These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3501 - 2013-09-11 01:25:31 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Many longer playing pvp'ers are blaming 90% webs for dreadblapping working aswell as it currently does (and should imo), with 81% (?) webs, stacking penalties will reduce the max efficiency of the two webs max you could ever justify from some 97% down to some 90% (?). It is a whole lot better in comparison to a traditional unbonused web, but it doesn't push them over the edge I believe. 7.5% bonus is a fine thing, now that the repairbonus mostly got built into the hull by resistances.

As was looking forward to flying a Vargur with the first revision, now looking forward to fly a paladin :>

I prefer a repair bonus that works against all the things that could shoot me to one that only works against some.

Also, why a Paladin? What are you doing with it?
MR DEMOS
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#3502 - 2013-09-11 01:42:06 UTC
FAILSCADE IMO....
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3503 - 2013-09-11 01:58:28 UTC
"'ll give you a winter prediction: It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life."

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
stoicfaux
#3504 - 2013-09-11 02:07:00 UTC
The T2 resists are a nerf for at least the Vargur. It would result in a ~25% drop in tank against Angels and Drones with a three slot tank.

OTOH, it gets a 50% boost in tank against Sansha, but if I'm going to mission in EM/Therm land, then I'll probably switch to a Paladin or Nightmare.

-1 for the T2 resists and loss of shield boost bonus

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Wolfgang Achari
Morior Invictus.
#3505 - 2013-09-11 02:31:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The inclusion of T2 resists has similarly never completed a ship. Also, since the resist increase is selective vs the rep bonus which applies to whatever you are tanking it means that sometimes it may reduce the need for a slot to be used vs always with the rep bonus. This is more applicable with the 2 ships with selectable damage output. The absolute resist number is irrelevant since you 50% number needs to draw upon base resists in all cases. Counting T1 resist strengths is not a defense for T2 resists.


It's irrelevant where the 50% resist originates from as it's still part of the T2 resist profile and it's application works exactly the same as the other resists. Likewise, you've ignored my suggestion that the T2 profile is modified to match faction NPC's. Bringing the two boosted resists to where they need to be.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Maybe, but that is beyond the scope here. One thing that can be said is that there isn't really another class that has had this issue since none had had the PvE focus of the Marauders. I certainly don't think it reasonable to address the entire concept for this case, especially when till proposed it never applied.


It's hardly beyond the scope as the biggest issue everyone seems to have with dropping the rep bonus for a T2 resist profile is that the default racial profile is incompatible with faction NPC's. Therefore requesting a modified T2 resist profile to better match up with faction NPC's makes sense as it would end up providing a stronger tank than the current rep bonus for these ships in their home systems.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
All of your arguments ignore the fact that T2 resists are a selective bonus, not a wholesale one. If it was an across the board buff no one would be complaining. It's not, it's 2 of 4 (not 3) per ship which in some cases aligns poorly with the damage tanking/output pairs.

Also which is on the chopping block? You mean the decidedly better 30% to all that was proposed earlier as part of bastion? Probably because it was deemed to be overpowered. It was more effective than the active tank bonus while providing more buffer than a maxed 10% per level HP bonus since it gave almost the same per layer + being applied to all 3 layers.


I understand that only two of the four resists get a boost, but you've completely ignored my suggestion that people request a modified T2 resist profile to match up faction NPC's. Which would resolve this issue entirely.

I was speaking of the hull bonus on other ships (Prophecy, Drake, etc.) that used to receive 5% resists/level. These bonuses were nerfed because of how much more powerful they were when compared to local rep bonuses. While these bonuses dropped down to 4% resist/level, they are still on the chopping block to be reduced even further to 3% resist/level if need be to further balance them against local/remote repping.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
It's more likely, given the current place marauders hold, that it's only a small number of people who use them enough to care.


That's part of what CCP is trying to change by rebalancing the ship.
Wolfgang Achari
Morior Invictus.
#3506 - 2013-09-11 03:47:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
-I'm not claiming it makes the hulls incomplete I'm saying that trading the local rep bonus for the T2 resists makes 2 of these hulls noticeably worse at PvE than the other two because they have to make a trade-off that the other two do not.

- Lets see, Blockade, ____ Extravaganza, Worlds Collide, Cargo Delivery is pretty nasty due to the neuting, and there's a good number of others.

