Why you making a lot of topics to one discussion?
33 minutes ago, Papitas said:
Summing it all up: destroyers tank too much at mid/long distances, but tank too little at close quarters because…? Weird logic. Just reduce survability overall and you wont have this weird issue of passive dynamic effectiveness at different distances. Effectiveness is already different through pilot use (at different distances), theres really no need to increase that further. Why could i ignore some targets firing me at mid distance but are forced to deal with the same targets at close distances? Distance should not be such a crucial factor to determinate target priority in terms of dmg/survb.
Devs probably don’t want to get rid of the close range damage multiplier now that they’ve gone through the trouble of implementing it, but maybe with enough noise about the subject they would reduce it significantly, preferrably to something between 1.25 and 1.5. And yes, the logical option would have been reducing destroyer hull durability by a lot, shield durability by some, and significantly reducing damage taken from component destruction to compensate. Then destroyers wouldn’t be so overpowering versus frigates, and one plasma arc into their belly wouldn’t make them explode. They could also repair their hull and regenerate shields much easier when not taking multiplied damage every once in a while.
I proposed this elsewhere earlier, but let’s say it again. Destroyer main guns could have a minimum effective range in addition to the maximum effective range. A simple addition like this would be much less jarring way to introduce a close range penalty for destroyers than this silly 2.5x damage multiplier. Of course, this would require the aforementioned changes to overall durability, or else they’d be nigh impossible to kill again.
1 hour ago, Spongejohn said:
It was, in small competitive matches: the team who have the major number or destroyers won.
That’s something can’t be denied. If you do, than it only means your knowledge is not enough. So better stop it here.
You are right here, I do not have enough knowledge with that , especially with t5 pvp…
But also I have to admit that I never was op with destroyers … my bitterness comes from imbalance against smallest ships…
2 hours ago, Spongejohn said:
Lemme put it down like this: you are saying that all the hours (or money) you invested in this game are useless. I invested my time to improve my skills, my investment was made useless the first day they released destroyers.
The crowd goes wild *applause*
2 hours ago, avarshina said:
If you cannot kill a destroyer by using old skills in a small ship, group and develop new strategies, ”) invest in time and new skill, again.
The experiences are also that skilled players can kill destroyers in no time. And that special new skills are required to fly a destroyer successfully. You have to learn to fly and to build your destroyer in the right way - not? It happened last winter, it happens this winter.
This all happened till they were no longer such a massive threat (Leagues, dreads etc). However in the random pvp q there was simply no way of coordinating to deal with a tank with 8k range esp when s1 mid joined an saw what happening an picked brokk/regular engy to back them up(iv been both that brokk and dess).
It does still happen that ppl fly dess well. Tho the majority of ppl i see complaining about it have next to no thermal resist on the ship. really i mean ffs. The most common dam type and your main concern when flying dess, snipers, covops arc, vig laser, nukes and probably a bunch of other things yet nope i is biggerer so anythin that kills me is op. Its nonesense and the idea that getting that close range with inty v dess should do even less damage is even more ridiculous. If an inty is ‘one shotting’ a dess rn then it is the players problem same as any other ship (excluding tharg nonsense).
Nobody comes to the forum complaining that they were cap as zero amour fed engy and a covops sploded them. Right now its only the size that is deceiving the newer player. It still has to be built properly.
33 minutes ago, Vohvelielain said:
Devs probably don’t want to get rid of the close range damage multiplier now that they’ve gone through the trouble of implementing it, but maybe with enough noise about the subject they would reduce it significantly, preferrably to something between 1.25 and 1.5. And yes, the logical option would have been reducing destroyer hull durability by a lot, shield durability by some, and significantly reducing damage taken from component destruction to compensate. Then destroyers wouldn’t be so overpowering versus frigates, and one plasma arc into their belly wouldn’t make them explode. They could also repair their hull and regenerate shields much easier when not taking multiplied damage every once in a while.
Implementing with more fitting durability would have been better but i understand the need to push the next big thing and as s1 said it is something for the newer guys to feel all powerful. At least thats the impression i got in the release. New guys love that survivabilty number as though it means anything. Taking anything away from that to be relevant enough would have ppl crying much harder about nerfs imo and the new mechanic kinda puts dess in their place in the game as the giant suppression unit.
Off/on topic but the same issue i see with a lot of complaints. Players not preparing or playing the class properly. 2 guard, 2 tackler on same team(my team ) whining in global bout cruise tharg, nobody had slows, not a single one of them. Dess player complaing bout his death to close range attacks… charges beacon 3 times anyway.
Idc if s1 identifies with being a dess lover or w/e I have 4 of 9 am i one?.. nope never use them outside of defiler cause its easier and i find flying them dull. Arcing a dess takes a little bit of doing and iv never done it to any half decent player and killed them straight away. Start by pushing buttons in the hanger and crazy thought but playing as a destroyer not a submarine… we can all see you! That’ll be my only real world analogy cause bringing that here is just retharged.
9 hours ago, zzzfrogzzz said:
…destroyer first was intriduce to cover ships at mid range , thats all ^^ . Not to be at T5 as a lrf at 8 000m with an instant kill shots .
the problem , players wants make kills with all ship but may be isn"t the main goal for each ship …
Yes - I am saying this a lot. Assists must be rewarded better, not only straight outright kills …
6 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
Why should the destroyer have absolutely no chance of surviving a covert ops under cammo ?
Yes - exactly my complain. And I combine it with the citation above: "destroyer first was intriduce to cover ships at mid range , thats all ^^ " I liked that that be so, r14 destroyers should be nerfed in range of sniper gun or in speed of sniper rounds so that it is long range thread only to destroyers, not to smaller more swift ships (incl. frigates).
6 hours ago, EndeavSTEEL said:
… A destroyer are supposed to be heavy strong ship that can be used in any fight situation and in a right hand can change the result of a battle, this ship is also able to take care of multiple target and can be used to defend and also go in the front lines, creat a diversions and still be able to fight with heavy dmg.
… Now all we have is a frigate made of glasses. In no way a dessy should be taken out by 1pilot!
Yes, but why didn’t the devs not nerf destroyer in other ways??
thanks Endeav, it’s exactely what i try to explain…