it, though one could argue to extend it to any COCD ship.

I was just thinking about it. The pilot should be able to choose both proximity of detonation and detonation activation timer.

rodensteiner
Amarr
OMGROFLSTOMP
Posted - 2009.05.13 13:19:00 - [93]
 

I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for.

Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe)

Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets.

Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed

Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps.

Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other.

This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well.


I'm also sorry if I re-hashed what has been said, I only read the first page and a half, don't have that much time to read forums at work Laughing

ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
Independent Faction
Posted - 2009.05.13 13:31:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: rodensteiner
I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for.

Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe)

Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets.

Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed

Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps.

Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other.

This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well.

This. Very much. I want a mini-marauder.

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.13 13:33:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: rodensteiner
I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for.

Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe)

Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets.

Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed

Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps.

Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other.

This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well.


I'm also sorry if I re-hashed what has been said, I only read the first page and a half, don't have that much time to read forums at work Laughing

i dont know.... HACs would do better at ratting and its questionable if a salvager/tractor beam bonus legitimizes a new t2 ship class....

id prefer salvager and tractor beam rigs on a t1 dessie

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.13 15:08:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 15:09:36
Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 15:08:58
Originally by: McEivalley

..., but exact stats are irrelevant at this point of the discussion.



agreed
Quote:

What you're suggesting is a claymore layer. I believe that's a nice idea but it's too over-powered. Part of the charm - and danger - of AEO weapons is your inability to control who will they hit. With smartbombs/DDs, you pay for it by being there, sacrificing a mod and cap and damaging FoF alike. With bombs, its just a mod and the risk of being hurt by your weapon, as well as hurting FoF.


well you cant really control who they hit, you can only only control when they blow...
Quote:


Mines are a cross between the two, inclined more towards the bomb. Claymores would be a cross more inclined to SBs/DDs, but not needing cap and reduce the chance of self infliction significantly. Mines should still be powerful enough to alpha a frig - something SBs can't do (unless you're going disco on a BS, but its more lol than a serious role).

Claymores, on the other hand, will reduce the chance of f*ck-ups (wrong standing settings, mutual decloaking on deployment, activation when a cloaked hostile moves near one just as you finished deploying one etc), reduce the deployment time significantly (you don't need to set anything for it), and are much dumber, thus potentially should do a lot more damage over a larger area (they don't need sensors and a brain to decide when to activate = more space for bang powder).
Their inability to cloak and being stationary are definite cons as well as the need for an operator around... but as I mentioned, the fact that the operator can basically avoid any damage from his own claymores offsets everything, except them being totally obsolete due to price etc... being bombs as they used to be.

I didn't think about clearing them out - that's a good one on your side. I believe a certain module fit on a med slot should be created to jam a mine till one can scoop it to the cargo hold (at which point it is neutralized). Obviously, only the t2 mine layers should be able to equip it, though one could argue to extend it to any COCD ship.

I was just thinking about it. The pilot should be able to choose both proximity of detonation and detonation activation timer.


well you could always make them proximity detonated, but that would always trigger them on the scout...

best option would be to implement a delay between trigger and actual detonation this way a fast scout gang could lure the minelayer to trigger the mines and warp off, before they blow.

Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.05.13 16:11:00 - [97]
 

Just removing the rate of fire penalty right off gives a destroyer 25% extra damage. Make it capable of fitting eight turrets, give it another low so that it can fit a nano/armor/damage mod if it needs to. You wouldn't need to do a whole lot to make a destroyer much more lethal, giving it a little more HP and resists would go a long way. Also, trying to make the materials cost bring the price into around 30-40m instead of the 60m an interdictor costs would be great.

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.13 18:30:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac
Just removing the rate of fire penalty right off gives a destroyer 25% extra damage. Make it capable of fitting eight turrets, give it another low so that it can fit a nano/armor/damage mod if it needs to. You wouldn't need to do a whole lot to make a destroyer much more lethal, giving it a little more HP and resists would go a long way. Also, trying to make the materials cost bring the price into around 30-40m instead of the 60m an interdictor costs would be great.