Remember, my claim was not that ANY T1 battleship couldn't tank missions, it was that most can't. There's a reason the Raven and Dominix are most of what you hear about for T1 mission ships in PvE circles. The Dominix relies on either 2-3 repair modules or a MJD and the Raven relies on burning down incomming damage before it can either get in range or break your tank and that strategy may still require warp-outs for some missions.


Hence my suggestion of requesting a modified T2 profile for marauders.

Every single T1 BS hull can not only tank L4 missions, they can complete them in reasonable time as well. You can do it all with T2 modules too.


Cade Windstalker wrote:
The ability to juggle tank mods due to T2 resists only applies if you're facing rats that deal the type of damage your T2 resists are bonused toward. As my previous post points out the vast majority of mission damage is Kinetic and Thermal and both Gallente and Caldari T2 hulls get bonuses against both. This means that no matter what rats they're going against they'll be able to take advantage of at least part of their bonus and against most rats they can take advantage of the full bonus. They also don't have to make a trade-off between resisting damage better and dealing damage better since their resist profiles give them a buff against the rats that they deal the best damage against already.

For Amarr and Minmattar however you have secondary bonuses to Kinetic and Thermal respectively which are smaller than their primary bonus by a good margin. On top of this the rats that they deal the best damage against don't deal either of the types they're bonused toward.

This means that overall with the loss of the 7.5% per level local tank bonus they are in a worse state as mission ships than they are on TQ currently since they now have to make a trade-off that the other two do not in addition to losing overall repair power.


I realize you were responding to that comment(s) directly, but again that's the reason for my suggestion of a modified resist profile from the standard T2 racial profile to better match faction NPC's.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
The damage profile on Amarr ships is only an issue if it forces you to choose between things you can tank effectively and things you can deal damage to effectively.

In PvP this isn't much of an issue since most people tend to be omni-tanked anyway and Thermal is a good damage type to deal and EM tends to be one of the lower resistances on at least armored tanked ships post hole patching.


Which for Amarr ships outside of Amarr space is nearly everything. When looking at ship effectiveness against each rat type, Amarr ships are effective against the fewest number of rats compared to the other three races.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Tweaking resists to match mission rats hurts the ships in PvP. I'm not advocating for the T2 resists to go away or for the resist profile to change, I'm advocating for a local repair bonus on the hulls, preferably rather than on the Bastion module since having one on each seems to be a bit problematic.


I have to disagree. With every other T2 resist profile it only takes 2 tank mods to bring all resists past 60%. Which as you mentioned previously though, brings up the concern of potentially massive EHP for these ships. However, it's much easier to make a real T2 profile work well in PvP regardless of how the resists are spread out.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out why you want a rep bonus over appropriate T2 resists.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Yes, however it partly survived this change because another ship using the same skill requirements dropped into the slot it used to occupy with very little fuss.

Since the Marauders only have one ship per race under this skill it makes sense for them to keep their role and niche rather than seeing a drastic shift. If you want a ship for another role it should go under another skill.

You'll also note that the 50+ pages before that were a different set of "same people" where as there's been many new faces against the current proposal.


I'm not exactly sure the Abaddon qualifies as cheap DPS, but yes it did fill in the role.

After going over more of the comments from the rest of the thread though, I'm seeing fewer and fewer reasons to even bother re-balancing marauders. It seems that PvE pilots want faction ship DPS with better damage projection/application. While the only PvP'ers that seem to care want the mini-dreads for high-sec wardecs or gate camping. At this point I'm starting to feel that it'd just be better off leaving them as PvE only ships with a few minor tweaks to make them a bit more unique from each other.
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3507 - 2013-09-11 03:49:48 UTC
I see two problems,
One: We still have no idea if any of the bonuses are subject to stacking penalties.
Two: This ship will still die in a fire in 90% of PVP applications because its a shiny and shiney stuff attracts gankers like flies to poop.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3508 - 2013-09-11 03:55:50 UTC
Maybe it would be easier to start by getting a consensus of the changes we DO like...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3509 - 2013-09-11 03:56:08 UTC
Wolfgang Achari wrote:
It's irrelevant where the 50% resist originates from as it's still part of the T2 resist profile and it's application works exactly the same as the other resists. Likewise, you've ignored my suggestion that the T2 profile is modified to match faction NPC's. Bringing the two boosted resists to where they need to be.
It's not irrelevant because of function, it's irrelevant because it's in no way augmented from base and as such in no way represents any improvement since there quite realistically is none. And no, I didn't ignore anything, else your next portion of the post wouldn't exist since it tries to counter a comment I made about what you said I ignored.

