These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#3401 - 2013-09-10 10:07:35 UTC
Siddicus wrote:
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

=/


I'm actually working on my own version of a proposal for fun.

When it's suitably thought out I'll post it for the wolves to chew apart.

Overall this is a rather prickly issue since you have people on the one side who want the Marauders for pure PvP and don't give a flying crap about their PvE usability.

On the other you have the people who have actually trained to use these ships already and use them extensively in PvE and probably don't care very much about their PvP viability.

There's a third and somewhat smaller group who really care equally about both but I would say from the posting trends that more or less everyone is leaning one way or the other, generally to a large degree.

The PvP people were the ones who jumped all over the first proposal for not being friendly enough to their interests. They really want to keep the web bonus because it essentially makes these hulls immune to frigates and very good against cruisers.

On the flip side the PvE people hate the second proposed version and don't want the web bonus, especially on the Vargur and Golem.

Throughout the mix we have people who want a number of ridiculous things like cloak-bonused Marauders and massive damage bonuses on Bastion. Not to mention the various people who think Bastion is an awesome idea, a horrible idea, or belongs on an entirely new ship class...

Personally I think Bastion is a pretty cool idea but I don't think it should be mandatory. I'm against web velocity bonuses in general because after running the numbers I find them to be hilariously over-powered against small targets even compared to regular webs, and I'd like to find a solution that at least makes the PvE and PvP sides marginally less angry, if not actually happy (this is Eve Features and Ideas Discussion after all, happy is something you hope for not something you expect) though I don't think Bastion is going to be something both of them get equal use out of no matter what.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3402 - 2013-09-10 10:11:21 UTC
Siddicus wrote:
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

=/

Indeed , ill shout.

CAN WE GET A BLUE TAG HERE PLEASE!!!!!!
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#3403 - 2013-09-10 10:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
The Bastion Modul is awesome, but no Ship should be forced to use a specific Modul to be usefull... (maybe Stealth Bombers are the only exception...) but anyway, Marauder should use Bastion as possibility not as a must have.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#3404 - 2013-09-10 10:26:32 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
The Bastion Modul is awesome, but no Ship should be forced to use a specific Modul to be usefull... (maybe Stealth Bombers are the only exception...) but anyway, Marauder should use Bastion as possibility not as a must have.


Stealth bombers can fling torps at battleships at 80km range, tell me that's not usefull...

Ok, without their cloaks they need support, but so do other ships.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Siddicus
Nation of Sidd
#3405 - 2013-09-10 10:27:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


I'm actually working on my own version of a proposal for fun.

When it's suitably thought out I'll post it for the wolves to chew apart.

Overall this is a rather prickly issue since you have people on the one side who want the Marauders for pure PvP and don't give a flying crap about their PvE usability.

On the other you have the people who have actually trained to use these ships already and use them extensively in PvE and probably don't care very much about their PvP viability.

There's a third and somewhat smaller group who really care equally about both but I would say from the posting trends that more or less everyone is leaning one way or the other, generally to a large degree.

The PvP people were the ones who jumped all over the first proposal for not being friendly enough to their interests. They really want to keep the web bonus because it essentially makes these hulls immune to frigates and very good against cruisers.

On the flip side the PvE people hate the second proposed version and don't want the web bonus, especially on the Vargur and Golem.


Fair enough assessment, and as a Minmatar pilot I grief the loss of the hull's tanking bonus for webs on the Vargur. Anyways nice going back n forth a little with you, I'm done throwing my 2c around for now o/
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3406 - 2013-09-10 10:34:45 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Siddicus wrote:
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

=/

Indeed , ill shout.

CAN WE GET A BLUE TAG HERE PLEASE!!!!!!

Dude, relax. Blue tag told us that they need to take their time.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#3407 - 2013-09-10 10:34:52 UTC
so what? 72 pages w/o updated by CCP
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd
#3408 - 2013-09-10 10:36:39 UTC
To mare wrote:
so what? 72 pages w/o updated by CCP



#2721 Posted: 2013.09.05 23:05 on page 137, not 72 pages, but still a good while.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#3409 - 2013-09-10 10:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Debora Tsung wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
The Bastion Modul is awesome, but no Ship should be forced to use a specific Modul to be usefull... (maybe Stealth Bombers are the only exception...) but anyway, Marauder should use Bastion as possibility not as a must have.


Stealth bombers can fling torps at battleships at 80km range, tell me that's not usefull...

Ok, without their cloaks they need support, but so do other ships.


I think your right, but i cant proof it because i lack of experience with SB's.

Anyway, my Point is CCP made a mistake creating Ship Bonus for Moduls, in my opinion Moduls should change if fitted in the right Ship, it could free some Moduls from their Super specific usage, Open more possibilitys in niche Situations.

Sure it would create some horrific rebalancing but it would change Eve in a good Way.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3410 - 2013-09-10 10:40:03 UTC
To mare wrote:
so what? 72 pages w/o updated by CCP

Meaning the more we spam, the faster CCP works, eh? Smile
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3411 - 2013-09-10 10:41:32 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Siddicus wrote:
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

=/

Indeed , ill shout.

CAN WE GET A BLUE TAG HERE PLEASE!!!!!!

