Judging Retribution’s New Destroyers

Avatar
you seem to have swapped the amarr and gall destroyer comments from prom
Avatar
"The end result is that the Corax will be effective at ranges up to 31km, or 63km with faction ammo." Since when do faction missiles sport greater effective range than their counterparts?
Avatar
Also the Dragoon is way to similar in looks to the Coercer hull, that's a little disappointing.
Avatar
I dont like this article much. First, I think that Micro Auxilary Power Cores are a LOT better than ACRs on dessies anyway. The tester doesnt even name that module once, as if he would have forgotten its existence. Secondly the Amarr dessie might not be noobie friendly, but that isnt a reason to call it crap. Third, one of the biggest uses for dessies, Factional Warfare, hasnt been named once, too. I bet we will see a LOT of these new shinies there in the next time.o7 John
Avatar
I liked the skin of the Amarr and Caldari new destro, and you say they sucks while those I don't like rocks ? Damn, I must be cursed >_<
Avatar
Corax will be used a lot by noob pve'rs looking to get into a Drake, they can run level 2's fairly easily.
Avatar
I was looking forward to bringing the Amarr Destroyer on Assault Frigate roams as a way to drain cap from anything tanking the damage.I'm not sure how well it will work now though. Oh well, only one way to find out.
Avatar
I think he means with rockets (31) and light missiles (63) , using Faction ammo (not Javelin) both times.
Avatar
That'd make more sense indeed.
Avatar
They're not any more useless than the current destroyers. They're small tech1 ships for small scale skirmishes and gank fleets of a different flavour than that which we have grown accustomed to.
Avatar
I want to upvote this comment, but you keep saying "dessies" and ended with an unironic o7.
Avatar
These will all be good ships to fly if you want to be called primary and die early.
Avatar
The Dragoon is interesting with the generous drone by, and does fill a somewhat missing role in the Amarr missile lineup. The Vengeance uses Rockets, the Sacrilege uses HAMs or HMLs as does the Curse, but there was nothing in between that used Light Missiles. In this case, the Dragoon could go either full rack of Light Missile Launchers or Rocket Launchers.Still, it seems like the Dragoon suffers from some type of Minmatar-esque split personality, but without the speed to take advantage of the flexibility. What a shame.
Avatar
One of my favorite articles you guys have run. Very informative, I hope there will be similar ones as more patch details are released.
Avatar
we will wait in see. I guess.
Avatar
I'd heartily disagree with "Destroyers are not often used"Go to any Faction Warfare area, and you will see them plenty. My only problem is that they are almost exclusively Thrashers
Avatar
Since the upcoming nerf to t2 ammo
Avatar
Me neither, the Corax will be a superb sniping/kiting ship, while still being able to fit reasonable tank/ewar when using Rockets (Even double ASBs like they are used on the "old" Cormorant).And for the Dragoon: Why on earth would you fit lasers onto that ship ? Rather fit some Autocannons and some neuts (or just neuts and a huge tank) and be the bane of active tanked brawlers, 10km kiting ships, new logi frigs and basically every frig that heavily relies on cap-heavy ewar (such as TDs) or even ABs to mitigate damage.Cap is so important at frigate lvl and the ability to shut it down on any frig in scram range is definitely useful.Other than that, it has more tank, more dps and much less costs than the trainwreck that the Sentinel is. And even that is flown now and then.
Avatar
None of our expert PvP types like MAPCs. Fitting orthodoxy is kind of a... religious subject; there are doctrines that some adhere to, and some don't. Personally, I think the Rocket Corax is in good shape, but I think it's kind of ridiculous that the 'flagship' new destroyer - the one CCP is promoting in all its pre-expansion footage - can't easily fit a full rack of light missiles without gimping everything else.
Avatar
Ill go ahead and assume that maybe the neut bonus is to be able to partly counter frig-logistics.I dont really know. I like where CCP is trying to go, but i don't know if they will really get there...
Avatar
The Drake (or HMLs to be precise) just got nerfed for its ability to project damage at long distance while still maintaining a sizable tank.I think one lowslot is a small price to pay for being able to use the buffed (!) light missiles which also enjoy a huge boost to explosion velocity.Just the sheer alpha of 7 light missiles in a sniping fit is comparable to what a Thrasher does at 15km...and this hits out 63km..
Avatar
It's possible they're trying not to step on the Caracal setup, which is already an absolute beast with assault launchers. Much like this though, the Caracal is a tight fit with Heavy Launcher II's. We're used to it on Caldari ships. I'm glad to see ships promoting Rocket Launchers more though as it's an often forgotten weapon being on the bottom rung of the missile ladder like that. With the extra midslot over the Tulwar though... MWD, point, double web? Catch and eat perhaps?