Wolfgang Achari wrote:
It's hardly beyond the scope as the biggest issue everyone seems to have with dropping the rep bonus for a T2 resist profile is that the default racial profile is incompatible with faction NPC's. Therefore requesting a modified T2 resist profile to better match up with faction NPC's makes sense as it would end up providing a stronger tank than the current rep bonus for these ships in their home systems.

I understand that only two of the four resists get a boost, but you've completely ignored my suggestion that people request a modified T2 resist profile to match up faction NPC's. Which would resolve this issue entirely.
It was beyond the scope as stated, which was modifying T2 resist. The scope of this proposal was a single line of T2 ships, which isn't anywhere close to a proper justification for a rewrite of that rule. Nor does it necessarily make sense for these to be a strong outlier there. It needs to be a stronger case than "because people want it." Unfortunately I can't think of a case I could see as legitimate here. And you have yet to present one.

Wolfgang Achari wrote:
I was speaking of the hull bonus on other ships (Prophecy, Drake, etc.) that used to receive 5% resists/level. These bonuses were nerfed because of how much more powerful they were when compared to local rep bonuses. While these bonuses dropped down to 4% resist/level, they are still on the chopping block to be reduced even further to 3% resist/level if need be to further balance them against local/remote repping.
I would have no objection to that. I'd like it actually. I haven't heard anything about further reductions though since the possibility was left open when the reduction to 4% was announced. I haven't seen anything that suggest it's being pursued, but then, I haven't really looked.

Wolfgang Achari wrote:
That's part of what CCP is trying to change by rebalancing the ship.
And hopefully they will, but when for most marauders are irrelevant and will likely remain so as proposed,
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3510 - 2013-09-11 05:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Cade Windstalker wrote:


With four tracking computers on 800mm Autocannons with Barrage you end up with an absolutely ticklish 200 DPS at 150km and at 100km you're still only getting ~400 DPS.

This is hardly game-breaking for the reasons I've already mentioned. You're not going to out-DPS short range ships and you're going to need some amount of tackle down at the gate to hold things in place or they're just going to either burn back to the gate before you can kill anything or warp off. If you're in null they can burn out of your bubbles as well if that's what you were relying on. Overall you would be far better off bringing long-range guns which won't track very well if your enemy gets in close.

Taking the example of the Vargur, with 1400mm Artillery I'm getting 150-250 more DPS depending on ammo and which range you're talking about. with the added bonus of being able to alpha-strike soft targets.

A Cruiser with any sort of decent tank and remote assistance should be able to weather ~1000 DPS pretty easily, at 2000 you'd better have at least two dedicated logistics but you're still going to be able to burn back to gate if there's no tackle on-grid.

Never mind that this completely assumes that your enemy jumped a cruiser gang into your perched Battleship gate-camp without a plan to deal with them. If they're doing that you can do the same thing with Maelstroms or almost any other long-range weapons platform for less money and get the same result.

Also you don't tend to perch your artillery 150km off the gate unless you've got a lot of bubbles in place because you're very susceptible to on-grid warps at that range or anything within ~10km of it.



this is false, with two TC's (scripted) and 2 TE (t2) barrage gives me a falloff of 112 km (i belive i'm using a range implant also so say 108-110 somewhere * random numb ri pulled out my backside for not knowing which range implant i have*, and you are right about the 200 dps ish at that range, but that's what i'm aiming for - this isn't going to be one ship but several so i can focus fire and add up the several ships i'm using to get the 1k dps i need reasonably easily)

as i said, minmatar fight at falloff x 1.5 so i have an effective range of (112 km + 56 km) ~ and deal 50% damage at 100km, 150km is more than reasonable for autocannons - which is why 1200mm vargurs don't get seen much, 800's seem to do better at the same ranges on fire rate alone =/ - as for 1400's the current iteration's PG makes 1400's near impossible (80% PG to just fit t2 800mm's) - post changes 1400's become much more viable but if i can get 100km falloff with autocannons what's the artillery gonna look like? -.- ( this is my vargur on TQ right now, and the range bonuses aren't being changed...) see why i am concerned?


