These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon] Marauder rebalancing

First post First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#3381 - 2013-09-10 04:55:52 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
they have, personally I have no issues with how the pirate hulls work now, because my understanding of t2 is that they can do the same role just with a slightly different set of advantages - the more options I have in pvp in terms of ships that do different variations of things the better combat is overall.

i want to be able to anticipate what the opposition might do, which tools i might need, i want to be able to build fleet doctrines tailored around the specific edge advantages each hull group gives me - if i need more raw damage potential i'll use pirate hulls, but if i need something that can act more defensively or subversively i'll take marauders (marauders with MJD would be great for under cutting cap chain logistics ships for example)

the differences don't have to be large but i do like them to be more or less equivalent, so where one ship falls short it compensates by doing something else better.


On this at least we can agree, that's more or less the essence of game balance, especially in a tradeoffs based system like Eve Online's.

Personally though I'm more in favor of the hulls being fairly functional without the Bastion module than have it produce extremely powerful effects that the hull needs to perform well.
CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3382 - 2013-09-10 05:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: CanI haveyourstuff
Wedgetail wrote:
they have, personally I have no issues with how the pirate hulls work now, because my understanding of t2 is that they can do the same role just with a slightly different set of advantages - the more options I have in pvp in terms of ships that do different variations of things the better combat is overall.

i want to be able to anticipate what the opposition might do, which tools i might need, i want to be able to build fleet doctrines tailored around the specific edge advantages each hull group gives me - if i need more raw damage potential i'll use pirate hulls, but if i need something that can act more defensively or subversively i'll take marauders (marauders with MJD would be great for under cutting cap chain logistics ships for example)

the differences don't have to be large but i do like them to be more or less equivalent, so where one ship falls short it compensates by doing something else better.


so.. tell us what are the different advantages and disadvantages between pirate bs-es and compare them to marauders.

dont give us pretty story about doctrines and whatnot tailoring **** around space and time... write something useful already, do some analyzing

what is that magical bonus of marauder+mjd to under cut cap chain logis?
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#3383 - 2013-09-10 05:29:31 UTC
A couple things from a pve standpoint:

Since mobility is decreasing and engagement range is increasing, could the bonus to tractor beams be increased? Maybe 200%? 60km t1, 72km t2

I don't like that all of them are getting web bonuses. I can't see fitting one over a tc, and it takes away from diversity amongst marauders.
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#3384 - 2013-09-10 06:25:19 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
How about:


Golem bonuses:

10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity
5% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo explosion velocity
10% bonus to effectiveness of target painters
4% bonus to all shield resistances



Even with the current proposed bastion module bonus this is a Golem I could get behind.

What I would like to see though is a way to make local tanking workable when not in bastion as well by providing the old hull rep bonus.

Give it the old 37.5% rep bonus, then Bastion would add 62.5% on top of that. This ensures that even while not in bastion that you have a workable tank (i.e. not needing a boost amp) while reducing bastion repping to levels not so crazy that it can solo tank Incursions. This means you still have enough mids for the TP/s, dual prop, hardeners, etc.

I think it would be a good thing to not be so dependent on the bastion module to provide all the tank, meaning we could see more "variety" in the fits.


Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#3385 - 2013-09-10 06:29:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
I don't understand the backlash against the web bonus:

a) Two of the Marauders already had it (actually a 75% more effective bonus, in terms of target velocity, than that proposed...) and it is a requirement for a good blaster boat

b) You don't need a repair bonus for PVE activities - 'low end stuff' (Missions/Complexes) are trivial with MJD and a long reach, 'high end stuff' (Incursions/Wormholes) you will be relying on remote repair, for which the T2 resist bonus is awesome.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Aglais
Ice-Storm
#3386 - 2013-09-10 06:34:28 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I don't understand the backlash against the web bonus:

a) Two of the Marauders already had it (actually a 75% more effective bonus, in terms of target velocity, than that proposed...) and it is a requirement for a good blaster boat

b) You don't need a repair bonus for PVE activities - 'low end stuff' (Missions/Complexes) are trivial with MJD and a long reach, 'high end stuff' (Incursions/Wormholes) you will be relying on remote repair, for which the T2 resist bonus is awesome.


