These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

blitz marauders?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-08-28 00:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
hello everyone.

recently i was wonderinig: wouldn't it be nice to have a second tier of marauders that were specialized on blitzing? i understand that the role of the current marauder hulls is to salvage while you shoot. but not everyone is interested in salvaging, and without it, marauders (being designed as mission ships) are actually outperformed by at least two pirate BS hulls which do their job better and have only a minimally higher price tag.

my proposal would be to introduce four new marauders that are aimed at finishing missions quickly rather than chewing up wrecks. their specific traits would include:
- balanced around 8 turret hardpoints. no utility highs to make them less useful in w-space etc.
- the tractor beam bonus is replaced by a warp speed and/or agility bonus for faster travel.
- overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare.
- maelstrom, abaddon and rokh hulls because thy look badass. dominx hull because potato.

so what do you mission runners think?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Beta Stryker
Yet Another Holding Corporation
#2 - 2012-08-28 00:46:18 UTC
If the Vargur (or class) gets any faster, I'm gonna be pissed.
Alara IonStorm
#3 - 2012-08-28 02:07:40 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:

so what do you mission runners think?

I think they should fix the 3 kinda sh*tty Marauders and fix all their weakness to Guristas.

Instead of wasting anymore hulls on PvE focused ships and give us real Tier 3 T2 Battleships.
Lord Drokoth
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#4 - 2012-08-28 02:52:32 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:

so what do you mission runners think?

I think they should fix the 3 kinda sh*tty Marauders and fix all their weakness to Guristas.

Instead of wasting anymore hulls on PvE focused ships and give us real Tier 3 T2 Battleships.



We don't even need tech II tier 2, personally I'd be happy if marauders were buffed to be useful in pvp aswell as pve. As it stands now the machariel is the best blitzing and ofc ont of the top pvp supcaps. T2 resists and a scan strength buff plz!
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-08-28 02:53:57 UTC
Tech 3 battleships would make me drool. I am already considering dropping back down to do tech 3 cruiser as my main ship. I'm just so tired of being slow in my maelstrom. I'll have to just on test before I make a final decision though. Loki or vargur...choices, choices...

I like big guns. I can not lie. You other suckas can't deny. When I warp in, with an itty bity sig, with an arty in your face, you get sprung. You want to pull out your debuffs, 'cause you want to loot my stuff...deep, in a worm with nary, an escape but you can't stop staring. 'Cause, Oh crap!, Baby's got Point!
Hakaimono
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-08-28 03:07:27 UTC
I mission in a Vargur and if I wanted to blitz missions, I'd get a Mach.
Frankly I'd rather see a mini-marauder as a second class of t2 destroyer. Adds more tank and cargo space, but slightly less gank. Implemented after the racial skill split of course.
Agrippina
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-08-28 08:45:14 UTC
Pretty much what the guy above me said, high skilled Tengu pilots can go through missions at a fair old pace as well.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#8 - 2012-08-28 09:05:20 UTC
If any changes are made to Marauders it should be to make them useful for pvp

Not to make them better at farming LP.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#9 - 2012-08-28 10:00:07 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
- overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare.


I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have?

Oh god.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#10 - 2012-08-28 10:56:02 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
- overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare.


I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have?

overall performance is not the same as blitzing performance. if you had a ship that is slightly inferior to the mach in raw firepower, it could still be a better blitzer if it has faster align times, warp speed, better damage projection etc (see tengu).
my overall problem with the current situation is that the ships that are supposed to be best at missions are exactly not that. mach has many other strengths, why not give it some more competition in mission running?
aside from that, it makes me sad that you never see the rokh hull anymore... :(

I should buy an Ishtar.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#11 - 2012-08-28 16:41:57 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
- overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare.


I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have?

overall performance is not the same as blitzing performance. if you had a ship that is slightly inferior to the mach in raw firepower, it could still be a better blitzer if it has faster align times, warp speed, better damage projection etc (see tengu).
my overall problem with the current situation is that the ships that are supposed to be best at missions are exactly not that. mach has many other strengths, why not give it some more competition in mission running?
aside from that, it makes me sad that you never see the rokh hull anymore... :(



Much better solution, remove the possibility of blitzing ^^

CCP Soundwave has stated that he does not like blitzing and would like to optimize pve so that its not possible.. So i guess you're going to be sad when that happens?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

stoicfaux
#12 - 2012-08-28 16:59:30 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
- overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare.