[edit]

I love the fact the minmatar fight with such awesome falloff curves i really do, but it is very very powerful for keeping yourself well out of harm's way while killing something (and why minmatar do so well in PVP (or have done) - i don't lose damage quickly at all if i'm not in optimal range, i can keep hammering away at your hulls for many times my optimal before you notice a significant damage drop, (it's faster to simply throw off my tracking speed than it is to out range me)

autos fight in falloff, lasers in optimal and hybrids are a very strange half breed of both (which is why the ships with range bonuses tended to be so unpopular, they didn't offer as much as the other races due to 50-50 split base values, 10% of a smaller number is a smaller number (looking at the ferox in particular but eagle suffered too)

[/edit]
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#3511 - 2013-09-11 05:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Wedgetail wrote:
autos fight in falloff, lasers in optimal and hybrids are a very strange half breed of both (which is why the ships with range bonuses tended to be so unpopular, they didn't offer as much as the other races due to 50-50 split base values, 10% of a smaller number is a smaller number (looking at the ferox in particular but eagle suffered too)


You have to understand though that Caldari ships were designed with railguns in mind and railgun optimals start with massive range advantage to begin with. For instance, base Tachyon Beam II is 66 + 24 (33+24 with IN MF), whereas base Railgun is 72 + 30 (36 + 30 with CN AM). Were it not for pathetic damage on medium rails before Odyssey 1.1, Ferox and Eagle wouldn't be all that bad, as optimal means you can use closer range ammo for given distance, increasing dps at that point. One ship that takes great advantage of this is the Naga, which has both the damage and the optimal range increase. As such, it can project higher damage for given distance (same as Rokh) compared to ships with just the damage bonus, making it a superior sniper.

Tldr: optimal isn't as bad as people call it to be. It's just that both Eagle and Ferox were bad hulls coupled with a bad weapon system.

EDIT: fixed to clarify past tense.
Cade Windstalker
#3512 - 2013-09-11 05:59:45 UTC
Barbie D0ll wrote:
I see two problems,
One: We still have no idea if any of the bonuses are subject to stacking penalties.
Two: This ship will still die in a fire in 90% of PVP applications because its a shiny and shiney stuff attracts gankers like flies to poop.


1. Yes we do, the range bonuses are stacking penalized. A quick check of Ytterbium's math on the example Kronos confirms this.

2. Yes, but not everyone can bring gankers and if you're deploying something like this you're either prepared to deal with that eventuality, you don't care, or you're an idiot. None of the above factor into balance.

Wedgetail wrote:

this is false, with two TC's (scripted) and 2 TE (t2) barrage gives me a falloff of 112 km (i belive i'm using a range implant also so say 108-110 somewhere * random numb ri pulled out my backside for not knowing which range implant i have*, and you are right about the 200 dps ish at that range, but that's what i'm aiming for - this isn't going to be one ship but several so i can focus fire and add up the several ships i'm using to get the 1k dps i need reasonably easily)

as i said, minmatar fight at falloff x 1.5 so i have an effective range of (112 km + 56 km) ~ and deal 50% damage at 100km, 150km is more than reasonable for autocannons - which is why 1200mm vargurs don't get seen much, 800's seem to do better at the same ranges on fire rate alone =/ - as for 1400's the current iteration's PG makes 1400's near impossible (80% PG to just fit t2 800mm's) - post changes 1400's become much more viable but if i can get 100km falloff with autocannons what's the artillery gonna look like? -.- ( this is my vargur on TQ right now, and the range bonuses aren't being changed...) see why i am concerned?


No, not really. That's really pathetic DPS to get out of 5 ships, especially when this completely ignores their tanking potential and any ship getting on top of them will likely be able to tear them apart due to the range focused setup and lack of local support ships. You'd do far better with short-range guns having them 50km off the gate, which puts them in-range of support and less susceptible to warp-ins since your short-range tackle on the gate will have an easier time burning to you and you'll have an easier time supporting them.

Or even better, long range guns with short-range ammo 50km off the gate, where they're likely doing full damage and maybe contributing some decent actual DPS to the fight instead of tickling things...

Seriously, fighting at Optimal +1.5*falloff is not a good idea, 200DPS from a Battleship is pretty pathetic and says you should have positioned your ships closer. Being able to deal damage at that range is great, setting up to do so from the start is asking to get your fleet whelped.

Plus, as I said you can do all of this for cheaper with 5 Maelstroms and get the same effect.

Also Bastion doesn't really figure into the range since the Bastion module is stacking penalized for its range bonuses. (as I've said several times).

Essentially there is nothing in your proposed strategy that isn't already more viable with other ships for less ISK and SP investment on the part of the participants.

The reason it's not done too often is because to be an effective strategy it essentially relies on you having a superior force to whatever is coming through the gate. The only advantage is the ability to save the perch ships easily and instantly if something too nasty to handle does come through and if you're deploying Marauders in that position then you're probably not strapped for cash.