a) "HURr DuRR 10 KILOMETER WEBS ON A 145 KM CRUISE MISSILE SHIP, OR A ~35 KM TORP SHIP"

b) You're right- you don't really need a rep bonus for PvE activities. But you might for small scale PvP. CCP wants to bring Marauders into PvP. But these changes will do nothing but IMO permanently bar them from it. :\
Mer88
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3387 - 2013-09-10 06:41:09 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I don't understand the backlash against the web bonus:

a) Two of the Marauders already had it (actually a 75% more effective bonus, in terms of target velocity, than that proposed...) and it is a requirement for a good blaster boat

b) You don't need a repair bonus for PVE activities - 'low end stuff' (Missions/Complexes) are trivial with MJD and a long reach, 'high end stuff' (Incursions/Wormholes) you will be relying on remote repair, for which the T2 resist bonus is awesome.



TP bonus on BS makes more sense especially on a slow moving /stationary BS like maraufer. On the other hand the could make the bastion module give a web range bonus like 300 percent but decrease the effectiveness by 50%(less OP) so you can actually get to use the web more than once a day.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3388 - 2013-09-10 06:41:57 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


On this at least we can agree, that's more or less the essence of game balance, especially in a tradeoffs based system like Eve Online's.

Personally though I'm more in favor of the hulls being fairly functional without the Bastion module than have it produce extremely powerful effects that the hull needs to perform well.



which is why i suggested keeping the current marauder bonuses as they are, and tailoring the bastion module to facilitating a different mode of combat to what the marauder's are already capable of doing, rather than just trying to take what the marauders already do and feed them steroids to the point where they become untouchable but with 1400mm howitzers.



as for the logistics chains i'll make this very simple:

two fleets encounter each other, both have logis

one fleet has marauders, marauders have 100km gun range and 3 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)

one fleet has pirate battleships, which have 100km gun range and 1-2 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)

both have MJD

both teams logi will seek to scatter away from the battleships to increase their survival odds, and to make the enemy try to chase them down to waste time (this is normal, ECM ships also do this same thing)

the area a logistics ship can spread out in is ~70km wide ~30 km from the near side of the fleet relative to the logi cruiser

with a MJD both teams can spend one battleship per logi to jump toward and hopefully land on top of wherever they starburst to

once landed, as you do not lose a target lock when you use the MJD the logi cruisers are buried in energy warfare and raw damage.

..the marauders will kill off the logi team before the pirates do...because the extra cap warfare will remove the logi's ability to tank each other faster, because both sides have such large engagement ranges it's then a simple matter to swap fire on to another ship or MJD again to be close to someone else's.

this is what cade and i refer to, both hulls doing the same thing but the unique circumstance of the marauders make it better suited over the raw damage gain of a pirate battleship, remote repair is designed to withstand raw damage so the extra 200 dps average a pirate battle ship has..will not help me until the logis are dead.

are a whole host of other variables that will affect the general performance of this little play but i want to try and keep this as short and simple as i can for you.

Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3389 - 2013-09-10 06:46:25 UTC
Mer88 wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I don't understand the backlash against the web bonus:

a) Two of the Marauders already had it (actually a 75% more effective bonus, in terms of target velocity, than that proposed...) and it is a requirement for a good blaster boat

b) You don't need a repair bonus for PVE activities - 'low end stuff' (Missions/Complexes) are trivial with MJD and a long reach, 'high end stuff' (Incursions/Wormholes) you will be relying on remote repair, for which the T2 resist bonus is awesome.



