Blog Banter 11: T3 Destroyers

Welcome to the eleventh instalment of the EVE Blog Banter, the monthly EVE Online blogging extravaganza created by CrazyKinux. The EVE Blog Banter involves an enthusiastic group of gaming bloggers, a common topic within the realm of EVE Online, and a week to post articles pertaining to the said topic. The resulting articles can either be short or quite extensive, either funny or dead serious, but are always a great fun to read! Any questions about the EVE Blog Banter should be directed here. Check out other EVE Blog Banter articles at the bottom of this post!

This month’s banter comes to us from Joe Brusati a long time reader of CrazyKinux’s Musing, who asks the following: CCP states that T3 Strategic Cruisers are just the start for the T3 line-up. In future Eve expansions what would you like to see as the next T3 ship type. Please be specific on details about what role this ship would play, cost of manufacturing, and the different modules that would be available for it, and of course you must give your T3 ship a name!

—-

When Tech 3 ships were first unveiled to the public in Apocrypha, people were ecstatic about the ability to configure ships far more than had ever occurred before. At the time, the decision that the first T3 ships would be cruiser hulls was wise, as they would not be as perishable as frigates but not as prohibitively expensive as battleships. Thus, T3 cruisers hopefully would gain widespread use.

It has already been five months since Apocrypha’s arrival, yet T3 cruisers still are incredibly expensive to purchase and fit – a hull alone can cost as much as faction battleship. Thus, T3 ships are still an extremely rare sight in New Eden, and the majority of them are used for PvE purposes. Few PvPers are willing to risk flying such an expensive ship, and T3 ships are often primaried in engagements.

With this in mind – the phenomenally exorbitant costs to purchase and operate a T3 cruiser – the next T3 ship type should be a destroyer. The smaller hull will make construction costs go down a bit, and make T3 ships viable in smaller engagements.

But why a destroyer instead of a frigate? It is because T3 frigates have no special ability in Eve. To begin with, just as T2 frigates find it arduous to prevail against well-flown T1 cruisers, T3 frigates would also still be too weak to challenge larger ships. Obviously, a T3 frigate could easily destroy a T1 frigate. But a T2 frigate can do that as well. The unique ability of T3 ships is their power to quickly change configurations depending on their environment. A T3 frigate’s various configurations would just not be noticeable enough to make a difference.

It is readily apparent that a T3 destroyer would better solve the dual issues of high cost for T3 cruisers and low potential for T3 frigates. Being a slightly larger version of a frigate hull, T3 destroyers would cost far less than the billion ISK a T3 cruiser requires. But it would also be effective as a frigate AND cruiser killer. Fitted with the proper subsystems, it could act as a covert operations escort ship, penetrating behind enemy lines and killing the frigates and cruisers that plague stealth bombers. Or it could sport a full rack of 8 small turrets and light drones – a nemesis to both frigates and cruisers alike. Or it could perform hit and run attacks at lowsec gates – a sturdy buffer tank protecting it from sentry guns long enough to destroy its target. Or it could act as a small-gang command ship, running warfare links to its fleetmates.

The possibilities are endless. Unlike T3 cruisers, which are almost always fitted for maximum survivability due to their tendency to get chased, a T3 destroyer could fill countless niche spots in Eve. Take that example of a covert escort ship – currently no ship in Eve can fill that role well. A T3 covert cruiser is overpowered and vulnerable to larger ships, and a black ops battleship is far too large to engage smaller ships. T3 destroyers could finally make the Destroyer skill worth training.

Like T3 cruisers, T3 destroyers would have five subsystem groups. Below are some possible subsystems for a Gallente T3 destroyer. Bonuses are per level.

Defensive Subsystems
Augmented Plating – 10% bonus to armor HP.
Nanobot Injector – 10% bonus to repair amount for armor repairers.
Warfare Processor – 5% bonus to information warfare links, 99% reduction in warfare link CPU need.
Structural Augmenter – 6% bonus to hull resistance. Yes, a hull-tanked T3 ship. For real men only.