Dude, relax. Blue tag told us that they need to take their time.

true enough.
I'm happy to wait till November for the next iteration, but the discussion would benefit from a dev update, even just to confirm the concept a little.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3412 - 2013-09-10 10:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
To mare wrote:
so what? 72 pages w/o updated by CCP

Meaning the more we spam, the faster CCP works, eh? Smile

You think ccp fozzie gets a shock every time someone rages in the comments...maby that's what the like button dose.

in all seriousness is rather they take their time,( which was actually the main reason I don'tlike this iteration, seems rushed)
To mare
Advanced Technology
#3413 - 2013-09-10 11:37:27 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
To mare wrote:
so what? 72 pages w/o updated by CCP

Meaning the more we spam, the faster CCP works, eh? Smile

just saying its 72 pages ppl keep posting same ideas or same whines if CCP would at least give some guidelines like we want to achieve that but we absolutely dont want this people would start focus on something and maybe give better ideas.
Lair Osen
#3414 - 2013-09-10 11:42:21 UTC
Yeah, I rather hope they start up a new thread so they can put this fiasco behind them.
I don't want another update or fix for this idea, I'd much rather it was thrown out the window and redone from scratch.
Cade Windstalker
#3415 - 2013-09-10 11:45:59 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
The Bastion Modul is awesome, but no Ship should be forced to use a specific Modul to be usefull... (maybe Stealth Bombers are the only exception...) but anyway, Marauder should use Bastion as possibility not as a must have.


Even Stealth Bombers don't 100% rely on the cloak. If you want a ship that's 100% built around a module look at Dreadnaughts (and then look at the current problems with Capital Ship utility and balance and weep softly for the people who have to fix it)

Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Meaning the more we spam, the faster CCP works, eh? Smile


More like the more time they have to spend reading the forums looking at feedback Blink

Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
You think ccp fozzie gets a shock every time someone rages in the comments...maby that's what the like button dose.

in all seriousness is rather they take their time,( which was actually the main reason I don'tlike this iteration, seems rushed)


In before Fozzie, Rise, or Ytterbium post an NSA "we're watching youuuu" GIF and then disappear for another week. (obviously to meditate in a Buddhist Monastery toward perfect game balance)

Seriously though, a little appreciation for the devs. They're working on it. Good game design takes time, bad game design takes no time at all. When we don't hear from them for a while we should take it as a sign that things more productive than reading through 50+ pages of our bickering are happening.

Admittedly making lunch is probably a more productive use of time after about the 5th page but you can't balance the game on an empty stomach Blink
To mare
Advanced Technology
#3416 - 2013-09-10 11:46:43 UTC
Lair Osen wrote:
Yeah, I rather hope they start up a new thread so they can put this fiasco behind them.
I don't want another update or fix for this idea, I'd much rather it was thrown out the window and redone from scratch.

that would be a good idea
Agolon
Insight Limited
#3417 - 2013-09-10 12:12:23 UTC
Two things i would love to see added
Allow use of covert op BS jump bridge. So a Covert op scout BS can call in his Marauder Buddies. Even if it has a hour cool down.
I have never used a jump bridge but i think it would be great reason to pvp with it. Can it work ???

The other is a 200% dam when hitting target over BS size so carrier's and POS size objects. I don't see that effecting mission dps or BS on BS fights.

The though of a group of Marauder being jumped into a system by a stealth BS and able to cause all hell on field with MJD.
I think with those 2 changes if will give it a powerful PVP reason to fly it with out making it OP or useless in PVE with the way they are now.

Lair Osen
#3418 - 2013-09-10 12:24:20 UTC
Agolon wrote:
Two things i would love to see added
Allow use of covert op BS jump bridge. So a Covert op scout BS can call in his Marauder Buddies. Even if it has a hour cool down.
I have never used a jump bridge but i think it would be great reason to pvp with it. Can it work ???

The other is a 200% dam when hitting target over BS size so carrier's and POS size objects. I don't see that effecting mission dps or BS on BS fights.

The though of a group of Marauder being jumped into a system by a stealth BS and able to cause all hell on field with MJD.
I think with those 2 changes if will give it a powerful PVP reason to fly it with out making it OP or useless in PVE with the way they are now.



You do know that BLOPS BSs have jump drives that can jump to covert cynos right?
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#3419 - 2013-09-10 12:42:06 UTC
Lair Osen wrote:
Agolon wrote:
Two things i would love to see added
Allow use of covert op BS jump bridge. So a Covert op scout BS can call in his Marauder Buddies. Even if it has a hour cool down.
I have never used a jump bridge but i think it would be great reason to pvp with it. Can it work ???

The other is a 200% dam when hitting target over BS size so carrier's and POS size objects. I don't see that effecting mission dps or BS on BS fights.

The though of a group of Marauder being jumped into a system by a stealth BS and able to cause all hell on field with MJD.
I think with those 2 changes if will give it a powerful PVP reason to fly it with out making it OP or useless in PVE with the way they are now.



You do know that BLOPS BSs have jump drives that can jump to covert cynos right?


He wants to avoid running gates with his pimped Marauder in null-sec, obviously. And BlackOps don't have the punch and tank of Marauders.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#3420 - 2013-09-10 12:52:35 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.


It is true that you dont need a rep bonus for pve, really dont need the web bonus either, as most stuff is dead b4 getting into web range + you have drones. Not to mention, mobile is decreasing and engagement range is increasing, so it is going to be more difficult to close on something you want to web if it is just out of range. I only have a vargur so i could be ignorant about using a web on a kronos in pve, but it def isnt needed w/ autocannons. If web on the kronos is something you want then push for it, but in general i think this bonus should try to be different for each marauder.