These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4321 - 2013-09-29 16:46:41 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Well, I agree, and disagree at the same time.

Golem has more damage application with TP bonus...
Golem can also tank more, but the sig radius kinda nullifies this a bit.

However, I'm hoping that bastion will correct the tanking capability.

Now, the RNI can output more dps, but less effectively.
That said, it's expected that the RNI should have more dps than the Golem. I think it's actually supposed to be this way.

As far as missioning though, I always preferred the SNI, as it had 8 mids, allowing for more tank than a RNI, and still easily fit TPs to have more effective dps than RNI with less to no give on tanking and mobility.

The SNI is actually the subject I use to say that the Golem needs that 8th mid..
The SNI itself should get a bit of a change to make it focus on something else.


Well, the RNI has a +25% explosion radius vs. the Golem's +25% explosion velocity, and since I have three rigging slots on the RNI I can almost match the Golem's explosion velocity bonus with a T2 flare and still have a +25% explosion radius over the Golem with T2 rigors (which I'm not necessarily convinced the Golem can actually afford to run).

The RNI isn't exactly sluggish, either - so with a Deadspace afterburner you'll easily push 500 m/s (and it has the grid for a MWD if so desired). So that frees up another mid slot right there, and of course there's the extra low slot on the RNI as well which I can use to run a fourth ballistic control, drone damage amplifier (since I can still run three sentries on the RNI) or passive signal amplifier to extend targeting range and scan resolution.

I could also mention I've got twice the power grid, 35% more capacitor and at least 50% more in base shield, armor and structure on the RNI. So while the T2 resists are (and will) be nice, the Golem will need them since it's basically going to be a stationary weapons platform.

No argument that the SNI is a beast. However, in terms of damage it still falls short (6.25%) over the RNI. And it's not just the damage - it's the effective application, and the RNI wins hands down with the +25% explosion radius bonus. The SNI is also a lot slower (100-150m/s), which kind of negates the resist bonus it receives. It also lacks the velocity bonus which relegates it to utilizing cruise missiles to get decent range. The new Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher should be interesting on the SNI.

I'm not saying the Golem sucks, just that there are far cheaper and less skill-intensive options.
(ok, maybe I am saying the Golem sucks...) Roll

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Senshi Teichou
Free Space Organization
#4322 - 2013-09-29 17:12:28 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I'm not saying the Golem sucks, just that there are far cheaper and less skill-intensive options.
(ok, maybe I am saying the Golem sucks...) Roll

this

and while we are at it: i also dont like the fact that there is no real missile using pirate ship...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4323 - 2013-09-29 17:54:30 UTC
Senshi Teichou wrote:
and while we are at it: i also dont like the fact that there is no real missile using pirate ship...


Yeah, but the Caldari do it so well... Apparently we're going to see a SoE battleship, but that will probably be lasers and drones. A Caldari-Minmatar hybrid battleship (pure missiles) would be an interesting beast, but since each of the pirate factions already has a battleship...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4324 - 2013-09-29 18:17:34 UTC
Senshi Teichou wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I'm not saying the Golem sucks, just that there are far cheaper and less skill-intensive options.
(ok, maybe I am saying the Golem sucks...) Roll

this

and while we are at it: i also dont like the fact that there is no real missile using pirate ship...



/agreed with the Golem sucking....
That's why I had traded my Golem for a Tengu back in the day.
While the Tengu used more ammo, it also had more effective dps, same tank, smaller sig, higher mobility, and more utility.

After I heard about the HML nerfs last year though, I quickly sold the tengu and invested in a Nightmare.
I love the Nightmare, However, I really REALLY want to be able to use a Golem effectively.

If they gave bastion the resist bonus it had in iteration 1, then using a damage control wouldn't be that important by any means.
I mean, I don't use one on my shield boats anyway....
So, i'm fine with 4 lows on the Golem.
However, with 2 target painters, 1 prop mod, 1 cap booster, that leaves 3 tanking mods.
I prefer to use 4 slots for tank, and since the Golem basically needs 2 tps, and will be bonused for a prop mod, I think they should give us that 8th mid for the prop mod.

With the introduction of the tractor structure, there's no point in tractors on the Golem, thus we can knock it down to 7 highs to transfer that 8th mid...

I really want them to come back with iteration 1.