Avatar
And completely forgo any tank at all?
Avatar
I was going to say, I can imagine light missile Coraxes seeing use similar to the drake, but in small gang warfare.
Avatar
I want to run train on everyone saying Dessies in the comment section.
Avatar
Fitting an MAPC on these ships results in them being either very fragile or sport very weak damage output. Both of which are rather useless penalties. Granted, there aren't exactly any cookie-cutter setups yet, I find it highly unlikely that they will revolve around swapping a damage mod for a MAPC + damage rigs.
Avatar
I'd avoid fitting missiles on the Dragoon - they're too PG-intensive for a hull which offers no bonuses to missile damage. Instead, fit Autocannons and ignore the neut range bonus (which is still useful for various reasons) to favor brawl. The Dragoon has great tank, DPS output and can neut out AFs in a couple of cycles with three neuts fitted. A 200mm Autocannon fit gets around 300 DPS with Hobgoblin IIs and has a large enough bay to also include a flight of Warrior IIs and EC-300s. At the very least, it's a formidable and flexible challenger to the Thrasher.
Avatar
Also, I should note that the Corax isn't totally useless - if you eschew tank and speed, you can think of it as a pure anti-tackle platform. The explosion velocity bonus combined with a ~60km range with light missiles means you can swat Interceptors and Dramiels with ease. The Talwar is more flexible because you can fit Rockets and 'all the things' (point, tank, MWD) but it will be significantly less effective against fast targets with small sig radii.
Avatar
Maybe Otaku if you're some nutjob weeaboo who only sees the world in terms of Japanese things.As a normal human being, Dessie seems like a shitty abbreviation of Destroyer, unlike you I don't see it as some kind of offensive challenge to my knowledge of Anime
Avatar
Thank you for doing so.
Avatar
What were you trying to communicate with these words that you wrote, because i reread this post about 6 times before i gave up trying to make sense of it.Dessie IS a shitty abbreviation of Destroyer, much like every other stupid pubbie abbreviation characterized by adding "ies" to the end of literally every word in their tiny brains.
Avatar
If you're too motherfucking lazy to add 3 more letters, but you can write 3 lines defending being lazy, then I don't know what the fuck.
Avatar
Can we all be happy if we call them "Destroyeries?"
Avatar
BC, BS, Frig, Inty, AF, Recon, Logi, Hic, Dictor. Pretty much all the most commonly used ships have been shortened to 1 or 2 syllables, so come up with a better alternative to dessie for us if you hate it so much.
Avatar
So, heavy assault destroyers in 2 or 3 years? Come on CCP, you can do it!
Avatar
I don't give a fuck what you say out loud over team speak to your shitty pubbie teammates, typing words out to present to other people with the intention of communicating an idea requires more thought than just brainshitting whatever retarded nonsense has been shoveled into your chirping, open mouths. A forums discussion is not the place for your drivel; fucking type out the words correctly, lest you be indistinguishable from the troglodytes.
Avatar
The fitting issues are on missile destroyers really hurt them, pigeonholing them to long range kitting fits. The fact that it requires using all the rig slots for fitting is bad design.The drone destroyers have poor damage application against targets that move faster than the non-mwd velocity of light drones and therefore make poor choices against fast kitting frigs. The fitting on these ships also hamper them greatly due to the high cpu requirements of the damage mods to make them effective.Overall, the buffed tier 1 destroyers will have general superiority over these destroyers. The coercer now performs well since it can actually fit weapons and misc stuff well and a second midslot to point the targets. The thrasher is still the gold as it is, the Catalyst has gotten a fitting buff that allows it to properly fit weapons, and the cormorant has a better fitting allowing you to forgo the MPAC for a damage mod.(though 4 mids would be better)
Avatar
I agree the neut bonus is not really fantastic. Cap won't be as effective compared to say more dps since frigates are the class where nos is actually useful and really good counter against neuts. Sure you can cap out frigs within 12 km, but that frigate will be able to suck enough cap from you to keep his modules running, making your small neuts not very great.
Avatar
the corax needs serious buffing , the algos serious nerfing ... all I gotta say.
Avatar
Technically, it would be DDN. I do not believe any of them burn oil. This, of course is why using wet navy descriptions for ships is not useful.