QFT

Torothanax
Posted - 2009.05.15 09:01:00 - [99]
 

I'm likin some of the idea's I'm seein here. Others not so much, but I'm kind of a purist.

Lets keep the ideas going. Idea

Yeomanmeister VIII
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.05.16 05:05:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Yeomanmeister VIII on 16/05/2009 05:29:52
The one thing that I find frustrating about 0.0 (from my little experience) is the complete and utter lack of a way to stop covops, i wouldn't like recon to be removed from the game, but way to stop them at gates and stalking large fleets. I like many people started the game missioning in a destroyer and i still find them enjoyable ships to fly and would like to see them in pvp (as stated, interdictors are useful, but nothing like destroyers in use). so:

Counter-Recon Destroyers
role bonuses:
-25% Weapon ROF
+50% Turret range/missile velocity
-99% cpu cost fitting cloak disruption sphere launcher*

destroyer skill bonus:
%5 bonus turret damage
%10 bonus turret tracking speed
%5 to armor/shield resists

8 high slots, 7 turrets (maybe 6 for Caldari missile boat to conform with other ships)
Amarr: 2 mid, 6 low.
Gallente: 3 mid, 5 low.
Minmatar: 5 mid, 3 low.
Caldari: 6 mid, 2 low.

I think you would have to be generous with the mids/lows since they need all the help they can get with survivability. ( frig PG on cruiser ugh)

*not so much like a warp disruption sphere, more like an anti-cloak SB, with maybe a 50-70km range: "due to the connection between a covert ops cloak and the warp drive, it sends an electromagnetic surge through the cloaked ships systems leaving them unable to warp or cloak again for (30 seconds? 1 minute?)", wouldn't kill covops usefulness but at least theres a counter. The resists, damage and tracking bonuses should give them respectable combat abilities Smile

Thought it'd be a good idea, new to the forums and all, so if its a repost of another idea I apologize.

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.05.18 01:00:00 - [101]
 

I find the mini marauders very appealing also.
What I'd propose is to give the T2 destros 6 high slots, of those only 4 turret capable with 100% damage bonus, keeping the rest of the bonuses as are now.
For the other 2 high slots, I'd let those be a general utility slot or launcher slots. These should fit only frig class modules. CCP can sort the PG and CPU requirements so that you won't be able to fit bigger mods.

For mid and low slots I'd increase the existent ones by 1 and add role bonuses, as race related as possible:

Ammar: T2 Armor resists/ Armor rep bonus or better tracking (not too much)
Caldari: T2 Shield Resistances/ Shield boost bonus or hybrid damage (yes, railguns need more dmg)
Gallente: T2 Armor Resists/ Stasis Web Range bonus or afterburner bonus (more speed out of one)
Minmatar: T2 Shield Resists/ MWD cap usage bonus or falloff bonus

I general, I think getting the marauder slot setup and respective slot bonuses combined with HAC role bonuses, is the way to go.

Also I'd give them sig radius and agility of 1.25 of an AF.

Halycon Gamma
Caldari
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.18 07:26:00 - [102]
 

I say NOOOO to the mines idea. Image hitting a gate of stealth mines packed in a 25km^3 cube around the gate that are 2.5km away from each other on a side, or taking up a volume of 5km^3 of space for their 5km^3 explosion diameter. 125 mines. Lets give them about a third of what bombs have for damage.. 2k. Thats a 250,000 hp base alpha if you wait till the fleet translates over before detonating them, also assuming each mine only hits a single ship.

Not a single ship has tried to target another ship yet. Just 250k damage. Sure, its not going to take out anything but the most crappy of crappy ship. But you'll also run into instances where a single ship could be in the blast radius of up to 8 mines, for 16,000 base damage to a ship single ship. We're now talking about a system which has the ability to end gate battles at the fleet level before they even start by the amount of softening they're going to do to a target.

