These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP- what r you guys thinking towards marauders? not finished stats, just general role change

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
General Guardian
Perkone
Caldari State
#361 - 2013-07-26 09:55:46 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
give them 50% reduction in Signature Radius Penalty from Microwarp Drives role bonus
if it worked for AF-s then they should work for marauders too :)


or 50% reduction in cycle time for MJD? :D
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#362 - 2013-07-26 12:34:32 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
give them 50% reduction in Signature Radius Penalty from Microwarp Drives role bonus
if it worked for AF-s then they should work for marauders too :)


Except for the size the Marauders are, it won't really matter. Now a -10% MWD capacitor activation reduction per level...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#363 - 2013-07-26 14:12:46 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
General Guardian wrote:
Well half of the thread made for an interesting read. Didn't read the other halfStraight

I think we should give marauders the 3rd rig slot, and incorporate sub system technology in to them. Turn them in to strategic battleships. Oh that would be fun and justify the training time

if i werent trying to keep this post and my name clean i would bring out my cussing sailor side.

stay the hell away from me with that t3 crap. we need to purge them from game not bring in more.
i dont care about how usefull they are or what u prefer...make a t3 bs in eve 2.0, but stay away from my marauders...

frankly, i agree. as much as i love my tengu and loki, they are not necessarily a good addition to the game overall.

also, a cruiser can perform in many roles and with all the current subsystems T3s are covering (read: dominating) most of them. a battleship on the other hand is meant for, well, battle. how many meaningful choices can you possibly bake into battleship subsystems?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#364 - 2013-07-26 14:23:48 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Mole Guy wrote:
if i werent trying to keep this post and my name clean i would bring out my cussing sailor side.

stay the hell away from me with that t3 crap. we need to purge them from game not bring in more.
i dont care about how usefull they are or what u prefer...make a t3 bs in eve 2.0, but stay away from my marauders...

frankly, i agree. as much as i love my tengu and loki, they are not necessarily a good addition to the game overall.

also, a cruiser can perform in many roles and with all the current subsystems T3s are covering (read: dominating) most of them. a battleship on the other hand is meant for, well, battle. how many meaningful choices can you possibly bake into battleship subsystems?

I agree with this.

That being said, I believe these ships seriously need a hook.

Tanking and DPS have been done to death, and are not special. They are expected in any ship called a battleship.

This is called a Marauder. The concept behind the name deserves recognition.
A raiding ship, designed to operate with or without fleet support.
Any ship can work well with numbers, this one should be also functional as a threat without numbers.

What special ability can you give the ship, that is not already done to death by the T1 or faction hulls already?
The Black Ops, for example, is hardly a completed concept, but it has a distinctive role that justifies it's existence as a T2 BS hull. No pirate or navy hull duplicates this class.

The Marauder should have something comparable to that.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#365 - 2013-07-26 15:28:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
Mole Guy wrote:
if i werent trying to keep this post and my name clean i would bring out my cussing sailor side.

stay the hell away from me with that t3 crap. we need to purge them from game not bring in more.
i dont care about how usefull they are or what u prefer...make a t3 bs in eve 2.0, but stay away from my marauders...

frankly, i agree. as much as i love my tengu and loki, they are not necessarily a good addition to the game overall.

also, a cruiser can perform in many roles and with all the current subsystems T3s are covering (read: dominating) most of them. a battleship on the other hand is meant for, well, battle. how many meaningful choices can you possibly bake into battleship subsystems?

I agree with this.

That being said, I believe these ships seriously need a hook.

Tanking and DPS have been done to death, and are not special. They are expected in any ship called a battleship.

This is called a Marauder. The concept behind the name deserves recognition.
A raiding ship, designed to operate with or without fleet support.
Any ship can work well with numbers, this one should be also functional as a threat without numbers.

What special ability can you give the ship, that is not already done to death by the T1 or faction hulls already?
The Black Ops, for example, is hardly a completed concept, but it has a distinctive role that justifies it's existence as a T2 BS hull. No pirate or navy hull duplicates this class.