Wedgetail wrote:

[edit]

I love the fact the minmatar fight with such awesome falloff curves i really do, but it is very very powerful for keeping yourself well out of harm's way while killing something (and why minmatar do so well in PVP (or have done) - i don't lose damage quickly at all if i'm not in optimal range, i can keep hammering away at your hulls for many times my optimal before you notice a significant damage drop, (it's faster to simply throw off my tracking speed than it is to out range me)

autos fight in falloff, lasers in optimal and hybrids are a very strange half breed of both (which is why the ships with range bonuses tended to be so unpopular, they didn't offer as much as the other races due to 50-50 split base values, 10% of a smaller number is a smaller number (looking at the ferox in particular but eagle suffered too)

[/edit]


Actually Blasters tend to have more falloff and Railguns tend to have more optimal, but because of how their ammo ranges spread out you can get pretty good use out of either an optimal or a falloff bonus (though I'm much more a fan of the Optimal bonuses since they let you apply your full damage at some truly absurd ranges).

The old Merlin for example was an absolute terror in frigate fights in the hands of an experienced pilot with good bookmarks because it could whittle you down from longer range than most other frigates could touch, kite away and warp back in and then use its tank to go in and tackle for the kill. You can do similar things with a lot of smaller range focused ships.

The Vulture and Eagle can both hit some interesting ranges with Blasters and can project damage hilariously far with rails for example, and Railguns in general of various sizes out-DPS Artillery at long range at the expense of fairly low Alpha but making up for it with high fire-rate.
Cade Windstalker
#3513 - 2013-09-11 06:06:52 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
You have to understand though that Caldari ships were designed with railguns in mind and railgun optimals start with massive range advantage to begin with. For instance, base Tachyon Beam II is 66 + 24 (33+24 with IN MF), whereas base Railgun is 72 + 30 (36 + 30 with CN AM). Were it not for pathetic damage on medium rails, Ferox and Eagle wouldn't be all that bad, as optimal means you can use closer range ammo for given distance, increasing dps at that point. One ship that takes great advantage of this is the Naga, which has both the damage and the optimal range increase. As such, it can project higher damage for given distance (same as Rokh) compared to ships with just the damage bonus, making it a superior sniper.

Tldr: optimal isn't as bad as people call it to be. It's just that both Eagle and Ferox were bad hulls coupled with a bad weapon system.


You should take another look at medium rails post-buff. They've got some pretty decent DPS now. A quick thrown together Ferox fit with one TC and three mag-stabs is showing 540 DPS at 31+20 with Navy Antimatter.

Considering the same fit get 589 with Blasters and Navy Antimatter I'd say they're definitely worth a second look.

Also a combination of tank+range isn't to be under-estimated either. The Rokh has seen entire fleet comps built around it where as two years ago it was the "well you have Hybrids and can't do a Maelstrom yet" ship of Mael fleets.
Cade Windstalker
#3514 - 2013-09-11 06:20:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Wolfgang Achari wrote:
Hence my suggestion of requesting a modified T2 profile for marauders.

Every single T1 BS hull can not only tank L4 missions, they can complete them in reasonable time as well. You can do it all with T2 modules too.


Which would **** off anyone hoping to use this hull for PvP since the T2 profiles for the Minmattar and Amarr are more PvP friendly as they are now, plus better for incursions. No one but you is asking for this, the rest of us want the local repair bonus back on the hulls, either as a Role Bonus or at the expense of the web bonus.

No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull.

Wolfgang Achari wrote:
Which for Amarr ships outside of Amarr space is nearly everything. When looking at ship effectiveness against each rat type, Amarr ships are effective against the fewest number of rats compared to the other three races.


Yup, which is why it makes very little sense to effectively nerf them against those rats as well. However, it makes even less sense to destroy their racial T2 resist profile just in the name of being more effective against those particular rats.

Overall someone doing their homework will either know the issues with Lasers going in or probably doesn't care. This, on the other hand, is a re-balancing debate and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make two hulls better at tanking rats and the other two worse, unless they decide they'd rather be better at tanking rats in which case they have to be worse at shooting them, a tradeoff the others don't have to make...

Wolfgang Achari wrote:
I have to disagree. With every other T2 resist profile it only takes 2 tank mods to bring all resists past 60%. Which as you mentioned previously though, brings up the concern of potentially massive EHP for these ships. However, it's much easier to make a real T2 profile work well in PvP regardless of how the resists are spread out.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out why you want a rep bonus over appropriate T2 resists.