We do not need another way to make defending space from attackers easier. The POS mechanic how it currently stands is bad enough as is.

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.18 10:05:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: McEivalley on 18/05/2009 11:19:15
Originally by: Halycon Gamma
I say NOOOO to the mines idea. Image hitting a gate of stealth mines packed in a 25km^3 cube around the gate that are 2.5km away from each other on a side, or taking up a volume of 5km^3 of space for their 5km^3 explosion diameter. 125 mines. Lets give them about a third of what bombs have for damage.. 2k. Thats a 250,000 hp base alpha if you wait till the fleet translates over before detonating them, also assuming each mine only hits a single ship.

Not a single ship has tried to target another ship yet. Just 250k damage. Sure, its not going to take out anything but the most crappy of crappy ship. But you'll also run into instances where a single ship could be in the blast radius of up to 8 mines, for 16,000 base damage to a ship single ship. We're now talking about a system which has the ability to end gate battles at the fleet level before they even start by the amount of softening they're going to do to a target.

We do not need another way to make defending space from attackers easier. The POS mechanic how it currently stands is bad enough as is.


Don't say "NOOO"... but you have pointed out a problem. Allow me to retort...

First, the gates are pretty big. Even non-regional gates will not allow you to set such a mine field so easily. Second, to lay such a perfect mine field you'll need an amount of coordination that cannot be achieved in this game. Hypothetically speaking - yeah. Practically - no. Now think of this - blues will decloak a blue mine if they move less than 2500m from it. Cans will do it as well.

I would reckon that mines will have a shorter activation radii than their explosion radii (makes sense - to insure they go boom when the target is in optimal). I was actually thinking about the same as bombs.

However, much like bombs, they could be destroyed. So lets say that their activation radius is 5km, an explosion radius of 15kms etc... a couple of mines will destroy the whole field if an interceptor buzzez through it, and no one gets harmed by them. Would be a hell of a run for the inty pilot, looking back over his nozzles...

What I'm trying to say with this ship, is that its going to bring NEW tactics and new strategy into the game, instead of yet another PWNmobile like the proposed marauder-dessie or HAD (heavy assault dessie) etc.

Also, think of the risk a mined gate will be for some of your allies, that are only blue to you but not alliance members? Putting mines will not be a trivial thing just thanks to that. tactically, light support and close range heavy support will not be able to sit on such a gate either. Plus, if it will get a go from CCP, I reckon that much like bombs there's gonna be quite an interval thanks to reloading time... perhaps some priming time... so setting down a field will be a taxing job.

E villMonkeigh
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
Posted - 2009.05.18 11:14:00 - [104]
 

Pleeeeease no Marauder dessie. There's enough carebear stuff around as it is.

I do think, for balance, there should be another T1 destroyer, AND another T2 destroyer. Rather like the BC class has two T1 and two T2 versions.

T1. (Tier 2 destroyer)
Add slight resists, reduce sig radius; basically an upgraded T1. Maybe no -25% ROF penalty. Increase EHP.
To Tier 1 ship as to Hurri is to Cyclone, or Harbie is to Prophecy. Maybe reduce sig radius (PLEASE!)

Much as it would pain me, I could also see a specialist salvage version being made with bonuses to salvage/tractor etc. But I'd rather it was a T1 version than a T2 ship wasted for carebear stuff.

T2.
Mini Command Ship. Warfare link bonus, helps roaming gangs. Would encourage frig gangs.

"Web" Interdictor. A 20km bubble with -30 to -50% to speed would be murderous to light ships. Perhaps bonuses to artillery too in true 'destroyer' style.

Extra slot version; with also extra resists, EHP etc; the Heavy Assault Destroyer. Would have be balanced so not to take over AF role. Perhaps a tackling penalty.


silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.18 11:46:00 - [105]
 

New proposal:

T2 Destroyer:

T1 Destroyer as it is right now

T2 Destroyer skill:
5% increase in refire rate
20% signature reduction

it would have T2 resists.