TP bonus on BS makes more sense especially on a slow moving /stationary BS like maraufer. On the other hand the could make the bastion module give a web range bonus like 300 percent but decrease the effectiveness by 50%(less OP) so you can actually get to use the web more than once a day.



long range ships weak to tracking close range targets web bonus means if a target gets close it can no longer move, and thus the long range guns can track again, the stasis web bonus is to to cover the weakness of having smaller faster ships orbiting your large ass hull (cuz ccp are being ridiculously stupid with how many ways they want you to be able to kill these ships) and preventing the opposition from using those said smaller ships to warp in on top of you, negating your long range advantage.

blatantly obvious -.-
Shoppi Fox
money talks dirty
#3390 - 2013-09-10 06:51:01 UTC
Near 40 pages since last dev post can we get a new update please

Espacially on the shield ship web bonus the crux of long and short bonuses?

Would like to hop into the discussion again. Though my old post deleted my point stands that the bastion module is a cool idea but it should keep it role of a pve kill & loot boat. Web an long range bonuses wih 40km tractor make no sense to me. Except that it is versatile
My proposal would we longer tractors and short range buffs on bastion like tracking web range and a bit of like 4% per lvl damage boost
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#3391 - 2013-09-10 07:12:04 UTC
Aglais wrote:


a) "HURr DuRR 10 KILOMETER WEBS ON A 145 KM CRUISE MISSILE SHIP, OR A ~35 KM TORP SHIP"



I f***ing lol'd XD

Also, for rep bonus on a pve ship, it's more useful than you think. Having it as a bonus frees up slots you would normally use to bonus that rep. Ie: Aux nano pumps, nanobot accelerators, shield boost amps, etc.. It's pretty damn nice to have.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3392 - 2013-09-10 07:28:09 UTC
m3talc0re X wrote:
Aglais wrote:


a) "HURr DuRR 10 KILOMETER WEBS ON A 145 KM CRUISE MISSILE SHIP, OR A ~35 KM TORP SHIP"



I f***ing lol'd XD

Also, for rep bonus on a pve ship, it's more useful than you think. Having it as a bonus frees up slots you would normally use to bonus that rep. Ie: Aux nano pumps, nanobot accelerators, shield boost amps, etc.. It's pretty damn nice to have.


Behave Sir. This is nowhere near as useful as a 15km web bonus on a +100 km pulse Paladin (not to mention a tachyon one!). Keep up the good work CCP!
CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3393 - 2013-09-10 08:20:54 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:

as for the logistics chains i'll make this very simple:

two fleets encounter each other, both have logis

one fleet has marauders, marauders have 100km gun range and 3 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)

one fleet has pirate battleships, which have 100km gun range and 1-2 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)


Thats the point where I wanted you to get... on theory it's all cool and maybe @ alliance tournament.

but lets look at real eve pvp situations now, you see super expensive pirate and marauder BS ships fighting alot ?
I dont.

we all can blablabla about specialization, generalization what the **** ever we want but when you look at PVP aspect of game - no one uses expensive pirate or marauder bs-es.

it's just pointless
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#3394 - 2013-09-10 08:45:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
CanI haveyourstuff wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:

as for the logistics chains i'll make this very simple:

two fleets encounter each other, both have logis

one fleet has marauders, marauders have 100km gun range and 3 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)

one fleet has pirate battleships, which have 100km gun range and 1-2 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)


Thats the point where I wanted you to get... on theory it's all cool and maybe @ alliance tournament.

but lets look at real eve pvp situations now, you see super expensive pirate and marauder BS ships fighting alot ?
I dont.

we all can blablabla about specialization, generalization what the **** ever we want but when you look at PVP aspect of game - no one uses expensive pirate or marauder bs-es.

it's just pointless


On this subject last time i see them in combat me and few other logis wore trying to keep them alive(2 of them),they did respond well to reps til some point but incoming dps just brake their weak hit points.they went down fast after that hell i even think they wore primary even before bhaalgorn was and i am fairly certain bhaal survived longer.

if ppl continue to demand local booster back(that was utterly useless in situation above) their usage in PVP will not even be in consideration they will melt due to semi resist they have now and lack of hit points they have now soon to be nerfed even more.