Offensive Subsystems
Covert Reconfiguration – 10 m3 drone bay and 5 Mbit/s bandwidth, 5% bonus to small hybrid damage, 100% reduction in cloaking device CPU use.
Drone Synthesis Projector – 25 m3 drone bay and 25 Mbit/s bandwidth, 5% bonus to drone damage, 7.5% bonus to drone HP.
Hybrid Propulsion Armature – 10% bonus to small hybrid damage, 10% bonus to small hybrid optimal and falloff.
Logistics Augmentor – 5% bonus to remote repair amount, 90% reduction in powergrid needs of remote armor repair modules.

Electronic Subsystems
CPU Efficiency Gate – 5% bonus to CPU.
Disolution Sequencer – 15% bonus to sensor strength, 10% bonus to remote sensor dampener effectiveness.
Emergent Locus Analyzer – 10% increase to scan strength, 20% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams, reduced CPU need for scan probe launchers.
Friction Extension Projection – 10% bonus to disruptor and scrambler range, 5% reduction in disruptor capacitor need.

Engineering Subsystems
Augmented Capacitor Reservoir – 5% bonus to capacitor capacity.
Capacitor Regeneration Matrix – 5% reduction in capacitor recharge rate.
Power Core Multiplier – 5% bonus to power output.
Supplemental Coolant Injector – 10% reduction in heat absorbed by modules.

Propulsion Subsystems
Gravitational Capacitor – 15% bonus to warp speed and capacitor needed to initiate warp, 10% increased agility.
Interdiction Nullifier – 5% increased agility, immunity to nontargeted interdiction.
Localized Injectors – 10% reduction in afterburner and MWD capacitor consumption.
Wake Limiter – 5% increased speed gain from propulsion modules, 5% reduction in MWD signature increase.

I will refrain from naming these ships, as I have a poor imagination. Any comments on potential names (and the feasibility of T3 destroyers) are welcome. But as you can see, T3 destroyers have essentially infinite possibilities. The useless subsystems for T3 cruisers have been buffed or recreated, making all subsystems an attractive choice. Hull tanking? Ability to fit medium remote armor repairers? 50% bonus to remote sensor damps? 50% reduction in heat damage? Hell yeah.

Advertisements
  1. Well thought out post.

    • Jason
    • August 31st, 2009

    A hull tanked ship? You would need better bonuses than 6% because without a DCU hull starts at 0 res… Like starting at 75% each category, their are far less skills available to up you hull than armor or shield. Also an AOE remote repper effect…that would be awesome for fleet combat. I see t3 ships everyday in stain, SYS-K and brick use them quite a bit, one of my corp mates has lost three of them…catching them of course is far more difficult, you need to have overlapping bubbles and luck…

    • It’s a 6% bonus per level. Which gives a total of 30% hull resist. With a DCII (whose bonuses don’t have stacking penalties), that’s 90% hull resist. I was also thinking of giving huge bonuses to hull repairers, but decided that would be a bad idea. :P

      Not sure about AOE remote reppers…they might become too powerful, especially in RR battleship gangs.

      It’s true that there are quite a bit of T3 ships, but they still aren’t very widely used. Only the wealthy can afford to buy them. Look around lowsec, and you see very, very few of them.

        • Jason
        • September 1st, 2009

        Yeah, having araknor and bistot helps, so do lvl 4 true sansha agents and 10/10 complexes…

  2. hmm nice idea…but I am assuming that this would be for a T3 Gallente ship ( the hybrid bonuses) I like the t2 Variants although they are so paper thin it is comical….perhaps allowing the T3 version to still deploy warp disruption spheres but allow a better chance to live? I like the idea…

    • Yes, the subsystems listed were for a Gallente one: “Below are some possible subsystems for a Gallente T3 destroyer. Bonuses are per level.”

