These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5881 - 2013-10-16 16:50:16 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Also Ytterbium
-have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???


Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post Smile.

Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:


  • TP bonus:
    • + More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots.
    + Target painting affects a whole group of players
    - Require med slots in the first place

  • Explosion radius bonus:
    • + Doesn't require med slot in the first place
    + Always applied as long as you shoot
    - Static, cannot be influenced by itself
    - Doesn't affect other players


So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well.
Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the TP bonus for one that buffs the ship innately. Think about it: if a Golem is fighting a ship that is EWAR immune (I dunno, maybe from a Bastion Module ^.- ), then it totally loses out on this bonus (as well as a wasted midslot). Second, and I think it's a pretty salient point here, is that you guys are effectively removing a midslot on these Marauders by buffing MJD use on them so much. It's nice that the Golem gets a bonus to ewar; it just doesn't fit well, though, with the "new" Marauder (plus, it steps on Minmatari racial ewar preference).

That being said, even if you guys were to remove the TP bonus on the Golem, PLEASE keep the TP change of lower cycle time!!


I don't believe ships are immune to TP with ewar immunity..


they are, I engaged a paladin in the golem and my tp cycle shut of when he bastioned
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#5882 - 2013-10-16 16:53:32 UTC
TheFace Asano wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Also Ytterbium
-have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???


Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post Smile.

Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:


  • TP bonus:
    • + More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots.
    + Target painting affects a whole group of players
    - Require med slots in the first place

  • Explosion radius bonus:
    • + Doesn't require med slot in the first place
    + Always applied as long as you shoot
    - Static, cannot be influenced by itself
    - Doesn't affect other players


So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well.
Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the TP bonus for one that buffs the ship innately. Think about it: if a Golem is fighting a ship that is EWAR immune (I dunno, maybe from a Bastion Module ^.- ), then it totally loses out on this bonus (as well as a wasted midslot). Second, and I think it's a pretty salient point here, is that you guys are effectively removing a midslot on these Marauders by buffing MJD use on them so much. It's nice that the Golem gets a bonus to ewar; it just doesn't fit well, though, with the "new" Marauder (plus, it steps on Minmatari racial ewar preference).

That being said, even if you guys were to remove the TP bonus on the Golem, PLEASE keep the TP change of lower cycle time!!


I don't believe ships are immune to TP with ewar immunity..


they are, I engaged a paladin in the golem and my tp cycle shut of when he bastioned


that's a big disadvantage over having it as a built in bonus

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc
#5883 - 2013-10-16 16:54:52 UTC
You're getting there CCP. Now just look at maruaders on tranquility and realize that they are fine and nobody is complaining about their performance. Big smile
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd
#5884 - 2013-10-16 16:55:16 UTC
gascanu wrote:
Siddicus wrote:
gascanu wrote:
Quote:
CCP Ytterbium





  • There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support.



    • Hope that helps, I will post the changes in the original thread Blink.


    why, o why, so much hate against our friends, logistic pilots?! What?



    Because when it comes to logistics, there are only two states of being for incursions as far as I have seen:

    1) Not enough logistics, fleet waits for more.
    2) Too many logistics, people sitting around doing nothing.


    3) Ppl can fly both dps and logi so they can change ships when or what they need


    Can and do are two very very different things. Yes some do, but the vast majority don't.
    gascanu
    Bearing Srl.
    #5885 - 2013-10-16 16:55:19 UTC
    Quote:
    CCP Ytterbium


    Why would I want to use Marauders in Incursions now that the web bonus is gone?

  • There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Bottom line is, we are not willing to leave a web bonus on Marauders to cater to ultra-specialized Incursion fittings when that conflicts with our design goals and their role as a whole. Especially when alternative tactics exist that make them still very effective in Incursion

    • also: did your internal play test have shown how ******** easy is to gank one of those "kiting trough the MJD" marauders?
    i gues you didn't really have gankers on your "internal paly test" eh?
    Joe Risalo
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #5886 - 2013-10-16 16:59:50 UTC
    TheFace Asano wrote:
    Joe Risalo wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Also Ytterbium
    -have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???


    Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post Smile.

    Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:


    • TP bonus:
      • + More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots.
      + Target painting affects a whole group of players
      - Require med slots in the first place

    • Explosion radius bonus:
      • + Doesn't require med slot in the first place
      + Always applied as long as you shoot
      - Static, cannot be influenced by itself
      - Doesn't affect other players


    So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well.
    Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the TP bonus for one that buffs the ship innately. Think about it: if a Golem is fighting a ship that is EWAR immune (I dunno, maybe from a Bastion Module ^.- ), then it totally loses out on this bonus (as well as a wasted midslot). Second, and I think it's a pretty salient point here, is that you guys are effectively removing a midslot on these Marauders by buffing MJD use on them so much. It's nice that the Golem gets a bonus to ewar; it just doesn't fit well, though, with the "new" Marauder (plus, it steps on Minmatari racial ewar preference).

