Could you explain those reasons, with actual facts and examples?
Already been done in previous posts.
double web gives you that control, uses less PG so allows you to fit another plate.
Could you perhaps point to a post where you explain in detail what those other reasons are?
Posts 85, 91.
i use double web in my destroyer
but is sub par
i only use it because it only have 2 mids
cruisers have more range
double web is asking to be killed by any prop mod long range
if amarr had more mids sure ill put more webs
Try quads, not joking.
Those are not facts. They’re really just deflections, opinions based on nothing.
dude for real
no prop is a siting duck in my stile of pvp
thats why my favorite cruiser is the phantasm
if you cant change direction fast on the go anyone can out track you even with quads
thats why people use MWD on dreads and them siege
to have speed and track better
But you die all the time in your Omen without anything to show for, it seems your current strategy isn’t working. Not trying to be a dick about it just try it if only for a few times, it’s not like losing another Omen is alien to you 
Same thing for the Naug: fit quads.
you are talking about wen i go to null and got uber ganked eh
click on solo and check it out the journey
not saying im good
just that im better than you
I’m not going to conduct a double-blind study and put in a hundred hours of statistical analysis to appease the demand of a forum poster (an alt poster at that). If you want facts, open the market, and start browsing ship stats and prices. It should become apparent very quickly why changing destroyers won’t do anything aside from hurting ship diversity.
And feel free to ask gankers if they’d gank any less if they had to switch to cruisers. Plenty of them post on the forums.
1 Like
Looks like the dude hasn’t played in seven years. That sounds like “false beginner” to me. Details are easy to forget, long absences make you forget details, and missing details equals death. Plus many things have changed in that time.
Its really a shame he got ganked before he could relearn I bet a dozen or more things that could have saved him.
Its also too bad the ones leaking even more salt than him have to treat him like a pinata on the forum. But you know, if one ape sees two apes attacking a third ape, he just joins the attacking apes. Thoughts of guilt or innocence don’t come to mind, only getting in on the action crosses an ape’s mind.
1 Like
t1 destroyers are made to kill frigates
people use them to gank
but they can use talos to for example
or any other thing
ganking is a form of f1 monkeyry
if you lose a large ship to t1 destroyers except , orcas freighters etc like i said you did something wrong
the op is irrelevant at this point , we busted his balls because he showed a bad kill mail and told he is going to quit , thats tradition
and yes i lost a omen to 2 merlins , before that guy dig it , use quads , bs
Ah the straw man reaction. Just be honest about it: you like the current situation with low cost ships that are optimised for your personal play style and you’re not interested in a discussion (which is weird, normally you just can’t shut up) that may challenge that.
I don’t even gank.
Well, not fully true. I gank maybe less than half a dozen targets per year. At some point I’m planning to gank more, but the ships I use don’t matter as long as there’s a reasonable financial relationship between cost and profit (e.g. I don’t have to spend 500M to gank 50M). Whether it’s a 2.5M destroyer or a 12.5M cruiser makes absolutely no difference to me, personally.
Ganking in and of itself is fine. Personally I’d only do it for profit or area control reasons (or when it gets personal), I’m less favourable of folks who do nothing but venture/retriever ganking to “inflict pain”. But that’s my personal pov. However, that doesn’t mean that having a healthy discussion on how price/performance on destroyers for this specific use is out of whack, is a bad thing.
Outright nerfs would also hurt other play styles used for these ships, rebalancing their stats (in what specific way is up for discussion) would have less crass results for non-ganking play styles. The ships are used too much which means they are too good which means it needs adjusting.
They are “used too much” in terms of only one gameplay element. In all others, they’re used normally. If you increase their costs, it won’t have an effect on ganking aside from pushing the value threshold of for-profit ganks by the amount of the price increase (e.g. if the current minimum value of a hauler target is 50M per 10K EHP, adjusting the value of destroyers up by 10M would result in a current new minimum value of 60M).
High-profile ganks, and ganks done out of principle (like T1 mining barges or even Ventures) will still be conducted at normal rates, because the cost of performing them is not a factor (within reason).
But all usage of destroyers in terms of other gameplay elements, such as FW, roaming gangs, etc., will be negatively affected. This is to say, increasing the price of destroyers will have the net effect of several negatives, and zero positives.
I don’t know how many more times this needs to be repeated. Just refer to this post for all of your subsequent replies.
1 Like
I’m not talking about increasing cost or flat out nerfs. I’m talking about lowering one variable (dps output) in favour of another variable (like tank, say).
Actually, a Monitor Class would be ace.
No Warp
But destroyer guns and Maller armour