Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 21:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Pretty please :) |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
647
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 17:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Anna Djan wrote:Pretty please :)
Bubbles
if you where to be very exact on what people want.... |
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 21:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:Anna Djan wrote:Pretty please :) Bubbles if you where to be very exact on what people want....
If you saw the title it says "Combat" Destroyers..... not bubble destroyers which are exclusive to null sec and combat wise are worse than many of the new t1 destroyers outside of bubbling. |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
140
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 04:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yeah, hurry up with the Navy Destroyers!!! Corax Navy Issue: Light Missile Kite Cormorant Navy Issue: Rocket Brawler Dragoon Navy Issue: Similar to the Aurgoror Navy Issue, Less guns, more tanky Coercer Navy Issue: Laser Kite Algos Navy Issue: Pure Drone Focus like the Vexor Navy Issue Catalyst Navy Issue: Go for damage and rate of fire like the Exequoror Navy Issue being a heavy damage dealer Talwar Navy Issue: Make it go the way of the Scythe Navy Issue with the option of Autocannons and/or Missiles Thrasher Navy Issue: Autocannon Kite
Thats how i think they should turn out, they should be the heavy combat focused destroyers, and leave the interdictors as the t2 destroyer only. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Aquila Sagitta
Risk-Averse PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 05:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Destroyers are my and I'm sure many people's favorite ships in the game. Sabre does everything and its a lot of fun to fly. Please CCP add more destroyers to the game!!! |
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 06:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Yeah, hurry up with the Navy Destroyers!!! Corax Navy Issue: Light Missile Kite Cormorant Navy Issue: Rocket Brawler Dragoon Navy Issue: Similar to the Aurgoror Navy Issue, Less guns, more tanky Coercer Navy Issue: Laser Kite Algos Navy Issue: Pure Drone Focus like the Vexor Navy Issue Catalyst Navy Issue: Go for damage and rate of fire like the Exequoror Navy Issue being a heavy damage dealer Talwar Navy Issue: Make it go the way of the Scythe Navy Issue with the option of Autocannons and/or Missiles Thrasher Navy Issue: Autocannon Kite
Thats how i think they should turn out, they should be the heavy combat focused destroyers, and leave the interdictors as the t2 destroyer only.
I sense you like kiting :D
Don't force missile boats to be kite focused though :P
Corax Navy Issue Coercer Navy Issue Catalyst Navy Issue Thrasher Navy Issue
Is what I'd like to see :)
|
Azula Kishtar
Lonely among the Stars
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
I support this.
I guess Navy Destroyers are only logical now and it is probably only a question of when we get them. The new racial skills and the introduction of Navy BCs pretty much paved the way for them.
I would prefer the original Turret Destroyers to get Navy hulls, though that would mean the old hulls are used for three ships each, which might be seen as visually boring. I really want a Navy Coercer with even more DPS at even better range though :)
In the case of T2 Destroyers, i first want to see the rebalance of Interdictors and other T2 ships. Dictors are not specialized for raw combat, but at least the Sabre actually does have some benefits (but also some drawbacks, as it should be) over the regular Thrasher in pure combat. I'd like to see that happening with the others as well.
If we then see we still have some role to fill with new T2 Destroyers, then sure, why not. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
34
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 14:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
The Tech II version of the new destroyers could be destroyer leaders, with emphasis on bonuses to leadership skills.
T2 Algos = 5% to Information Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster T2 Corax = 5% to Siege Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster T2 Dragoon = 5% to Armored Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster T2 Talwar = 5% to Information Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
or
T2 Algos = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need T2 Corax = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU nee T2 Dragoon = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU nee T2 Talwar = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU nee |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
140
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 01:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Allandri wrote:The Tech II version of the new destroyers could be destroyer leaders, with emphasis on bonuses to leadership skills.
T2 Algos = 5% to Information Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster T2 Corax = 5% to Siege Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster T2 Dragoon = 5% to Armored Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster T2 Talwar = 5% to Information Warfare skill effectiveness per level when assigned as squad booster
or
T2 Algos = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU need T2 Corax = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU nee T2 Dragoon = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU nee T2 Talwar = 95% reduction in Warfare Link PG need and 60% reduction in CPU nee
I like this idea as an early entry into leadership, but i would use the first option as its less skill intensive otherwise its like training for a command ship itself, a long time.
+1 Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
295
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 01:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Don't let T2 destroyers fit command links. You can let them boost the effect of trained leadership skills, but letting them even touch a command link immediately begins to heavily devalue Command Ships and T3s. |
|
Roseline Penshar
Illusory Superiority Kraken.
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 02:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
why no voice for pirate faction destroyer? |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
140
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Roseline Penshar wrote:why no voice for pirate faction destroyer?
Cause no-one wants a 800DPS shadow serpents catalyst with 90% webs!!! Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Roseline Penshar wrote:why no voice for pirate faction destroyer?
One step at a time ;) |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
293
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 11:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
No. Destroyers are already ridiculous powerful against frigates. We really don't need more of them.
Once Off-Grid-Boosting is resolved then it might be useful to talk about a booster-destroyer which has not much DPS but can act as fleet booster. |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 12:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
I like the idea of t2 command dessy with one link. Or, simply let them give skill boosts, as mentioned. But definitely a command-ship line starter.
