Introduce base Hull Repair Rates in suppressor-class Destroyers // pro <-> con

Sometimes I’m asking myself if some person lost their dimensions somewhere.

I’m not saying they are writing pure BS, but such nonlogic is somehow useless isn’t it?

A ship build for durability and weaponry shouldn’t annihilate anything smaller?

Tank vs. Airplane: Fail comparison. Both are each other in another area and none of them were effective against each other. Tank vs. MEN is comparable. If right equipped both can kill the other very good. Tank with machineguns and Men with Panzerfaust/mines.

Don’t think that a fly is immortal because it can dodge 90% of the shots. 10% hit them and if that’s enough to kill them, guess what? LOW HEALTH DIE FAST.

Tank vs airplane is a fair comparison (actually both can take each other fairly well if equipped properly, just like the tank and missile men example), but if you are that literal, lets put the F-16 vs the Lockheed F-117. Clearly the F-16 since its purpose its to take enemy plane (when the F-117 is to deal massive dmg into structures as a bomber), just like the destroyer is meant to deal heavy dmg upon big targets…and heavy dmg comes with a drawback: accuracy. You just dont bomb enemy planes. If you ask then: “A ship build for durability and weaponry shouldn’t annihilate anything smaller?” answer is: only if it stands still…it will blow up really fast.


Your last comment i really didnt understand, since what i wrote is exactly what you are saying, ill put it again so you can understand what i meant (dont worry, i havent edited it):

“Actually, destroyers do kill ceptors and they are pretty good at it, much more than i think they should in 1vs1; sure the guy can be a real pro, orbit insanely fast, use perfectly well the plasma arc (how did you let that guy plasma arc you just like that?), fire you for longer than a minute…but if you have half the skill of that ceptor pilot, you will win, eventually, after missing 90% of your shots for a minute or so.” (the destroyer dude wins in synthesis)

Yes - in this light you got me somehow on your side, but I do not see the need for even more OP anti-destroyer interceptors. A fly cant kill an elephant, lets *keep* it that way.


O.k. if I got you right, you see it from the rock-paper-scissors perspective, one ship-class vulnerable to one other class vulnerable to the other …


But that’s where we differ, at some stage sheer mass does brake this logic: in that it would require more than 1 ship (attack) to counter the massive destroyers. I.e. it would need 4 interceptors, 3 fighters, 2 frigates to counter a destroyer (which has a certain weakness non the less!)


And I see the fire power of the destroyer more differentiated: if you have a meson canon it is good for defence against small fighters but weak for precision fire to take down certain objects (ships). If you fit on the Halo launcher then you are stronger in fire power, but have nothing against the killer intys - no real destroyer has that weakness.


Sometimes other way round : Minelayer (for missile slot) in frigates! See we have it all, only not in destroyers.

Replying to Lord_Xenon as well. Destroyers dont need to be anymore stronger, otherwise the question will be: why wouldnt you pick destroyers as a full team composition? If a destroyer beats an inti, a fighter and a frigate then you got a teambattle game already won. Drawback: mobility, but wormhole mitigates this, and lets say, you handle the capability to be very effective at killing/surviving/self repairing any ship, then you can split the team into key objectives (beacon) and camp them succesfully. There goes the reason why a flak battery wouldnt be a good idea on a destroyer: it would break balance (i would really love to see some weapon like this and in “reality” this should be completely achievable, but…balance).