I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have?

overall performance is not the same as blitzing performance. if you had a ship that is slightly inferior to the mach in raw firepower, it could still be a better blitzer if it has faster align times, warp speed, better damage projection etc (see tengu).
my overall problem with the current situation is that the ships that are supposed to be best at missions are exactly not that. mach has many other strengths, why not give it some more competition in mission running?
aside from that, it makes me sad that you never see the rokh hull anymore... :(

Mach is already cruiser like in its agility, plus the Mach doesn't really have any weakness, so I don't think marauders that can match or outperform the Mach are a good idea. If anything, the Mach's agility needs a bit of a nerf (in the context of mission running.)

And as Garviel mentioned, reworking missions is probably the better solution over buffing/nerfing individual ships. Randomizing missions would probably kill two birds with one stone by making blitzing less practical and by adding variety to missions.

/cynical Of course what will really happen is that every mission will have multiple gates and all gates will unlock after all NPCs are killed.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
#13 - 2012-08-28 17:16:30 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Mach is already cruiser like in its agility, plus the Mach doesn't really have any weakness,


T1 resists.


However, if CCP follows the scheme of having one ship type in each size group that can "punch above its weight class", then BS-sized ships with capital sized weapons are missing from the lineup, not another type of marauder.
stoicfaux
#14 - 2012-08-28 19:19:38 UTC
Exploited Engineer wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Mach is already cruiser like in its agility, plus the Mach doesn't really have any weakness,


T1 resists.

True, but the Mach has a pretty large buffer tank to compensate. Plus given the raw firepower (gank is tank,) the ability to speed tank, and the ability to switch between armor and shield tanking, T1 resists are not much of a drawback in the context of mission blitzing.

Quote:
However, if CCP follows the scheme of having one ship type in each size group that can "punch above its weight class", then BS-sized ships with capital sized weapons are missing from the lineup, not another type of marauder.

Given how they nerfed tracking and lock on times for cap ships to prevent them from slaughtering sub-cap ships via tracking boosts and target painting, I don't think "battleships with cap-guns" will work too well unless they too are deliberately designed to be mostly ineffective against sub-caps.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Veryez
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#15 - 2012-08-28 21:57:12 UTC
How about we fix Marauders instead, we really don't need different PvE battleships per race. They are suppose to be mission ships, but are beaten by (most) pirate ships, so a simple solution to put them back on top is to allow them to fit a fifth weapon (and increase their grid/CPU to fit it). As far as the guristas ecm issue, nerf their range down so they have to get close to jam you (same w/serps and their sensor damps).

Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking.
Tor Gungnir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-08-29 01:25:40 UTC
Veryez wrote:
How about we fix Marauders instead, we really don't need different PvE battleships per race. They are suppose to be mission ships, but are beaten by (most) pirate ships, so a simple solution to put them back on top is to allow them to fit a fifth weapon (and increase their grid/CPU to fit it). As far as the guristas ecm issue, nerf their range down so they have to get close to jam you (same w/serps and their sensor damps).

Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking.


Agreed.

The comparison in training times for a Machariel vs. Vargur is stupid.

Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
#17 - 2012-08-29 06:05:33 UTC
Veryez wrote:
Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking.


Actually, increasing torp rang in general would be appropriate. Torpedoes are pretty much the only case where a larger-sized weapon doesn't get a range increase over the next smaller one. Torps have the same range as HAMs.
Beta Stryker
Yet Another Holding Corporation
#18 - 2012-08-29 23:53:49 UTC
Exploited Engineer wrote:
Veryez wrote:
Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking.


Actually, increasing torp rang in general would be appropriate. Torpedoes are pretty much the only case where a larger-sized weapon doesn't get a range increase over the next smaller one. Torps have the same range as HAMs.


And on such a large ship, a little harder to apply DPS though.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-08-30 00:03:49 UTC
the more i think about this the more i realize that the mach just needs a nerf...

I should buy an Ishtar.
Dato Koppla
Spaghetti Militia
#20 - 2012-08-30 00:10:19 UTC
I always thought it was abit ridiculous that the Mach breaks 600m/s so easily with an AB while even some cruisers struggle with that.
12Next page