Generally the quoted "magic number" for a strong tank is 70% resists, especially for missions and other forms of PvE. The higher you can get it though the better. 60% doesn't generally cut it.

Also I have never stated a desire to see the T2 resists removed, however if it's a choice between the repair bonus and full T2 resists I'll take the repair bonus on something that's supposed to be a mission focused ship because it's more useful for missions.

What I, and others, don't want is to be forced to fit the Bastion Module and mission in a very narrow and specific way with this hull.

Wolfgang Achari wrote:
I'm not exactly sure the Abaddon qualifies as cheap DPS, but yes it did fill in the role.

After going over more of the comments from the rest of the thread though, I'm seeing fewer and fewer reasons to even bother re-balancing marauders. It seems that PvE pilots want faction ship DPS with better damage projection/application. While the only PvP'ers that seem to care want the mini-dreads for high-sec wardecs or gate camping. At this point I'm starting to feel that it'd just be better off leaving them as PvE only ships with a few minor tweaks to make them a bit more unique from each other.


None of these hulls qualify as cheap anymore since they've had their minerals costs balanced out. I'm referring to the ship's actual role from its bonuses, not the oddly specific "cheap DPS" role you stated it as having.

Which is still a re-balance. As things stand they're still mostly over-shadowed by Pirate Battleships, even in missions. Plus they lack an overall role within the various ship classes, they just have one tiny little niche that they're half crowded out of by Pirate and Navy Battleships.

Beyond that everything in the old ship rebalancing dev-blog and Ytterbium's post at the start of this thread apply.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3515 - 2013-09-11 06:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Cade Windstalker wrote:


You should take another look at medium rails post-buff. They've got some pretty decent DPS now. A quick thrown together Ferox fit with one TC and three mag-stabs is showing 540 DPS at 31+20 with Navy Antimatter.

Considering the same fit get 589 with Blasters and Navy Antimatter I'd say they're definitely worth a second look.

Also a combination of tank+range isn't to be under-estimated either. The Rokh has seen entire fleet comps built around it where as two years ago it was the "well you have Hybrids and can't do a Maelstrom yet" ship of Mael fleets.


yes it has, my argument is based around close range sets though, so rails do not compare with autos, blasters do - truth in that blasters have been recently fixed, rails not so much (though they are much better i am agreed)

and the danger with the 200dps at 150 km is this: what's going to happen as you try to get closer?

unlike with artillery where my dps is constant and actually drops as you get closer, with autocannons it INCREASES, the more you try to approach, the more painful it gets. (i know a few people that'll laugh at the irony of me saying that XD ) the only reason this is fine now is cuz of ECM vulnerability

and if it looks like you're not going to die as you approach, i have plenty of room to simply pack up and leave - because why will i sit there and die in an 800 mil isk ship when i don't have to? - i'm not using bastion at these ranges (unless forced to by EWAR) i don't need to - so i'm more than free to move, more than free to use logi and RR - i do have incredibly low EHP tank though, so dealing with howitzers and rails will be an instant run reaction from this group - and that's normal for most dps loadouts.

hell if i really wanted, i can carry 1 TC grab a MJD and sit at 110 km and if it looks like i can win simply by jumping right in and blaping people i'll do that instead, i will never need to risk myself needlessly because my minimum performance is high enough to let me fight that way (as you say this is why i'm sitting there as my starting position: so i can leave and not lose my important ships).

it's what ccp is screaming at us to do with the current proposal, and why i said very early that marauders already do this without the shoddy little excuse for a new module, why will i use this new thing and increase risk of death when i already can do what it's supposed to let me do without it?

( side note: blops are also ridiculous for a similar risk ratio but for different reasons)

i don't want mechanics that promote easily being able to run away, or to fight without real risk, i want mechanics that force me to risk something in order to get what i want - if i can sit there at range and loose a few cruisers to kill a few of theirs then leave, i'm going to do it, eve gang PVP is bait lure and trap for hours and then 10 minutes of combat, and the bait and lures now are getting so obvious that most don't even bother if there's so much of a hint of them -.- avoid the dangerous (likely to lose) fight first and do something else is the primary response of the times
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#3516 - 2013-09-11 06:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Gabriel Karade wrote:
[snip for character limit]

I did point out back at the time ( http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834365&page=15#424) the absurdity of removing 90% webs from the slow platforms with sub 10km optimal range and how this equated to a 400% increase in target transversal – in that particular test a zero fit stabber (no modules) orbiting a Ion II Megathron with impunity – with no corresponding increase in tracking. Fundamentally this is down to a flaw in the tracking formula (doesn’t account for actual target size up close) but that is never going to get fixed.

