Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kalaratiri]

http://www.eveonline.com/retribution/

And we're up! Very little info currently, but there should be more on the way soon

[Streya]

I agree with Lyn. The Amarr dessie looks like a retrofitted Coercer. Mind, speaking purely IC it makes sense that the lumbering Empire with an already-existing huge fleet would simply modify their existing ships. But really? Meh.

[Lyn Farel]

Oh well as long as they come with a reasonable "retrofitting" explanation I am fine with it. It is just that we are mostly used to see retrofitting designs with tech 2 versions mostly.

[Saede Riordan]

I dunno, I like, the homogenization of the Amarr lineup, it feels like their ships really should be similar. I mean, if you took off the Side sections of the Abaddon, you're practically left with the Apoc. The Amarr look good with similarly shaped hulls.

[kalaratiri]

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/29/ccp-unveils-eve-online-retribution-coming-this-winter/

Soundwave and Unifex talk about Retribution
Coming features discussion starts after the third picture down. Before that is just some introduction/game history stuff.

Point of particular interest, right at the bottom:

Additionally, there will be a strong push to bring EVE back toward its original backstory of broken wormholes and stranded civilizations.

[kalaratiri]

Destroyer stats update from Ytterbium: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1999506#post1999506

Update!


Amarr:
Cap recharge bonus moved into the hull itself - thus capacitor recharge rate reduced from 370 to 275s
Role bonus changed to 25% MWD speed to drones

Caldari:
Removed one high slot and launcher slot, gained one mid slot - thus layout now is 7 / 4 / 2, 7 launchers

Gallente:
Drone bandwidth increased to 35m3
Drone bay increased to 60m3
Turret number increased from 4 to 5
5% hybrid turret damage bonus per level changed for 10% hybrid turret tracking bonus per level
Role bonus changed from 50% hybrid turret optimal range to 25% MWD speed to drones

Minmatar hull unchanged.


To answer some questions that have been asked before:

Why having a fixed damage bonus on the Caldari and Minmatar hulls, didn't you want to move away from this philosophy?
Yes we definitely do, when it makes sense. For instance, we kept a kinetic damage bonus on the Condor, while the Kestrel has a generic one. In this particular case however, having general damage bonuses on these two hulls would bring them too close of each other.

Don't you think the Caldari hull is going to have an insane alpha with light missiles, or just too good in general?
The layout change will help mitigate that somewhat. If it still too much of an issue we can always revert the light missile damage change and increase the ROF on light and rapid light missile launchers instead.

Why is the Amarr hull better at drone management than the Gallente one?
That was a good point that should now be fixed. The drone bay will however stay larger on the Amarr hull as it is a trait currently encountered in Amarr versus Gallente drone ships.

Doesn't a 25% MWD drone bonus break drones trying to catch static targets?
CCP Fozzie made me run some tests at gunpoint, 25% seems to be okay.

What's the point of the Catalyst next to the new Gallente hull?
We're planning some changes for it - keep an eye for them in the next days on this thread ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=142102&find=unread )

[Andreus Ixiris]

Ugh. Asymmetry.

To be honest, I've been utterly fucking tired of asymmetrical designs for years, but especially ones like the new Caldari destroyer, where it isn't even big asymmetry. At least ships like the Moa and the Thanatos, hideous as they are, go whole-hog on their asymmetry and don't even look remotely similar on both sides. This new Caldari Destroyer? It's just this one little dinky bit on one side that isn't the same as the bit on the other side. That actually makes it worse than the fully asymmetrical ships, because at least you know the Moa's never going to look remotely presentable. Ships like this new Caldari destroyer would look so much better if they just got rid of the tiny little bit of asymmetry.

[Ken]

Ugh. Asymmetry.

To be honest, I've been utterly fucking tired of asymmetrical designs for years, but especially ones like the new Caldari destroyer, where it isn't even big asymmetry. At least ships like the Moa and the Thanatos, hideous as they are, go whole-hog on their asymmetry and don't even look remotely similar on both sides. This new Caldari Destroyer? It's just this one little dinky bit on one side that isn't the same as the bit on the other side. That actually makes it worse than the fully asymmetrical ships, because at least you know the Moa's never going to look remotely presentable. Ships like this new Caldari destroyer would look so much better if they just got rid of the tiny little bit of asymmetry.

The opposite of my thoughts exactly. 

[BloodBird]

Ugh. Asymmetry.

To be honest, I've been utterly fucking tired of asymmetrical designs for years, but especially ones like the new Caldari destroyer, where it isn't even big asymmetry. At least ships like the Moa and the Thanatos, hideous as they are, go whole-hog on their asymmetry and don't even look remotely similar on both sides. This new Caldari Destroyer? It's just this one little dinky bit on one side that isn't the same as the bit on the other side. That actually makes it worse than the fully asymmetrical ships, because at least you know the Moa's never going to look remotely presentable. Ships like this new Caldari destroyer would look so much better if they just got rid of the tiny little bit of asymmetry.

The opposite of my thoughts exactly. 

Same here. Differing opinions and all that.

I kind of like symmetry, but a little bit of asymmetric design isn't bad. The Moa is ugly, the Thorax is great, and so on. At least, Andreus, the new Fed destroyer seems to be symmetrical, ne?

I'm also glad to note that the Fed destroyer's layout don't make for a complete fail-boat that can be dominated by a 10-year-old, and the Caldari one get a slight 'nerf', in removing one launcher and adding a mid. While I'm sure the hordes of Caldari players are crying right now (I will have to admit an 8-launcher hull that's not a super-rare tournament prize is a very tempting idea) it's helping on my faith that CCP seem to want a balance between the ships instead of making one or two of them completely over-powering towards the others.

Because that's how they started. 50m3 drone-bay 25m3 control and 4 turrets VS 8 launchers and likely far greater speed. 3 guesses who would win that engagement when the Caldari one could stick 5 launchers on the ship and 3 on drones and still have more weapons on the enemy than it's opponent. Now things are a tad more balanced. Not quite there yet, but it's better than nothing. I've no idea what they are thinking with the new drone bandwith change, but we will see how it goes.

[Desiderya]

I'm also glad to note that the Fed destroyer's layout don't make for a complete fail-boat that can be dominated by a 10-year-old, and the Caldari one get a slight 'nerf', in removing one launcher and adding a mid.

Actually I'm glad that it has 4 med slots, too, because that seems to make it much more flexible.
Regarding crying, btw, you might want to check, seems like you've got some sand in your eye yourself.

[BloodBird]

I'm also glad to note that the Fed destroyer's layout don't make for a complete fail-boat that can be dominated by a 10-year-old, and the Caldari one get a slight 'nerf', in removing one launcher and adding a mid.

Actually I'm glad that it has 4 med slots, too, because that seems to make it much more flexible.
Regarding crying, btw, you might want to check, seems like you've got some sand in your eye yourself.

Oooh, burn. "Right back at you." 

Having said that, I did expect load of bitching, but it would appear not to be the case - I expected it as I actually looked forward to the 8-launcher setup, but then that was changed, and yeah, I actually like the 4-mid setup as well, better tank or utility,  and so on - but most people went 'yeah okay, this works' instead.

It still remains to be seen how this develops however - Amarr destroyer still look somewhat under-capable, Fed one too, Minmatar is okay, but gods, it's ugly, and the Caldari one still looks like the natural king-of-the-hill among destroyers. Nevertheless, as stated I'm carefully optimistic about these, and being works in progress things can easily change.