Leave the hull like it is on live, then add iteration 1 bastion,add a little sensor strength, drop 8th high and add 8th mid, and make bastion immune to cap war, and boom..
You have a ship with 4 different possibilities.
Mobile brawler, mobile sniper, bastion brawler, and bastion sniper.

Leave the utility bonuses and higher damage to pirate ships, and give marauders better tank and application/range.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4325 - 2013-09-29 18:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Senshi Teichou wrote:
and while we are at it: i also dont like the fact that there is no real missile using pirate ship...


Yeah, but the Caldari do it so well... Apparently we're going to see a SoE battleship, but that will probably be lasers and drones. A Caldari-Minmatar hybrid battleship (pure missiles) would be an interesting beast, but since each of the pirate factions already has a battleship...



No.. what is missing from the game would actually be a missile and armor hull.

Caldari and minmatar are both shield and both have missile focused ships.

Armor and missiles would seem to make a good torp fit...
I just can't think of a good bonus for it... ECM?
Perhaps just give it really good mobility, mwd bonus, and warp disruptor range and/or point bonus?


Edit...

give it good mobility with mwd cap usage bonus, then give it a range bonus to warp scrams.
Seems like a good fit that would be designed to get to like 24km, warp scram to shut off mwd, and then pound...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4326 - 2013-09-29 18:36:48 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
No.. what is missing from the game would actually be a missile and armor hull.

Caldari and minmatar are both shield and both have missile focused ships.

Armor and missiles would seem to make a good torp fit...
I just can't think of a good bonus for it... ECM?
Perhaps just give it really good mobility, mwd bonus, and warp disruptor range and/or point bonus?

Edit...

give it good mobility with mwd cap usage bonus, then give it a range bonus to warp scrams.
Seems like a good fit that would be designed to get to like 24km, warp scram to shut off mwd, and then pound...

Yes, but I believe all the other faction combinations have been done, have they not? You have Nightmare (Caldari-Amarr) and Rattlesnake (Caldari-Gallente). Why can't it be an armor hull though?

Special Ability: 25% bonus to Large Missile rate of fire
Caldari Battleship Bonus: 5% bonus to Explosion Radius per level
Minmatar Battleship Bonus: 5% bonus to Explosion Velocity per level

Give it 19 slots: 6 high (6 turrets), 5 medium and 8 low (3 rigs, 350 calibration)

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Nemo deBlanc
Resource Acquisition Unlimited
#4327 - 2013-09-29 20:11:28 UTC
Just commenting to add my voice to the others in this thread condemning the proposed changes; particularly those headed to the Golem.

There's a lot of different issues, but one of the most glaring is the web bonus. It just reeks of laziness since it's in direct competition with target painters and tank for slots and is seeminly only there because it's what you gave the others and you think it may have some sort of PvP value. All the bonuses to damage application seem unnecassary when torps are in their current useless state, but perhaps if you buffed torps like you did cruise I could see the Golem being useful. Until then it's just completely useless and massively outclassed by the Paladin/Vargur.

On the subject of PvP viability, what is your vision for these ships? In the current iteration they're far too squishy for fleet warfare, too expensive/immobile for low sec gang work (post insurance these are on the level of a capital loss if not worse), bad for WH work due to their large mass/sig radius and dread blapping, and just all around a worse PvP choice than a pirate battleship. I'm trying really hard to envision a scenario where I'd use one of these for PvP and I honestly can't think of a single one.

Somebody enlighten me please.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4328 - 2013-09-29 20:18:20 UTC
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
Just commenting to add my voice to the others in this thread condemning the proposed changes; particularly those headed to the Golem.

There's a lot of different issues, but one of the most glaring is the web bonus. It just reeks of laziness since it's in direct competition with target painters and tank for slots and is seeminly only there because it's what you gave the others and you think it may have some sort of PvP value. All the bonuses to damage application seem unnecassary when torps are in their current useless state, but perhaps if you buffed torps like you did cruise I could see the Golem being useful. Until then it's just completely useless and massively outclassed by the Paladin/Vargur.

On the subject of PvP viability, what is your vision for these ships? In the current iteration they're far too squishy for fleet warfare, too expensive/immobile for low sec gang work (post insurance these are on the level of a capital loss if not worse), bad for WH work due to their large mass/sig radius and dread blapping, and just all around a worse PvP choice than a pirate battleship. I'm trying really hard to envision a scenario where I'd use one of these for PvP and I honestly can't think of a single one.