Bibbleibble
Posted - 2009.05.18 15:29:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: E villMonkeigh
Pleeeeease no Marauder dessie. There's enough carebear stuff around as it is.

I do think, for balance, there should be another T1 destroyer, AND another T2 destroyer. Rather like the BC class has two T1 and two T2 versions.

T1. (Tier 2 destroyer)
Add slight resists, reduce sig radius; basically an upgraded T1. Maybe no -25% ROF penalty. Increase EHP.
To Tier 1 ship as to Hurri is to Cyclone, or Harbie is to Prophecy. Maybe reduce sig radius (PLEASE!)



There is the slight problem with this is that you would make the Tier one destroyers as obsolete as the Cyclone and the Harbinger. The Prophecy and Cyclone aren't bad ships, they just suffer from having a ship that is equal or better in every respect.

Originally by: silken mouth
New proposal:

T2 Destroyer:

T1 Destroyer as it is right now

T2 Destroyer skill:
5% increase in refire rate
20% signature reduction

it would have T2 resists.


The problem with a destroyer with no ROF penalty is that it can outdamage a cruiser, with better tracking, more speed (for the most part) and a lower sig rad (for all that it matters)

The only way to add in Tier/Tech 2 destroyers would be to add in extra roles. Otherwise you end up with the same situation as the Battlecruisers are in: one being substantially better than the others.

But I definitely agree that Destroyers need a boost to get them back up to par with AFs and Interceptors. They need about 1.25x as much HP as now, and then they become about as tough as AFs, but have a higher sig rad and are slower than the AFs. They could also do with a extra mid and low slot each, and maybe a boost to scan res. That should definitely help with the Destroyers problems

Yawgmoth
Amarr
UnderHated iNc
Brotherhood Of The Sick and Twisted
Posted - 2009.05.21 18:53:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Torothanax
Originally by: arbiter reformed
give it a sig rad reduction bonus and the same 7 slot gun / cool too see caldari have 7 missiles. tank bonus and t2 resists and lots of speed (basicly bring back nano)


A sig reduction bonuse might be cool. Destroyers are gun boats though. I'd like to see a T2 version stay true to the idea of the T1 destroyer.



I don't understand the freaking about the GUN boat part of the description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer
Maybe a t2 dessie could use 8 rocket launchers with a high range, taking the rockets out to 30km with an extremely high velocity and explosion velocity. and penalty to ROF, giving it very high alpha damage but less in the way of sustained dps.
Of course rather than give it a straight damage bonus for rockets which would make it equally effective against everything give it a damage bonus against ships that have a smaller signature radius than it does.

Bibbleibble
Posted - 2009.05.21 19:05:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Yawgmoth
Originally by: Torothanax
Originally by: arbiter reformed
give it a sig rad reduction bonus and the same 7 slot gun / cool too see caldari have 7 missiles. tank bonus and t2 resists and lots of speed (basicly bring back nano)


A sig reduction bonuse might be cool. Destroyers are gun boats though. I'd like to see a T2 version stay true to the idea of the T1 destroyer.



I don't understand the freaking about the GUN boat part of the description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer
Maybe a t2 dessie could use 8 rocket launchers with a high range, taking the rockets out to 30km with an extremely high velocity and explosion velocity. and penalty to ROF, giving it very high alpha damage but less in the way of sustained dps.
Of course rather than give it a straight damage bonus for rockets which would make it equally effective against everything give it a damage bonus against ships that have a smaller signature radius than it does.


Destroyers could do with variety. No other ship class has such a narrow focus, and destroyers really need a second look and update from CCP. No other ship class has failed as spectacularly at its intended role, as many frigates, and frigate hulled vessels can easily SOLO kill a destroyer.

See the link in my signature for more details. It is basically me trying to fix most of the current destroyers problems, such as low EHP, too low scan res, and others.