As it stands, destroyers in EVE Online occupy an awkward and often-ignored middle ground between frigates and cruisers. Their larger sensor footprint and poor ability to take damage leaves them an uncommon sight on most battlefields, whether in high-sec or null-sec space. Interdictors - Tech II destroyers - remain a necessary, if disposable exception.

To breathe new life into the Tech I side of this class, CCP is set to release a new Destroyer for each race with the Retribution expansion this December. The specifications for each new addition to the class have been available for some time, but how much use will they see in New Eden?

The new hulls largely focus on drones and missiles, in contrast to the current turret-based destroyers. Their intended use remains the same: frigate-hunting. For a clearer look at the future, we’ve analysed the specifications posted by CCP Ytterbium.

Amarr Destroyer - Dragoon


Destroyers skill bonus per level:
+10% to drone damage and hitpoint per level
+20% bonus to energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer range per level
Role bonus: 25% microwarpdrive speed to drones
Slot layout: 6 H, 2 M, 4 L, 3 turrets, 3 launchers
Fittings: 55 PWG, 150 CPU
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75

The first addition to the destroyer class is a complete departure from the regular Amarr and destroyer lineup. While the split slots are an unusual feature, it is perfectly capable of fitting a full complement of lasers and launchers, with drones providing additional support. Its potential damage output is great, as is its ability to replenish lost drones.

Out of all the new destroyer ships, the Dragoon is the odd one out. The intended role of neutralizer platform doesn’t appear to be effective in hunting frigates, and has already been filled by the Sentinel. The Dragoon also goes against CCP’s design goals for Tech I Amarr ships, given its launcher slots.

We approached renowned PvP video creator and CSM 6 alternative delegate Prometheus Exenthal for his opinion on this hull.

This one is the most confounding of the lot. Assuming you avoid the redundant neut bonus, it's not a bad ship.

First things first, it's damage output potential is great. It can work in a nearly identical manner as Gallentes new offering. It sports the same MWD drone bonus, and is capable of plenty of fitting for MBLs/MPLs &  Rockets/SMLs. Its tanking ability is on par with the Gallente.

The main issues lie in (what I think is) a wasted bonus. The neut/nos range bonus is totally worthless on this hull. Destroyers don't need cap help against their primary targets (frigates), and ganks aside, don't field big enough tanks or small enough sigs to effectively handle larger ones.

The range bonus isn't great enough to shake of tackle at range, OR handle larger targets effectively. The ship also doesn't have a cap bonus (or the midslots) to effectively maintain neut pressure.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect is that it seems CCP forgot this was supposed to be a Destroyer. This ship is the odd one out across all the new ships, as it has the cap warfare bonus.
Hell, it seems they totally forgotten that they've already got a ship specifically for that role (Sentinel).

Additionally, CCP has gone on record stating that they wanted to avoid missiles for T1 Amarr, but here they are. My recommendations would be to give the ship a weapons range bonus of some sort, rather than the half-baked neuts. Run missiles of some sort, forget the neuts.

 

Gallente Destroyer - Algos


Destroyers skill bonus per level:
+10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level
+10% bonus to small hybrid turret tracking per level

Role Bonus:
+25% bonus to drone microwarpdrive speed
Slot layout: 6 H, 3 M, 3 L, 5 turrets
Fittings: 55 PWG, 150 CPU
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 35 / 60

The Gallente offering presents a much more sensible drone-heavy platform. While its tanking ability is similar to the Amarr Dragoon, the increased drone bandwidth and larger number of turret slots easily gives the Algos the highest theoretical dps of the bunch. Fittings involving Tech II blasters, a microwarpdrive and solid combat drone backup lets the Algos pack a nasty punch on paper, at around 370 damage per second. Additionally, extra room for ECM drones should give the new Gallente destroyer extra survivability should it need to retreat from a battle.

The Algos stands out as a relatively uncomplicated and solid brawler.

Prometheus' Take:

This one seems a bit of an odd choice. A drone-based destroyer.
Make no mistake, this ship easily has the most damage potential of the new ships. The difficulty will come in applying it, and maintaining it.

The ships bonuses imply a ranged approach. The MWD bonus to drones ensures frigates will have a very hard time outrunning a flight of Hobgoblins or Warriors, and the tracking bonus means that  railguns will have no issues slapping the aforementioned from 20km or so.