The Marauder should have something comparable to that.


well, they are 'marauding' mission NPCs pretty well... as far as new flavor goes, i liked the once per day jump drive idea as well as a few others in this thread. i can throw in another few, like higher and more homogenous resistance profiles but i'm not sure if this is relevant at this point. i guess we'll have to trust in fozzie's balancing skills and see where we land.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#366 - 2013-07-26 18:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
Well we have all those "prototype" inferno modules to work with here that are BS only

Target spectrum breaker
MJD
Reactive armour hardeners
Ancillary shield booster
Ancillary armour repairer

On that basis let's use them on a racial level

Vargur: -5% duration and cooldown for MJD per level
Kronos: -5% repair paste consumed per cycle per level
Golem: +10% ASB capacity per level (more charges)
Paladin: -5% capacitor use and cycle time, +1%/level resistance bonus to reactive armour hardener

Vargur becomes more mobile, kronos tanks longer, golem tanks longer, paladin gets tougher.

Perhaps allow marauders to fit bomb launchers?
More agile?
Slightly faster?
-50% sig bloom with MWD running definitely
Scan res not lower than 150 natively. It's awful hard to maraude without being able to lock anything quickly.

I do not support any native HP bonuses or resist bonuses or DPS increases for these ships. It's more important to me to make them more viable for use outside of L4's than it is to give them bigger numbers and cross thine fingers.
MyNameIs Max
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#367 - 2013-07-26 18:36:45 UTC  |  Edited by: MyNameIs Max
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well we have all those "prototype" inferno modules to work with here that are BS only

Target spectrum breaker
MJD
Reactive armour hardeners
Ancillary shield booster
Ancillary armour repairer



the reactive hardener, the ancillary shield boosters and armor repairers are not BS only.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#368 - 2013-07-26 18:48:48 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well we have all those "prototype" inferno modules to work with here that are BS only

Target spectrum breaker
MJD
Reactive armour hardeners
Ancillary shield booster
Ancillary armour repairer

On that basis let's use them on a racial level

Vargur: -5% duration and cooldown for MJD per level
Kronos: -5% repair paste consumed per cycle per level
Golem: +10% ASB capacity per level (more charges)
Paladin: -5% capacitor use and cycle time, +1%/level resistance bonus to reactive armour hardener

Vargur becomes more mobile, kronos tanks longer, golem tanks longer, paladin gets tougher.

Not so much support for this, it just stretches tanking or racial, which for a battleship is expected.

I want to see the specialization T2 is supposed to represent.

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Perhaps allow marauders to fit bomb launchers?


BINGO.
Make the Marauder into a weapon that defines a class of it's own.

I would recommend being able to launch more than a single bomb here, since this is neither a frigate nor does it feature cloaking ability.

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
More agile?
Slightly faster?
-50% sig bloom with MWD running definitely
Scan res not lower than 150 natively. It's awful hard to maraude without being able to lock anything quickly.

I do not support any native HP bonuses or resist bonuses or DPS increases for these ships. It's more important to me to make them more viable for use outside of L4's than it is to give them bigger numbers and cross thine fingers.


This part is more details, the hook is the bomb launcher. Not bad, Caleb Seremshur!

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#369 - 2013-07-26 20:02:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
bomb launcher, huh?
odd.
what does it maraud? how can you raid with a bomb launcher?

really well actually.
let it have 3 launchers plus its weapons system...
expensive ass bomber. throw it behind enemy lines to break things up. 2-3 of these can wreak havoc. and they arent something one would easily discard. just thow away a bill isk?

im not a fan of the idea, but it would be unique and thats what marauders need.

i still like the more balanced resistance platform (one never knows who they might encounter), the mjd reduction in cycle time. posible 10% per lev.
we do not need a sig reduction...its already a battleship. everyone hits it.
a burner bonus would rawk tho. maybe 10%/lev to burner speed like t3.
this would help in moving around and dodging SOME damage.

i love running a burner on my paladin.

a jump drive would be the shyt tho.
maybe not what a blops receives, but descent range +/-.

what about an AOE web? give it the same range and restrictions as a dictor...immobile, huge sig, no rr...
>=)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#370 - 2013-07-27 22:28:07 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
what about an AOE web? give it the same range and restrictions as a dictor...immobile, huge sig, no rr...
>=)

How about we make a bomb version of the Warp Disrupt Probes?

Flies same distance as a regular bomb, then opens up exactly like the current Warp Disrupt Probe.