Somebody enlighten me please.



High sec POS bashing while bastioned at range is about the only effective pvp centric use they'll have with the current itteration.
However, look up the comments a short way and see what you think about my proposal...
Too lazy to link right now...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4329 - 2013-09-29 20:26:20 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
High sec POS bashing while bastioned at range is about the only effective pvp centric use they'll have with the current itteration.

Well, I guess that's the only redeeming quality of Bastion at this point.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4330 - 2013-09-29 21:59:02 UTC
I still think you need something of value to balance the bastion module against or else you either wind up with a poorly constructed hull that must have the bastion module fitted to be viable or you the hull is good and the bastion module is worthless in most situations because it would make the hull over powered. I think we're in the former situation with the current iteration because the hull by itself is less effective than it's T1, faction, and pirate equivalents. You have to fit a bastion module to even recover some of what was taken away from the TQ version of Marauders.

What I mean by value is that currently, the bastion module occupies a UTILITY high slot. Since the hull has 4 of these, you have to balance the bonuses provided by the bastion module against what ever you could fit in the 4th utility slot. The value algebra looks something like this currently:

hull bonuses - hull weaknesses + 4th utility slot capabilities ~= hull bonuses - hull weaknesses + bastion module bonuses - bastion module drawbacks

I think the developers realize that a 4th utility slot isn't worth that much in most situations so they added additional weaknesses to the hull and threw in several significant drawbacks to the bastion module. This pretty much requires the bastion module to be fit because it is trying to fix the inbuilt weaknesses of the hull.

Some pages back I suggested changing the balancing equation to be more equitable. The idea is to balance the power of the bastion module against a trade off of bonuses instead of negating inbuilt weaknesses. As part of that I suggested making the bastion module occupy a turret/launcher slot and adding a turret/launcher hard point with the new 8th high slot.

To make sure a 5 turret/launcher setup didn't simply eclipse the T1, faction, and pirate battleship lines I suggested lowering the role bonus from 100% weapon damage to 70% weapon damage. What you end up with is a ~9% increase in hull DPS potential over the current TQ Marauders (in line or below the pirate DPS potential) if you fit all 5 weapons. However, you now get to balance the power of the bastion module against 20% of the hulls maximum DPS potential; allowing the bastion module to be much more powerful than it is today. Here's what the new value equation looks like:

100% DPS potential ~= 80% DPS potential + bastion module bonuses - bastion module drawbacks

One example bastion module designed for sniper fits could ensure that at any extended range the pilot would be able to use ammunition 2 grades higher than they normally would. For example extending optimal and falloff so you could use multifrequency instead of Ultraviolet or Standard. This would pretty much recover the loss of the base 20% DPS. Then you would add additional bonuses that support the sniper role further. That would be a trade off worth having. If you're going to deploy in the sniper role, you would fit that bastion module as you would have equal effective DPS as a 5 turret/launcher fit but be better at the sniping role.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4331 - 2013-09-29 21:59:37 UTC
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
Just commenting to add my voice to the others in this thread condemning the proposed changes; particularly those headed to the Golem.

There's a lot of different issues, but one of the most glaring is the web bonus. It just reeks of laziness since it's in direct competition with target painters and tank for slots and is seeminly only there because it's what you gave the others and you think it may have some sort of PvP value. All the bonuses to damage application seem unnecassary when torps are in their current useless state, but perhaps if you buffed torps like you did cruise I could see the Golem being useful. Until then it's just completely useless and massively outclassed by the Paladin/Vargur.

On the subject of PvP viability, what is your vision for these ships? In the current iteration they're far too squishy for fleet warfare, too expensive/immobile for low sec gang work (post insurance these are on the level of a capital loss if not worse), bad for WH work due to their large mass/sig radius and dread blapping, and just all around a worse PvP choice than a pirate battleship. I'm trying really hard to envision a scenario where I'd use one of these for PvP and I honestly can't think of a single one.

Somebody enlighten me please.


Exactly. It's not that their bad, it's just for anything they can do, some other ship can do better (and cheaper). From my PvE perspective only the ewar immunity is unique. And I just can see a scenario where I would use this ship in PvP.