Local tank is good 4 l4's but it will not make ship better at it as pirate ships are clearly better at it atm and t2 resist would open the door to incursion and wh content to be done properly. as well as making them at least somewhat usable in fleet environment


.......would i trade local boost for all of the above i would..anything to move this ship from 2nd class mission runner is achievement imo..

But as i said bastion projection buff is not enough of a gain(or i believe it isn't to be more fair) for ship to suffer mass / speed / agility / drones / hit points loss it just isn't.

Edit

Not to mention immobility it self i fully plan not to use bastion module on my marauders just if CCP don't butcher them as they stand atm.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Cade Windstalker
#3395 - 2013-09-10 09:09:07 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I don't understand the backlash against the web bonus:

a) Two of the Marauders already had it (actually a 75% more effective bonus, in terms of target velocity, than that proposed...) and it is a requirement for a good blaster boat

b) You don't need a repair bonus for PVE activities - 'low end stuff' (Missions/Complexes) are trivial with MJD and a long reach, 'high end stuff' (Incursions/Wormholes) you will be relying on remote repair, for which the T2 resist bonus is awesome.


A. Plenty of "good blaster boats" don't have it. The only ones that do are the Vindicator (arguably the strongest single Battleship in the game right now) and the Kronos (seen repeatedly called a 'nerfed Vindicator' when brought up in conversation due to a 12.5% drop in DPS and lower sensor strength despite better resists). I'm somewhat ignoring the smaller Serpentis hulls because small ship combat is significantly different from battleship combat where webs are concerned.

B. No, but it helps. For reasons that have very clearly been outlined over the last several pages.

Wedgetail wrote:
which is why i suggested keeping the current marauder bonuses as they are, and tailoring the bastion module to facilitating a different mode of combat to what the marauder's are already capable of doing, rather than just trying to take what the marauders already do and feed them steroids to the point where they become untouchable but with 1400mm howitzers.



as for the logistics chains i'll make this very simple:

two fleets encounter each other, both have logis

one fleet has marauders, marauders have 100km gun range and 3 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)

one fleet has pirate battleships, which have 100km gun range and 1-2 capacitor warfare modules (per ship)

both have MJD

both teams logi will seek to scatter away from the battleships to increase their survival odds, and to make the enemy try to chase them down to waste time (this is normal, ECM ships also do this same thing)

the area a logistics ship can spread out in is ~70km wide ~30 km from the near side of the fleet relative to the logi cruiser

with a MJD both teams can spend one battleship per logi to jump toward and hopefully land on top of wherever they starburst to

once landed, as you do not lose a target lock when you use the MJD the logi cruisers are buried in energy warfare and raw damage.

..the marauders will kill off the logi team before the pirates do...because the extra cap warfare will remove the logi's ability to tank each other faster, because both sides have such large engagement ranges it's then a simple matter to swap fire on to another ship or MJD again to be close to someone else's.

this is what cade and i refer to, both hulls doing the same thing but the unique circumstance of the marauders make it better suited over the raw damage gain of a pirate battleship, remote repair is designed to withstand raw damage so the extra 200 dps average a pirate battle ship has..will not help me until the logis are dead.

are a whole host of other variables that will affect the general performance of this little play but i want to try and keep this as short and simple as i can for you.


This is, overall, a hilariously impractical scenario.

For a start Logi tend to anchor on one-another to mitigate the effects of sensor damps no star-burst in every direction.

Second, they rarely stray more than 50km from the fight, because overall range on repair modules is only a little over 70km and a 50km orbit means they have very little risk of not being in rep range of someone who drifts from the fight. Even sitting at 60km can be a bit of a risk in this regard and 50km puts them out of range of most short-range high damage guns.

