Arguing for navy dessies just because there’s faction of other ship sizes isn’t a logical explanation for wanting them… there would need to be a reason why we should need a faction destroyer.
heck we have Tech 3 destroyers and tech 3 cruisers, why isn’t there a tech 3 battleship or a tech 3 titan?
see what I mean? There is no gameplay that a faction dessie could add, that isn’t possibly already done by another ship, or as you are using in your example an ABC. make faction dessies and remove the ABC’s…
ya but u know destroyers uses small turrets, medium turrets behave very differently. like medium launchers shoot missiles way further and medium turrets have higher alpha.
destroyers are good for what they do, and they also make a great salvage ship for alpha clones since they don’t have access to Noctis.
as my statement above, adding a ship “just because” is a bad idea and can take away from other ships… You need to have a reason to add a new ship (triglavs were different since they are a new racial type ship)
It’s more that the relationship between cruisers and ABC’s is like that between frigs and dessies. That’s where ABC’s came from. Ganky glass cannons like destroyers.
‘whatever relationship’
Because you don’t know. Like you didn’t know the difference between medium and small weapons.
And you mention ‘rights to exist’ as if ships have them. They are just entries on a database. There’s no need, none whatsoever, to make a ship merely because another one exists. A great example of that is how there is no minmatar/caldari pirate faction. There doesn’t need to be one at all. There is no ‘right’ for it to exist. If we get one, great! But don’t make one ‘just because’. Because it’ll have the same problems as the proposed ships above.
Destroyers have range bonuses! (Or drone speed bonuses). They can hit as far as most cruisers with little help.
From now on you guys aren’t allowed to post unless you’ve done at least 5 minutes research about what you want to post about.
Here’s some more examples of what I’m talking about:
When CCP were looking at CBC’s they had a conundrum with the Brutix. The Brutix has always had armour repair as it’s second bonus. This was less than ideal for two reasons, first there was already another gallente CBC that better utilised the armour repair bonus in the form of the Myrmidon. And second, the armour repair bonus wasn’t even that useful on the Brutix. Most people preferred to buffer fit it for the job it’s best at, brawling (some Brutix were even SHIELD BUFFER fit).
So when the CBC rebalance came around there was discussion about what other bonus we could give the Brutix. The obvious choice was a tracking bonus. It’s a common gallente bonus and it would definitely be useful. However, this was already an overly duplicated bonus from the Thorax, the Talos and both the Megathron and Navy Megathron. So CCP opted to keep the armour repair bonus despite that even today it’s often ignored.
After that CCP created the Navy CBC’s. And the Navy Brutix got the tracking bonus we all wanted. Great yes? Well no. Because Navy Brutix is the Brutix we always wanted you see them being used a lot instead of the normal Brutix. Because cost doesn’t balance.
There were similar issues with the Tempest/Fleet Tempest and Mach and Tech 1 industrials. Mining barges as well.
This is something that has to be thought about everytime CCP think about new ships. We’re already struggling with overlap as it is. More options does not necessarily mean more choice.
People love faction stuff. But what people love in isolation doesn’t always translate into a better game for all. Eg people love getting more isk/h, but that doesn’t mean giving everyone easy monies for every activity in the game makes a good game. Hence scarcity.
It just shouldn’t be taken lightly. It takes serious time to make a new ship and keep it updated and balanced in relation to all it’s competitors. And you can’t just delete problem ships without pulling the rug out from under the feet of at least some players. So any ship that becomes overly dominant or redundant must be modified and made new. (The specialised tech1 haulers are a perfect example of this). And when you do that you have to make sure you don’t make another ship redundant or you can cause this domino effect (eg tech3 dessies, assault frigs and interceptors).
The safest thing to do is to make doubly sure that you never ever make any ship redundant or overly dominant. And that’s why I’m very skeptical of your proposed ships. I don’t have faith that a dessie explorer won’t do the same jobs an astero does but better etc.