As for hulls:

1) Kronos - probably only one ok (but a PvE blaster boat...) - it will be the only one viable in PvP.
2) Golem - TP/web bonus is just silly...
3) Paladin - needs resist altered and a 3rd useful bonus (instead web or capacitor - tracking is logical choice comparing to vargur and kronos).
4) Vargur - needs its resisted altered, web is kinda meh since its a shield ship.

Really do all those ships need web? Except Kronos maybe (outside bastion)?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4332 - 2013-09-29 22:20:47 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
Just commenting to add my voice to the others in this thread condemning the proposed changes; particularly those headed to the Golem.

There's a lot of different issues, but one of the most glaring is the web bonus. It just reeks of laziness since it's in direct competition with target painters and tank for slots and is seeminly only there because it's what you gave the others and you think it may have some sort of PvP value. All the bonuses to damage application seem unnecassary when torps are in their current useless state, but perhaps if you buffed torps like you did cruise I could see the Golem being useful. Until then it's just completely useless and massively outclassed by the Paladin/Vargur.

On the subject of PvP viability, what is your vision for these ships? In the current iteration they're far too squishy for fleet warfare, too expensive/immobile for low sec gang work (post insurance these are on the level of a capital loss if not worse), bad for WH work due to their large mass/sig radius and dread blapping, and just all around a worse PvP choice than a pirate battleship. I'm trying really hard to envision a scenario where I'd use one of these for PvP and I honestly can't think of a single one.

Somebody enlighten me please.


Exactly. It's not that their bad, it's just for anything they can do, some other ship can do better (and cheaper). From my PvE perspective only the ewar immunity is unique. And I just can see a scenario where I would use this ship in PvP.

As for hulls:

1) Kronos - probably only one ok (but a PvE blaster boat...) - it will be the only one viable in PvP.
2) Golem - TP/web bonus is just silly...
3) Paladin - needs resist altered and a 3rd useful bonus (instead web or capacitor - tracking is logical choice comparing to vargur and kronos).
4) Vargur - needs its resisted altered, web is kinda meh since its a shield ship.

Really do all those ships need web? Except Kronos maybe (outside bastion)?


Ya know... reguardless of all the ideas thrown out......... I'm just annoyed right now...
i would really like CCP to hop in and at least give us a general outline on what they're planning.
They don't need to give us numbers, just a simple "hey, this is what we're thinking"

It would really help to calm my nerves..
I would very much like to be able to use a Golem to run missions... I've had one before and it kinda sucked, but that's beside my point.

I'm just annoyed cause it feels they're just trying to keep it hush hush so they can do what they want and not have another 200+ pages of player QQ....


That said, this is the one time that I feel CCP should stop listening to players and just do what they want.
I mean, iteration 1 was a lot more functional than iteration two, but it was by no means perfect...
Give us a new setup, and leave it at that until it's been tested.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4333 - 2013-09-29 22:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
I still think you need something of value to balance the bastion module against or else you either wind up with a poorly constructed hull that must have the bastion module fitted to be viable or you the hull is good and the bastion module is worthless in most situations because it would make the hull over powered. I think we're in the former situation with the current iteration because the hull by itself is less effective than it's T1, faction, and pirate equivalents. You have to fit a bastion module to even recover some of what was taken away from the TQ version of Marauders.



thinking another part of the problem also is ccp confusing a ship's role with its function within that role.

most t2 ships can perform several roles but have a specialty in performing one function within their role.

as an example: a heavy interdictor is a type of brawler with the specialized function of tackling EWAR immune ships

a curse is a skirmisher that focuses on the functions of energy warfare and tracking disruption.

a marauder now is a broad spectrum ship, it specialises in performing many roles and can do so due to its damage projection, repair bonus and utility high slots, but at the cost of poor targeting and lower fitting totals and lower EHP compared to the t1 counter parts.

making the marauders very dependent on spartan like teams to function in PVP, teams where each ship in some way bolsters weak points of the others. (revolving around the marauder core - seen in HUN's demonstration during the tourney last year)

what it really needs isn't so much a rebalance as a reinforcement - it already does something well it just needs to be brought in line in such a way that it surpasses t1 hulls.

you could almost fix the marauders simply by giving them the same kind of base HP as the t1 battleship counterparts, and reducing the ECM weakness slightly.