MrHarryCanyon
Posted - 2009.05.21 19:07:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:10:50
Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:08:52
right now an AF can take out a destroyer without too much of a problem. Why not just make a T2 assault destroyer. Keep the HP low and similar to frigs and just ramp up the resists and guns. That way a T1 cruiser would still be able to outlast an assault destroyer if fitted properly. And maybe have the assault destroyer get 1 more low and a bunch more energy grid so it can immediately fit 8 of the largest small weapons for that race. And! possibly when people get advanced wep upgrades they could fit 1-2 med weapons or get the tank up.

It would make the assault destroyer a much better frig killer and by keeping the weapons to the small group still maintain a balance for the class of ship.

If caldari destroyer had 7 missile slots it would be much too over powered. Without the need for tracking, a 100% hit rate and ability to dictate range....

Bibbleibble
Posted - 2009.05.21 20:11:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: MrHarryCanyon
Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:10:50
Edited by: MrHarryCanyon on 21/05/2009 19:08:52
right now an AF can take out a destroyer without too much of a problem. Why not just make a T2 assault destroyer. Keep the HP low and similar to frigs and just ramp up the resists and guns. That way a T1 cruiser would still be able to outlast an assault destroyer if fitted properly. And maybe have the assault destroyer get 1 more low and a bunch more energy grid so it can immediately fit 8 of the largest small weapons for that race. And! possibly when people get advanced wep upgrades they could fit 1-2 med weapons or get the tank up.

It would make the assault destroyer a much better frig killer and by keeping the weapons to the small group still maintain a balance for the class of ship.

If caldari destroyer had 7 missile slots it would be much too over powered. Without the need for tracking, a 100% hit rate and ability to dictate range....


If we take the destroyer from my thread, you will see that with a similar penalty to rof(damage is better otherwise there is a massive alpha strike) 8 missile slots will actually deal less damage than 8 turret slots on a destroyer. I really do advise anyone who is interested in improving destroyers now, has a look, as there are ideas there by both me and others that would really help with destroyers and their problems.

As I see it, there should be a similar level of descision between flying a AF and a destroyer as there is between flying a HAC and a BC. You should have the option of trading speed, sig rad and resists for raw HP and DPS. Which is unfortunately not the case at the moment, as you have shown by the AF V destroyer situation.

Torothanax
Posted - 2009.05.22 06:27:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Torothanax on 22/05/2009 06:29:51
Originally by: Bibbleibble
If we take the destroyer from my thread, you will see that with a similar penalty to rof(damage is better otherwise there is a massive alpha strike) 8 missile slots will actually deal less damage than 8 turret slots on a destroyer. I really do advise anyone who is interested in improving destroyers now, has a look, as there are ideas there by both me and others that would really help with destroyers and their problems.

As I see it, there should be a similar level of descision between flying a AF and a destroyer as there is between flying a HAC and a BC. You should have the option of trading speed, sig rad and resists for raw HP and DPS. Which is unfortunately not the case at the moment, as you have shown by the AF V destroyer situation.


I'd appreciate it if you'd stop hi-jacking my thread. The topic is "True T2 destoryers". If it doesn't have a gun related role bonus, it isn't a destroyer.

Go peddle your missile whatever it is somewhere else.

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.22 16:27:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Bibbleibble


Originally by: silken mouth
New proposal:

T2 Destroyer:

T1 Destroyer as it is right now

T2 Destroyer skill:
5% increase in refire rate
20% signature reduction

it would have T2 resists.


The problem with a destroyer with no ROF penalty is that it can outdamage a cruiser, with better tracking, more speed (for the most part) and a lower sig rad (for all that it matters)




why is it a problem that a T2 Destroyer outdamages a T1 cruiser?

after doing some math, no, they wouldnt outdamage....

Galen Gallente
Gallente
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.05.22 17:33:00 - [113]
 

I would like to see a T2 Destroyer that would be like the Skipray Blastboat from the old Star Wars d6 system by west end games.

Slightly larger than an X-Wing or C. Corvette (Millennium Falcon) but packed 1 or 2 Capitol (Imperial Start Destroyer) scale weapons.