Only fired by the Marauder's bomb launchers, not the regular bombers unless they want to expand their roles too.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
stoicfaux
#371 - 2013-07-27 23:20:37 UTC
Marauder role bonus:
* doesn't show up on local,
* very difficult to scan down (i.e. isn't identified as a ship via probes until scan strength is very high)

This would make Marauders marauders in terms of PvP, and would encourage the use of Marauders for non-high-sec PvE.)

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#372 - 2013-07-28 00:06:17 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Marauder role bonus:
* doesn't show up on local,
* very difficult to scan down (i.e. isn't identified as a ship via probes until scan strength is very high)

This would make Marauders marauders in terms of PvP, and would encourage the use of Marauders for non-high-sec PvE.)


With irony, it would make them more hidden than a covops too.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#373 - 2013-07-28 03:23:20 UTC
Here is an Idea give them a role of 75% reduction to mass for bridging from blops cover jump portal generators. Allow these ships to use covert cyno bridging. Do not give these ships cloaks but these ships being able to bridge into cyno jammed systems would allow these ships to operate behind enemy lines and cause much destruction.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#374 - 2013-07-28 14:18:15 UTC
As long as there is a maurader with drone dps, to at least give players an option who like to use drones for dps.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#375 - 2013-07-28 18:05:26 UTC
Just spent the last several hours using bombers on SISI. Bombs are definitely staying at the top of my list of recommended changes. They're not as strong as people claim especially seeing as you'll have to manually aim your big dumb battleship to hit anything.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#376 - 2013-07-28 19:08:41 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Just spent the last several hours using bombers on SISI. Bombs are definitely staying at the top of my list of recommended changes. They're not as strong as people claim especially seeing as you'll have to manually aim your big dumb battleship to hit anything.



You're kidding right?
A good bombing run can completely destroy a complete fleet in matter of seconds and also take their pods, that sounds pretty strong to me.

How would you suggest changing it though and why ?
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#377 - 2013-07-28 19:44:55 UTC
These are billion isk marauders, not 20 million isk bombers.
They are slow and have poor agility.
They have only about 30k ehp natively, lower than navy vessels.
They have weak sensor strength.

The list goes on

It would not be an ISK efficient way of waging war not to mention that getting so close as to use the bombs puts them in neuting range which would shut their tanks off.

All the naysayers are just looking at DPS output and disregarding the idea off the bat instead of sitting down and thinking critically about the pros and cons.

What does a marauder with 3 bomb launchers gain? 3 full volleys worth of firepower in a direction that may not necessarily be helpful, to pre-set distance which might be too far or too short, which takes 120 seconds to recharge.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#378 - 2013-07-29 05:29:48 UTC
As an addendum to my above post, to answer your question in a way that would make them potentially game-breakingly OP

Marauder:

May fit 3 bomb launchers
+5% racial damage to bombs per level
+10% warp jammer range per level.

Those two simple additions would be potentially game breaking for them. 24k per 3 bombs AND 36km point. But without the point bonus what do you have? If the target has any reasonable degree of speed they should be able to outrun the damage if they see you lining up for a bombing run. Really this proposal would affect gatecamps and miners/mission runners the most.

Ergo

Kronos:

8,4,7

Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage and 10% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level

Marauder Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to repair amount of armor repair systems and 7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon tracking per level

Role Bonus: 100% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage, 100% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams, May fit 3 bomb launchers, +5% racial damage to bombs per level, +10% warp jammer range per level.

Now you add functionality. Do you fly a bombing battleship that fits a cloak and a couple of bomb launchers and hit enemy miners? Do you fit all 3 bombs and a probe and nail mission runners? Or do you carry on like before and do missions/ratting - bearing in mind IIRC there are no missions in nullsec aside from NPC space which would be crazy dangerous for a lone battleship, triple bombs or no. Bombs can't be used in lowsec (unfortunately) so it would still be a nullsec only device.

You asked me a question and now I ask you in a similar vain: can you actually tell me how adding bombs (without consideration to role bonuses or any other 'new' things) would be game breaking for marauders?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#379 - 2013-07-29 08:05:35 UTC
Forget bombs. What we really need are remote-detonated MINES.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#380 - 2013-07-29 08:47:59 UTC
I'm pretty sure the issue with mines is a server-side performance thing. They did used to exist, they're apparently unfeasible from a technical viewpoint.