if you do this they're better at brawling than t1 hulls due to cap warfare, could run remote repair doctrines, or could snipe

their lower speed still excludes them from most kite or skirmish warfare but the damage projection means they can pose a challenge to those too.

they still would not beat any one ship in terms of raw damage or cost effectiveness - but they would provide something that the typhoon used to, and that is a ship that can pull pandora's box on you if it needed to - by being able to swap quickly between different styles based on situation.

the only reason i suggest this kind of specialization (in being versatile team dependent hulls) is because of the prior point of having so few battleship hulls on the t2 level that can bridge into specific doctrines, the marauders and blops aren't like frigs and cruisers
that quite literally have one hull capable of performing 2 or more roles per and a specific function inside that role,

they have two ships between 5 roles, the blops gets the specialized function of the jump drive (mobility) and between the races has specific functions within most doctrines, because they can move so well blops oppose marauders by being far more independent hulls - they can dictate the terms of a fight that the marauders cannot.

panthers kite, redeemers tank, widows have ECM and the SIn is just useless and forever will be ;)

- the marauders get a mix of different tactics that depend on working with other ships to fully utilize, which is great but for it to be worth doing it needs to be easier to support these ships in combat, they lack mobility and so need staying power.

for now, just buff their ehp and sensors, then after you've added more t2 battleships you can set to work on giving them function specializations that match those seen in cruiser sized hulls - stop trying to balance these ships using the same rule set the cruisers used - they aren't cruisers and their circumstances are very very different.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4334 - 2013-09-29 22:40:43 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
thinking another part of the problem also is ccp confusing a ship's role with its function within that role.

most t2 ships can perform several roles but have a specialty in performing one function within their role.

as an example: a heavy interdictor is a type of brawler with the specialized function of tackling EWAR immune ships

a curse is a skirmisher that focuses on the functions of energy warfare and tracking disruption.

a marauder now is a broad spectrum ship, it specialises in performing many roles and can do so due to its damage projection and utility high slots, but at the cost of poor targeting and lower fitting and EHP.

what it really needs isn't so much a rebalance as a reinforcement - it already does something well it just needs to be brought in line in such a way that it surpasses t1 hulls.

you could almost fix the marauders simply by giving them the same kind of base HP as the t1 battleship counterparts, and reducing the ECM weakness slightly.

if you do this they're better at brawling than t1 hulls due to cap warfare, could run remote repair doctrines, or could snipe

their lower speed still excludes them from most kite or skirmish warfare but the damage projection means they can pose a challenge to those too.

they still would not beat any one ship in terms of raw damage or cost effectiveness - but they would provide something that the typhoon used to, and that is a ship that can pull pandora's box on you if it needed to - by being able to swap quickly between different styles based on situation.

the only reason i suggest this kind of specialization (in being versatile team dependent hulls) is because of the prior point of having so few battleship hulls on the t2 level that can bridge into specific doctrines, the marauders and blops aren't like frigs and cruisers
that quite literally have one hull capable of performing 2 or more roles per and a specific function inside that role,

they have two ships between 5 roles, the blops gets the specialized function of the jump drive (mobility) and between the races has specific functions within most doctrines

panthers kite, redeemers tank, widows have ECM and the SIn is just useless and forever will be ;)

- the marauders get a mix of different tactics that depend on working with other ships to fully utilize, which is great but for it to be worth doing it needs to be easier to support these ships in combat, they lack mobility and so need staying power.

for now, just buff their ehp and sensors, then after you've added more t2 battleships you can set to work on giving them function specializations that match those seen in cruiser sized hulls - stop trying to balance these ships using the same rule set the cruisers used - they aren't cruisers and their circumstances are very very different.

I agree with you there. The best approach would be to expand the line of T2 battleships to provide a framework for roles and usage scenarios. The problem with that is it's not going to happen for the winter expansion and they seem set on making much larger scale changes to the Marauder class. A sensor and EHP boost while leaving the hull alone would be acceptable to me, but there would still be some issues with the underpowered racial hulls within the class. The Golem is pretty much strictly worse than the Navy hulls. The RNI and SNI separate nicely into the gank-or-die and flying-brick roles respectively and are very effective hulls with coherent bonuses and capabilities. I prefer the SNI for missions personally as I tend to pop triggers at inappropriate times

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4335 - 2013-09-29 22:43:26 UTC
To summarize:
T2 resists +1 ... Animation +1 ... MJD +1
Revised stats ±0
Slot layout -1 ... Bastion functionality -2 ... Loss of role bonuses -2
Marauder bonuses -5
.....

Slot layout: Swap the high out for a mid, and give all an extra low.
Roll bonus: 100% damage, 70% MJD reactivation, 37.5% shield boost/armor repair
Marauder bonus:
Paladin: 5% large energy damage, 7.5% tracking speed
Golem: 5% missile damage, 5% explosion radius
Kronos: 5% hybrid damage, 7.5% tracking speed
Vargur: 5% projectile damage, 7.5% tracking speed


Bastion: Something cool. How about a 10% rate of fire per Marauder level?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Jaz Antollare
UrAnus Probing Squad
#4336 - 2013-09-29 22:45:49 UTC
1)Im for 200% to tractors, cuz its kinda cooler
2)More sensor strength, srsly about 13 points, wtf is that for a battle ship?! A ****** t1 BS has about 20 points, its just illogical and unrealistic.
3) Give those damn boats a 5th weapon slot, cuz you know, its cool and its an t2 Battleship!!
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4337 - 2013-09-29 22:47:13 UTC
You know, I could live with the 2nd iteration Golem if they just changed the damned color...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

NiteNinja
Doomheim
#4338 - 2013-09-29 22:48:46 UTC
Eh I've slowly warmed up to the whole idea...

Really, for me, living in a Golem, all I really ask for now, is to swap out that useless web bonus for something more useful, like some sort of damage bonus, I don't care if its 5% kinetic damage per level, just something.

Other than that, I'll take what we got on the platter now and make use of it. Just because it gets a MJD bonus, doesn't mean I gotta use it.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4339 - 2013-09-29 22:58:10 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
The Golem is pretty much strictly worse than the Navy hulls. The RNI and SNI separate nicely into the gank-or-die and flying-brick roles respectively and are very effective hulls with coherent bonuses and capabilities. I prefer the SNI for missions personally as I tend to pop triggers at inappropriate times


the golem is difficult, as the primary difference the marauders have over the t1 hulls is sheer damage application - they are quite literally nothing but pure guns with a bit of resilience through repair amount, the golem doesn't track the same way the other three do and so it loses out a bit on this front.

the kind of difference between say the machariel fleet pest and vargur is that

the fleet pest gets good damage at close ish range and good energy warfare

the machariel gets the same range as the vargur but much worse tracking and utility (vargur can hit MWD frigs at 12 km with a few scripted tracking comps :3 )

the fleet phoon's more in line with the panther than the vargur so the two don't really compete much,

the vargur can make use of most of these same situations, and then add a little bit more - excepting energy warfare due to power grid issues, and the use of 1400's for the same reason.


the remaining two don't have the same PG issue, such that in a straight up fight a kronos would almost always out last a vindicator or navy meg just on heavy nuets and cargo space, and a paladin would sit around laughing at a Napoc or nightmare - though the nightmare puts up the best fight of all of them short of perhaps a bhaalghorn.

(the lower ehp is what hurts them most in this kind of contest - so to afford them the extra defense means to afford them a place above the competitors)

the golem tries to do the same as those three, but loses out to the weapon system a bit too much - torpedoes in particular need better range and application in order to work as well with energy warfare doctrines the others can use. (ever seen an SNI try to tank without capacitor? i mean they can but it's not nice to look at)

i'm probably overlooking something, as this is a quick 5 minute analysis of what most of these hulls compete with, but it's the general view of it.
Sean Apollo
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#4340 - 2013-09-30 00:57:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Sean Apollo
It looks very interesting. But Me personally I have always wanted to see Marauders buffed or Faction BS's nerfed as I don't think that there should be the question of "Is a Faction BS better than a marauder?"

Everyone has a different opinion about it and I don't think it should be that way. The Marauders take a lot longer to train for than a Faction BS. I think there needs to be just a general bonus to make marauders worth going for and make it just plain out better than a Faction BS.

How much better? I can not say. But just how close the two are in dps/tank seems a little silly to me as one is a t2 variant and the other faction.

The new Bastion module is not what i wanted to see done to the Marauders. I don't think changing its purpose is a good idea either.

As far as pvp and the new Bastion module I don't see really any scenario of that working well or better than just giving the Marauders better tank to work with.

Most people hate me...