Give it about 3 high slots only 1 or 2 of which are turrets. Give it a gigantic cap and power grid for the powerful weaponry.

Now in Eve terms it would be a frigate/destroyer signature ship that was highly manuverable but could fit 1-2 Large (Weapon Type).

Give it bonuses such that it can target Frigates and Destroyers as normal. So some bonus to scan resolution, tracking speed ect. ect..

Torothanax
Posted - 2009.05.24 06:33:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Galen Gallente
I would like to see a T2 Destroyer that would be like the Skipray Blastboat from the old Star Wars d6 system by west end games.

Slightly larger than an X-Wing or C. Corvette (Millennium Falcon) but packed 1 or 2 Capitol (Imperial Start Destroyer) scale weapons.

Give it about 3 high slots only 1 or 2 of which are turrets. Give it a gigantic cap and power grid for the powerful weaponry.

Now in Eve terms it would be a frigate/destroyer signature ship that was highly manuverable but could fit 1-2 Large (Weapon Type).

Give it bonuses such that it can target Frigates and Destroyers as normal. So some bonus to scan resolution, tracking speed ect. ect..


I'm not sure a gun based stealth bomber is the way to go, but it's kinda interesting.

Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth.
Posted - 2009.05.26 11:40:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 26/05/2009 11:41:43
i definetly still think destroyers need some desperate fat girl love.

I would like to see an Assault varient, same tank, one extra mid, one extra low, little more pwr & cpu

and for my stupid idea I think a missle boat varient would be hillarious. give a bonus for missle fitting requirements so I can stick on like 7 missles, and 1 turret.

honest to goodness I just want a destroyer that T2 frigs SERIOUSLY question coming near. I'm tired of having to rig my thrasher.

Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth.
Posted - 2009.05.26 11:43:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: rodensteiner
I like the mini-marauder idea a lot. I also think that it would fulfill several roles that people are asking for.

Let them keep their range and tracking bonuses, plus the ROF penalty (maybe)

Take them down to 4 turret slots instead of 8, double the damage output of [small] turrets.

Give them a bonus to salvager range/speed

Give them T2 resists, in line with AF resists, perhaps.

Give them an extra slot or two. I've used the Coercer in PVP to some success (almost beat a Vengeance not long ago) but having only one mid-slot really sucks. It's either a speed mod or a tackling mod. Little tricky to use one without the other.

This way, you could fit a pretty decent PVP setup, or you could use it for lvl2/3 missions (I think? I don't do missions, don't know exactly what kind of dps and tank are required) as it would be a good salvaging platform as well.


I'm also sorry if I re-hashed what has been said, I only read the first page and a half, don't have that much time to read forums at work Laughing


I don't think you could call that a destroyer any more.

Bloody2k
Gallente
ZERO T0LERANCE
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 00:07:00 - [117]
 

- Head Hunter Ship -

What does this ship do?

Destroyer sized ship as the answer to speed tanks and for POD
cracking.

- fast ship with webber immunity
- no delay for lock on POD`S if security security standing is below -5.0
- and a small (5-10m) nearly or undestroyable cargocapsule for
important things

If your ship is blowing up this cargocapsule will be present for
a few days in space.

Arec Bardwin
Posted - 2009.05.30 00:24:00 - [118]
 

I'm gonna sign this. The destroyer class is possibly my favourite ship class in EVE. T2 variant could have T2 resists, bonus to tracking/range and possibly even higher alpha than the T1 variant. And please give them a minimum of 2 mid slots....

Torothanax
Posted - 2009.06.30 06:03:00 - [119]
 

I'd still like a real T2 destroyer.

Hayaishi
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2009.06.30 06:08:00 - [120]
 

wtb a stealthbomber styled destroyer, but with turrets.

aka - Sniper ship.

to replace the role of the very long assed ranged cruise SB.

i actually wanted this in frigate size, but i never saw that coming..

also, cloak not needed, just lrn2bookmark. :)


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

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