I think that, specifically with dessies, you'd have to focus on gank more than tank. Tank being the natural weakness of the whole line. T2 dessies should be highly competent at killing T2 frigs, especially assault and interceptors.
Finally, a T2 dessie who's job is anti-cloak warfare would be great. Pulsed cloak interruption and cloak scanning, only for one type of ship? This ship would become a mainstay, immediately, in most fleets. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
328
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 12:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
Meditril wrote:No. Destroyers are already ridiculous powerful against frigates. We really don't need more of them.
Once Off-Grid-Boosting is resolved then it might be useful to talk about a booster-destroyer which has not much DPS but can act as fleet booster.
Dessies are supposed to be ridiculously powerful against frigates. Attack one with a cruiser. You'll see where they fail completely. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
293
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ruze wrote:Meditril wrote:No. Destroyers are already ridiculous powerful against frigates. We really don't need more of them.
Once Off-Grid-Boosting is resolved then it might be useful to talk about a booster-destroyer which has not much DPS but can act as fleet booster. Dessies are supposed to be ridiculously powerful against frigates. Attack one with a cruiser. You'll see where they fail completely.
Unfortunatelly Cruisers do not fit into a small plex. So they are no option for me. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
A destroyer assault line would be interesting with mwd sig radius bonus 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:A destroyer assault line would be interesting with mwd sig radius bonus
Talwar already has this...
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
Anna Djan wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:A destroyer assault line would be interesting with mwd sig radius bonus Talwar already has this...
indeed but as a role bonus on T2 hulls with a lower base sig radius for the other races ships too ... Talwar could be scary low sig radius if its T2 variant got double bonused as a result. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
581
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls. |
Tehyarec
Silverleaf Guardians
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
A sexy navy-colored Catalyst would be awesome. Finally got a sexy Navy Brutix, so now just need the dessie.
Robert Caldera wrote:please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls. Considering the MUCH higher price of the Navy hulls, I don't see that as a big deal at all. Most people will still pick the regular version for PVP purposes. And for PVE... well, what use does a destroyer have beyond level 2 missions that you outgrow on your first week of playing anyway? |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
134
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Don't let T2 destroyers fit command links. You can let them boost the effect of trained leadership skills, but letting them even touch a command link immediately begins to heavily devalue Command Ships and T3s.
Actually it wouldn't, not if you allowed countervailing penalties such as a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of warfare link modules on destroyers due to the undersized power grid.
Robert Caldera wrote:please no more navy bullsh*t, this devalues regular hulls.
Navy ships seem to generally be 75% better than T1 versions at most and cost anywhere from 3x to 80x the price. I'm not really sure how this devalues them at all, especially not given that the higher price tag of navy ships can, and often does, increase the value of T1 ships, in comparison, for new players and PvP'ers. |
Anna Djan
Banana Corp
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 16:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
More competition on faction LP is a good thing.
It would also be a new dynamic to anti-tackle as the current desties are rarely used outside FW |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
4499
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 16:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Roseline Penshar wrote:why no voice for pirate faction destroyer? Cause no-one wants a 800DPS shadow serpents catalyst with 90% webs!!!
Just petitioned to change my name to no-one. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1084
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 17:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
i would love to see faction navy dessies that are combat based.
that and tech III dessies... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sabre Rolf
Republic University Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 10:28:00 -
[27] - Quote
Do you have any usefull role for a faction destroyer that isn't fille by a another ship-class already?
just because there is no faction variant of a certain ship class, is not a valid reason why there should be one. We certainly don`t need more or evne better frig killers as there are plenty of those. |
Bakuhz
The Nightingales of Hades Holdings The Nightingales of Hades
31
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 10:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Azula Kishtar wrote:I support this.
I guess Navy Destroyers are only logical now and it is probably only a question of when we get them. The new racial skills and the introduction of Navy BCs pretty much paved the way for them.
I would prefer the original Turret Destroyers to get Navy hulls, though that would mean the old hulls are used for three ships each, which might be seen as visually boring. I really want a Navy Coercer with even more DPS at even better range though :)
In the case of T2 Destroyers, i first want to see the rebalance of Interdictors and other T2 ships. Dictors are not specialized for raw combat, but at least the Sabre actually does have some benefits (but also some drawbacks, as it should be) over the regular Thrasher in pure combat. I'd like to see that happening with the others as well.
If we then see we still have some role to fill with new T2 Destroyers, then sure, why not.
i completely support your point first rebalance all the tech II lines before adding more faction ships they cost quite a buck and worthless to insure but thats tech II i dont mind that but that rebalance is the first thing ccp has to lay focus on
fozzie said in an interview they are looking for new ships to release in the winter expansion and moar is better diverse choices to support your style of combat is a good thing but the main priority is updating tech II Frigates, Destroyers & Cruisers.
http://tnoh.eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=576554
We are stil looking for Manticore Pilot's can you fly one and are interested to do more with covert operations Contact me for more info |
Alpha Taredi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 11:12:00 -
[29] - Quote
eh, we have too many ships as it is. t3 battleships i could see because the gap to capital ships is huge. |
Sabre Rolf
Republic University Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 11:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
Alpha Taredi wrote:eh, we have too many ships as it is. t3 battleships i could see because the gap to capital ships is huge.
pretty sure Fozzy answered the question at FF about T3 BS with a "no no" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |