Difference between revisions of "Review destroyers (CSM)"

Revision as of 10:25, 27 September 2009

Stats

• Raised by: Dierdra Vaal
• Submission Date: 27 September 2009
• Issue ID: tbd

Summary

As the game progresses, ships that may have been useful once can fall behind. This has happened with destroyers. While initially they were good against frigate, now they are cruiser-sized targets with a frigate sized tank.

Additionally, there is a big difference in the usability of the various destroyers. The Thrasher, due to its damage bonus and lower signature radius and higher top speed, is thought of as a decent destroyer. However flying anything else is simply considered flying a coffin.

The forum topic has considerable support to improve destroyers.

Suggestion to CCP

The CSM suggest that CCP reviews the destroyers. While the CSM feels that destroyers should remain an anti-frigate hull platform - it is the council's opinion that they are currently not as useful as they could be.

Problems that have been identified in the thread:

• Bonuses that are not equally useful - a damage bonus is a lot more useful than a falloff bonus
• Destroyers have too big a signature radius, leaving them very vulnerable
• Low damage compared to the low survivability

Possible solutions that have been suggested:

• Give all destroyers a damage bonus of some kind (Damage, RoF, etc), to get them inline with eachother
• Lower the signature radius of the destroyers to 60m - 55m
• Removal or reduction of the RoF penalty
• Review of the slot layout. Possible addition of a low slot to increase the number of damage mods on a ship.
• Review of pg/cpu for all destroyers. Catalyst and Cormorant are possibly low on pg.

Pros

• Destroyers are used for more than salvaging

Cons

• None

Relevant Forum Threads

• http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1108442

Votes

• Dierdra Vaal -
• Vuk Lau -
• mazzilliu -
• Zastrow J -
• Erik Finnegan -
• Avalloc -
• Omber Zombie -
• Larkonis Trassler -
• Meissa Anunthiel -