Page 4 of 4

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:14 am
by Shikatanai
dread2005 wrote:well well, lets wait and see some actual sneak preview on this...

i am not sure if i like new from low to atmo weapon systems.... that would be a hard designchange


Imho that's exactly what this game needs if done properly.

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:30 pm
by Stompzilla
Shikatanai wrote:
dread2005 wrote:well well, lets wait and see some actual sneak preview on this...

i am not sure if i like new from low to atmo weapon systems.... that would be a hard designchange


Imho that's exactly what this game needs if done properly.


Agree.

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:00 pm
by Cry of the Wind
By giving a low to atmo option on a small fragile hull I think we will see more interesting list designs. Ones that don't have corvettes or even strike carriers and focus on the orbital fight more. Gives more sides more options and decisions in game, do you go for the hull 5 ship in low orbit or shoot the big scary things.

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:38 pm
by Nobody
Cry of the Wind wrote:By giving a low to atmo option on a small fragile hull I think we will see more interesting list designs. Ones that don't have corvettes or even strike carriers and focus on the orbital fight more. Gives more sides more options and decisions in game, do you go for the hull 5 ship in low orbit or shoot the big scary things.



We already rarely see Corvettes and games already heavily focus on orbital fights.

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:09 pm
by Cry of the Wind
I have seen few lists in action that didn't take some corvettes. By allowing the low orbit to actually fight atmo there is more to the game than send strike carriers turn 2 and hope your tank rolls are better. Now sending in strike carriers as a first activation on turn 2 is not automatic in fleets that don't use small frigate groups. Seems like a good mix up to me.

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:38 pm
by Nobody
I've seen very few lists in action that actually used them (beyond PHR who's corvettes are awesome) as a serious counter to strike carriers. If they had corvettes, it was usually to try to counter the Echoes.

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:10 am
by Shikatanai
I agree that Corvettese are Deadweight most of the time. That's why it is important to implement low to atmo hunters properly with decent options in the Orbit fight as well.
The Problem with corvettes in general is that they are only really working against strikecarriers / other corvettes and are not even cost efficient doing so...

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:37 am
by dread2005
well i hared a lot that Battleships are not cost efficient either... so the biggest and smallest arent worth it well ok

i am not the big max it up to max meta, and if you go to play there than you'll always take the best efficiency out there

that will never be the corvette so what.... i use them and BBs always just because they are cool and if you play them right, they are not that bad at all

if you play on turnament lvl youll think completly different which units to take



tell me why cant my "madird" or "seattle" take some nice new weapons to shoot out some Strike carriers from low orbit?
right now they can take everything, the limitation is that they cant go to atmo....

if you open up this mechanic, than for all of them even the normal frigates could get those nice form low to atmo weapons

what is the term of only get those on the new destroyer hull?

Re: Destroyer Preview

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:50 pm
by Dheran
We actually have seen when for a moment one corvette was cost efficient in fighting both in atmo and in orbit. I'm talking about Glass pre-Close Action nerf. Corvettes are close to good at where they are; if you make them more powerful without care, you risk them replacing frigates.

I've took a couple more looks at the UCM destroyer and while I would love it to be a Mauler BTCAW, it does seem very, very similar to the sensor suite mounted on Johannesburg's nose.
If it is sensor suite, then it definitely looks under gunned. Which suggests it is either a support ship or atmo-hunter. I mean any low-to-atmo weapons would be probably mounted on the underside, which is not visible from this angle.