This means that if your MJD ships want to drop on top of opposing logi they're going to have to burn ~50km away from the fight first, or at least 30km if they want to be within neut range when they land (nevermind webs and points). They could just as easily burn 30km toward the logi to accomplish this and it's unlikely the enemy is going to let them burn 30km away without following, meaning the logi are going to move.

Basically the whole thing just falls apart when you actually look at the ranges on large Neuts and on Logi repair modules.

CanI haveyourstuff wrote:
Thats the point where I wanted you to get... on theory it's all cool and maybe @ alliance tournament.

but lets look at real eve pvp situations now, you see super expensive pirate and marauder BS ships fighting alot ?
I dont.

we all can blablabla about specialization, generalization what the **** ever we want but when you look at PVP aspect of game - no one uses expensive pirate or marauder bs-es.

it's just pointless


Actually you see expensive ships and fits in low-sec PvP all the time. People have lots of isk and they want to use it to win. If you're not seeing a ship used it's because there's something better, not because it costs too much.
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd
#3396 - 2013-09-10 09:13:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Siddicus
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Actually you see expensive ships and fits in low-sec PvP all the time. People have lots of isk and they want to use it to win. If you're not seeing a ship used it's because there's something better, not because it costs too much.


Also in WHs due to mass limitations, you need to make every ship count for as much as possible.



Also can we get some sorta nod from the devs at least saying they are still here? It's been quite some time since a post or update or anything from them for that matter.
Cade Windstalker
#3397 - 2013-09-10 09:19:47 UTC
Siddicus wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Actually you see expensive ships and fits in low-sec PvP all the time. People have lots of isk and they want to use it to win. If you're not seeing a ship used it's because there's something better, not because it costs too much.


Also in WHs due to mass limitations, you need to make every ship count for as much as possible.


Believe me, I'm well aware of that, lol. It's the argument that got me to finally agree to train T3s despite the SP loss potential (I hate losing SP for any reason).

Though I think you'd have to make Marauders pretty OP for the mass for them to compete with T3s there =P
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd
#3398 - 2013-09-10 09:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Siddicus
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Believe me, I'm well aware of that, lol. It's the argument that got me to finally agree to train T3s despite the SP loss potential (I hate losing SP for any reason).

Though I think you'd have to make Marauders pretty OP for the mass for them to compete with T3s there =P


Yeah but they are getting around to T3s so once it finally rolls around they might be something comparable, they don't need to be amazing at PvP but at least somewhere around competent to good so long as they are amazing at sites.

What I would actually like to see is several bastion modules that are situationally optimal making them 'effective' T3 Battleships but I don't really see that happening.
Cade Windstalker
#3399 - 2013-09-10 09:32:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Siddicus wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Believe me, I'm well aware of that, lol. It's the argument that got me to finally agree to train T3s despite the SP loss potential (I hate losing SP for any reason).

Though I think you'd have to make Marauders pretty OP for the mass for them to compete with T3s there =P


Yeah but they are getting around to T3s so once it finally rolls around they might be something comparable, they don't need to be amazing at PvP but at least somewhere around competent to good so long as they are amazing at sites.

What I would actually like to see is several bastion modules that are situationally optimal making them effective T3 Battleships but I don't really see that happening.


Yeah, no.

T3 Cruisers are enough of a balance pain in the arse =P

The T3 balancing is certainly going to be interesting since there are three Wormhole CSMs plus the Null Sec guys have a pretty vested interest in them as well. It'll be interesting to see what they nerf and how much. Depending on the extent of the nerfs I wouldn't be too surprised to see the SP loss on destruction go away given that the base cost for a hull plus subsystems has gone down significantly.

I digress though, this has very little to do with Marauders, which is more or less the point of the last 170 pages...
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd
#3400 - 2013-09-10 09:42:54 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


I digress though, this has very little to do with Marauders, which is more or less the point of the last 170 pages...


And it's been 34 pages (coming on a week soon) since the last dev post, pretty much everything to be said about the proposed changes has been said

=/