      A T3 subsystem to allow for warp disruption sphere launching could be a good idea. Perhaps I could add that to “Friction Extension Projection – 10% bonus to disruptor and scrambler range, 5% reduction in disruptor capacitor need.” I’m just afraid of giving the T3 ship too many powers – I don’t want to make interdictors useless.

    • Le Sac
    • September 1st, 2009

    I love this. Would buy.

  3. Passive hull tanking is interesting because it means that while resistant, the tech 3 destroyers would be difficult to repair, remotely or not. It would expand upont the canon glass theme of the destroyer.

    • It’s true that hull tanked ships are very difficult to repair. But what’s exciting about such a hull tank is that only one low slot module (DCII) is needed to achieve 90% hull resists, freeing up space for damage or other modules. I tried to make all subsystems equally attractive, and I feel that this is no exception. :)

        • OkamiKurai58
        • September 3rd, 2009

        …..and we all know REAL men hull tank ;-)

        (I love the idea but it’s perfectly insane at the same time – NO margin for ANY error)

    • OkamiKurai58
    • September 3rd, 2009

    As a new player, it seems like the destroyer is somewhat valued as worthless role-wise when compared to frigates and cruisers (I haven’t played faction warfare as of yet though). I notice players talking about frigates and cruisers much more in comparison to destroyers.

    It doesn’t seem like there is a whole lot of room to grow into destroyers : they are much more situation-specific.

    The idea of broadening their scope with a T3 level seems extremely interesting. I can’t think of any other class currently with as much untapped potential. And hopefully a smaller T3 ship would mean a loss wouldn’t be nearly as painful ISK-wise, and thus used more.

    I like the idea of the destroyer next and then maybe a BC or BS, although (jeez) just how expensive would a T3 BS be?? Maybe 2 or 3 carriers’ worth of ISK??

      • Jason
      • September 4th, 2009

      The more people who do wormhole stuff the cheaper it will get, I was spying on a WH corp to try and steal their T3 ships for a while but they had a death star and were in the middle of nowhere, but I digress, these people make billions in profit a week, what the market needs is more competition. As for destroyers having no role, its true, but the T2 variety is extremely important to a sov holding alliance, it allows a few players to take entire fleets of enemy ships.

  4. Good angle Sage, I enjoyed the post.

  5. I agree this might make people go back and look at that middle ship they skipped over when training up way back at the beginning.

    Destroyers have always had specific tasks of frigate hunters . . .

    Maybe if the new ones were designed to be Assault frigate hunters and balanced to do the same? Or specifically tasked to hunt and kill Stealth Bombers?

    mike

  6. Welcome to the EVE Blog Pack. Look for a post about it soon.

    • Thirum
    • January 22nd, 2010

    To be honest, I don’t like the idea very much.
    2 points:
    I don’t think and feel that tech 2 frigs are that bad. There are only a few cruiser setups that can survive the attack of assault frigs, interceptors, or stealth bombrs.
    Destroyers do have more or less the same problems in PvP as battlecruisers do have in my opinion: good damage combined with large resolution and compared to that worse tankability. BCs and destroyers are both not really good for solo pvp. So why should this change because of being tech 3?

    Personally I hope to see a tech 3 frig that can, depending on its modules, fulfill and combine the roles of assaults, interceptors, covert ops, and electronic attack frigs. I believe that this would be a far more interesting approach.

    My two cents.

    Thirum

    • Most cruisers can easily kill interceptors and stealth bombers. Assault frigs are a bit tougher, but a competent cruiser pilot can still kill them.

      Destroyers indeed are a “between-class” like battlecruisers, but battlecruisers are excellent for solo PvP. And although most of the destroyers are not that impressive, the Thrasher is quite deadly. T3 would increase this power tremendously.

    • Ember
    • March 30th, 2010

    Im in agreement with Thirium on this. I would rather have a T3 frigate that can fulfill multiple roles with better survivability/damage than a T2 frig of the same role type. Admittedly Im somewhat biased since the T2 frigs are my favorite ship types to fly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s