As to my Frigate example, you completely forgot a crucial variable; scan resolution – by the time the Battleship has the frigate locked up from a typical gate encounter, if it is appropriately AB fit to counter said blaster Battleship it will be sufficiently close to mitigate the speed drop. If he has double webs? (Vindi - 5 mids, doesn’t help Kronos) Well don’t fight him on his terms, it’s really quite straightforward….

Fundamentally Battleship-sized blaster platforms were shafted by the 2008 speed changes and have never recovered and I speak as someone who has roughly half his career kills flying a blaster Megathron solo. CCP momentarily recognised this when they re-worked Serpentis hulls back in 2009, getting rid of the MWD cap bonus for the only blaster related bonus to make sense *drum roll*…. 90% webs.

Don’t take it off the last viable solo/very small gang pure Gallente blaster Battleship.


First off, the AB buff works both ways, helping Blaster boats as well as their enemies, so does the MWD/scram changes. With a web and a scram an enemy with a MWD is going to have a hard time pulling range on a Blaster ship.

You are of-course entitled to your opinion, but I fail to see any good justification for a system that completely destroyed smaller ships if they get within web-range and reduced combat to a nearly static "I shoot then you shoot" scenario.

I was curious about your claims of "orbiting with impunity" so I decided to take a fairly stock Megathron fit and throw it against, as you said, a purely blank Stabber (with all 5s on both). This was the result with Neutrons on the Megathron and one T2 web.

As for your claim that a frigate can get in close enough to mitigate this, this is only true right up until that web turns on. At this point the Battleship is actually moving faster than the ABing frigate (and he's certainly not going to be MWDing at that range either because he's scrammed or because it would kill his tracking and the sig bloom would kill him). This means that the Battleship can now pull range on the frigate and reduce the traversal to almost nothing, and that's without even turning on a prop-mod.

As for the dual web scenario, anything that makes the answer "well you can't engage that ship with an entire ship class" is bad balancing. Battleships are supposed to be at least somewhat vulnerable to smaller hulls due to their speed and maneuverability. This is why smaller hulls do less damage and have less HP. If you can completely negate that advantage then there's a balance problem since no other battleship can do that.

Back in 2009 they also created one of the single most powerful hulls in the game that's proceeded to over-shadow every other T1 and T2 hybrids platform with its raw DPS and web bonus. It's even generally considered flat better than many ships that don't use the same weapons system because that web bonus makes it essentially immune to smaller ships getting under its guns and if they pull range then they're easier to track.

Overall you're just sounding like a bitter-vet whose favorite OP toy got taken away. Ugh
Firstly (no surprise) your EFT plot demonstrates the exact same thing as my actual testing from the linked page (3 'wrecking hits', 9 'barely scratches' 2 'lightly hits' out of 856 shots) - your plot demonstrates essentially 0 dps at 1 - 1.5km, rising to a staggering 20 dps at 2km. Now in my testing (back then) I threw in every single piece of maneuvering you could pull to minimise transversal (apologies I forgot that in the testing for the second test, the stabber had a web). Granted you can achieve a little more these days with the buff to agility, but nothing to change the overall picture drastically.

Secondly in the frigate example, you've missed off another key point - why is the Battleship not webbed? ( AB frigate: 3 mids, web/scram/AB). For the dual web scenario (again, the Kronos only has four mid slots - losing one for a second web compromises you in other areas i.e. capacitor) move away from a 1 v 1 scenario to 2 v 1 and it's simple to fight a big blaster boat in web range, even with 90% webs. Vindicator? Well, true you can fit dual webs, but why on earth would you be trying to solo something like that in a Frigate? And if you aren't solo, why are you not tackling at long point range?

In general terms though, the whole point back then (and today with the two remaining 90% platforms) was that if you were alone, you kited the big blaster boat outside of web range, which was simple as they are ultimately still a slow moving Battleship hull, and if there was more than one of you in a frigate it was (and is) simple to de-fang the thing...

'Niche' PvP application

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
J3ster
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3517 - 2013-09-11 08:01:11 UTC
I can no longer sit back and not give my feedback here...

CCP i do hope you read this.