On the flipside, you can easily break 400 dps when utilizing blasters, without any damage modifiers in your lows, while still maintaining a respectable (destroyer-sized) tank

Its issues lie in the reliance of drones. The nature of drone behaviour mean that frigates with tracking and speed will have a pretty good defence against against them as they are continually playing catchup.

 

Caldari Destroyer - Corax

Destroyers skill bonus per level:
+5% to rocket and light missile kinetic damage per level
+10% to rocket and light missile explosion velocity per level
Role bonus:
+50% to rocket and light missile velocity
Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 2 L, 7 launchers
Fittings: 45 PWG, 210 CPU

Seven launcher slots and Caldari heritage make this destroyer look like a baby Drake from the specifications sheet. With its missile-related skill bonuses, it aims to be fairly formidable for its class.

However, a major caveat to the Corax is in its weak power grid. Speculative fittings from our PVP expert Hilmar Keller show that any plausibly competitive fit will be extremely tight on the power grid, requiring multiple grid-boosting rigs. Even still, power grid-enhancing implants will be required for most fits using Tech II weapons. This could be CCP trying to pre-empt a nerf, but it does present an additional barrier when making full use of light missile launchers with this hull.

The end result is that the Corax will be effective at ranges up to 15km with faction rockets, or 63km with faction light missiles. Although it should have no issues applying damage at range or close up, it will not have the same level of firepower as the Algos.

Prometheus' Take

[Corax and Talwar:] The brothers from different mothers. With the proposed missile changes, they come across as fairly formidable foes. As far as performance and issues go, these two ships are nearly identical.

Their biggest pitfall is their fitting requirements. Both of these ships are extremely tight on grid when trying to get a decent fit going. Maybe this is CCPs idea of a pre-nerf, but truth be told, they've been a bit harsh on their grid (and Caldari CPU). Both of them need to sport several ACRs in order to apply destroyer-level damage and field a destroyer-level tank at the same time.

On the plus side, both of these ships will have no problems applying damage. With a range tank and SMLs, both will swat everything sans Interceptor without issue. Compared to their similarly range fit, turret-based counterparts, they do quite well. When running for close range, they both sport decent tanks as well as great range and projection. However, neither of them can come close to matching the Amarr or Gallente in raw damage output.

 

Minmatar Destroyer - Talwar


Destroyers skill bonus per level:
+5% to rocket and light missile explosive damage per level
+15% reduction in microwarpdrive signature radius penalty per level
Role bonus:
+50% to rocket and light missile velocity
Slot layout: 7 H, 3 M, 3 L, 7 launchers
Fittings: 48 PWG, 200 CPU

The Minmatar offering appears much like its Caldari cousin from the outset, being a missile boat with similar fitting specifications and bonuses. Like the Corax, the Talwar is a straightforward brawler or sniper with fitting issues thanks to its lacklustre CPU and power grid. However, rocket-based fits coupled with a microwarpdrive show far greater promise.

A properly kitted-out Talwar should be able to fit BCS IIs, tackling gear, a decent shield tank, as well as a full compliment of Tech II rocket launchers with a bare minimum of power grid-enhancing modules or rigs. Of the two, it should be most fun to fly, and end up more survivable than its Caldari counterpart.

Beyond that, the Talwar should be the easiest of the new destroyers to train into. It requires only one weapon skill, with rocket-based fits requiring far less PWG/CPU tweaking. Light missiles will be trickier, much like with the Corax, but the Talwar should excel at zipping about and laying down explosive fire.

 

The Bottom Line

CCP has made some unusual choices with the new destroyers. The number of prospective hoops that Corax and Talwar pilots will need to jump through to carry a full complement of light missiles is disappointing. However, the Talwar appears to be the superior ship of the two. If their stats remain as they are currently, the Corax will probably see little use where destroyers are relevant.

The Dragoon has generated the most controversy with its very un-Amarr split weapon slots, and the questionable vampire/neutralizer bonus. Given its doubtful usefulness and the need to train three different weapon systems (drones, missiles, and lasers), it is not likely to become popular with experienced players or new pilots.

Anything that the Dragoons end up doing, the Algos will do better. Given that it has the highest potential DPS and utility amongst the new destroyers, the Algos will likely end up on top alongside the Talwar.

All of the new ships do exactly what CCP said they would do: hunt frigates in a different way than existing destroyers. However, with half of the lineup looking like lemons, the future of the destroyer remains in doubt.

Ryan Vincent
I'm a games writer from New Zealand.