There are a lot of posts in here from pilots who cannot yet fly Marauders, and also from pilots who are solely keen on seeing marauders being twisted into some sort of PVP ultra magnus freekin deathstar.. I'm worried the posts from current day / experienced marauder pilots are being drowned out by the nonsense.

I've been a Kronos pilot for many, many years, and it is still my main ship i use for anything PVE. As its always been, the marauder class's main purpose has been for PVE.... I beg you, please do not break this in an attempt to make it something which is usable in a handful of PVP situations, while nerfing it completely for PVE use.

Removing web bonus from the Kronos:
You will find most PVE pilots dont even use webs, marauders are sniping boats (especially the kronos), 2x tracking computers with both types of scripts and decent skills can still pop incoming frigates as close as 20kms.. So loosing a web bonus doesn't bother me a great deal.

People who are saying to remove the so called useless tractor beam bonus:
Sure, we can always dock up and switch to a Noctis... but when your deep in low sec or a WH.. this is not a luxury you always have.
And now with the thrown in bonus of the MJD, the 40km range of T2 tractors really needs improving if anything- not to be removed.. Maybe give tractor range a boost whilst in bastion mode? Hell... most PVE pilots would die for a salvage access retrieval bonus over any of this other stuff.

Original +30% bastion boost vs T2 resists:
Im split 2 ways about this.. The initial +30% sounded awesome, and made me excited about bastion mode. But the T2 resists would be handy when not in bastion.

Removal of repair bonus:
Please do not do this!! This will completely defeat the purpose for the maruader being originally intended for PVE... Spare a thought for all the PVE pilots who have been flying these ships for years, and who have already put the time and effort into training the ship to use for specific purposes.

Bastion mode does sound cool, but i cant say i'm a fan of the constant MJD'ing around the place to avoid being killed because my local repper is now crap.. oh.. and then not being able to salvage anything without having to MJD all over the place again.

I hope you consider that if you break these ships for PVE, your PVE player base who have flown these for years will not be happy..
J3ster
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3518 - 2013-09-11 08:16:46 UTC
Forgot to mention the drone bay changes...

This is a big one.. seriously. For lvl 5s / incursions and fleet based PVE, its incredibly handy to carry spare drones, and or remote repair drones to heal your fleet mates if your logi gets popped or even if you don't have a logi.

Making the drone bay smaller will greatly affect the ships ability to be "Geared toward versatility and prolonged deployment in hostile environments" which is the current description.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#3519 - 2013-09-11 08:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Gabriel Karade wrote:
...Niche' PvP application

Sounds like you are unhappy with bigger blaster boats having to occupy the same niche as ditto laser boats even though you are much better off (tracking, mids, drones). Everything applies in equal measure to laser platforms, except they don't have the luxury to even try to hit the enemy as that will cap them out in short order so they get to go AFK or spam whatever channels they have with SOS's Big smile.

Readily available 90% webs were an atrocity, but they did fit nicely on the mission whoring boats. With the Marauders getting more of a PvP tint I am on the fence however, current thinking is that reduced power is appropriate until such time that links come on-grid so one does not run into 20km 90% webs at every turn since Links + Heat breaks them in spectacular fashion .. will still be so with links on-grid but at least one will know what's in store beforehandSmile

Speaking of: Why not change the Interdiction link web range bonus to a strength (5-10% at max skills) ditto? With skirmish links being restricted to Gallente/Minmatar and their recons having tackle range bonuses to start with, the 'even MOAR!' range seems a bit superfluous.
Only problems with such a change that I can see is that in the small/medium gang fights the necessity of clearing links ASAP would increase in urgency and that AHAC gangs would require a bit more skill to pull off in sticky (webs, get it?Smile) engagements.

Viability (balance wise) will of course depend entirely on what solution is chosen for link application when the time comes. If it remains fleet wide then web-strength will break the game.
J3ster
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3520 - 2013-09-11 08:49:27 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I would like to suggest one change to how Bastion Mode works that might solve a few issues and open up their use in PVE (Incursion) groups and perhaps prompt a few experiments in fleet doctrines and smaller gang PVP.

Currently Bastion Mode prevents all remote assistance.

I suggest that perhaps it should instead be "Bastion Mode prevents all remote assistance except from other ships in Bastion Mode".

Considering the wealth of utility slots a Marauder has, that opens up some interesting possibilities.


That's probably one of the better ideas so far. would make a fleet of 2 or 3 marauders a worthy addition to an incursion fleet