    That being said, even if you guys were to remove the TP bonus on the Golem, PLEASE keep the TP change of lower cycle time!!


    I don't believe ships are immune to TP with ewar immunity..


    they are, I engaged a paladin in the golem and my tp cycle shut of when he bastioned


    At least Marauders are large enough targets for missiles to be pretty effective against..

    Not to mention they're immobile
    Serge SC
    The Valhalla Project
    #5887 - 2013-10-16 17:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Serge SC
    Joe Risalo wrote:


    At least Marauders are large enough targets for missiles to be pretty effective against..

    Not to mention they're immobile


    Aside from the immobility, their signature has been greatly reduced, that's a HUGE advantage. The main problem with a Paladin in incursions was that ungodly signature, and the Golem was right behind, even worse with shield penalties.

    EDIT: Wording/idea wasn't well expressed

    Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC
    scimichar
    Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
    #5888 - 2013-10-16 17:05:48 UTC
    When is the Golem getting a RHML bonus?
    Tramar
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #5889 - 2013-10-16 17:07:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tramar
    gascanu wrote:
    Quote:
    CCP Ytterbium


    Why would I want to use Marauders in Incursions now that the web bonus is gone?

  • There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Bottom line is, we are not willing to leave a web bonus on Marauders to cater to ultra-specialized Incursion fittings when that conflicts with our design goals and their role as a whole. Especially when alternative tactics exist that make them still very effective in Incursion

    • also: did your internal play test have shown how ******** easy is to gank one of those "kiting trough the MJD" marauders?
    i gues you didn't really have gankers on your "internal paly test" eh?

    They didn't, with bastion it becomes the most easy to gank ship to find in anomalies, unless the EW immunity lasts some seconds after the bastion is shut down, but even that won't save it from a proper gank, 100km is very easy to cover with a fast ship before the maradeur manages to warp away.
    The Djego
    Hellequin Inc.
    #5890 - 2013-10-16 17:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
    Serge SC wrote:


    As for incursions, the new 8 high-slot marauder can prove to be an interesting ship. Spider tanking, and forgo Bastion all together. Haven't tested it out, as there's not enough people willing to go into sisi and have marauders skills yet (knock knock, can we do something about it?).


    RR on shield marauders is meh, because of the high CPU requirements of shield transfers(it gimps your fitting), it only really works on armor marauders(this is not sissi testing, but tested in a full marauder setup that rolls live on TQ).

    Btw, you just need to join the moveme channel and type in "bastion", it gives you marauders 5 and the skills for bastion.

    Serge SC wrote:
    The main problem with a Paladin in incursions was that ungodly signature, and the Golem was right behind, even worse with shield penalties.


    The main problem of the paladin is the low lock speed in contests, however without the web bonus it makes it a lot worse for grind.

    Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #5891 - 2013-10-16 17:15:28 UTC
    Serge SC wrote:
    Joe Risalo wrote:


    At least Marauders are large enough targets for missiles to be pretty effective against..

    Not to mention they're immobile


    Aside from the immobility, their signature has been greatly reduced, that's a HUGE advantage. The main problem with a Paladin in incursions was that ungodly signature, and the Golem was right behind, even worse with shield penalties.

    EDIT: Wording/idea wasn't well expressed



    Still large enough to take more damage than normal T1 battleships.



    BTw I am selling my 2 vargurs, 1 paladin and 1 kronso. Now that ccp is throwing them into the garbage can of ships with this useles over tank but no offensive advantage mode.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Dinsdale Pirannha
    Pirannha Corp
    #5892 - 2013-10-16 17:17:04 UTC
    The Djego wrote:
    Serge SC wrote:


    As for incursions, the new 8 high-slot marauder can prove to be an interesting ship. Spider tanking, and forgo Bastion all together. Haven't tested it out, as there's not enough people willing to go into sisi and have marauders skills yet (knock knock, can we do something about it?).


    RR on shield marauders is meh, because of the high CPU requirements of shield transfers(it gimps your fitting), it only really works on armor marauders(this is not sissi testing, but tested in a full marauder setup that rolls live on TQ).

    Btw, you just need to join the moveme channel and type in "bastion", it gives you marauders 5 and the skills for bastion.


    Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test.
    I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.
    I would love to get 10 Paladin pilots on grid, with a Eos off grid, and fraps the whole thing, and load on You Tube.

    But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess.
    Serge SC
    The Valhalla Project
    #5893 - 2013-10-16 17:29:04 UTC
    The Djego wrote:


    RR on shield marauders is meh, because of the high CPU requirements of shield transfers(it gimps your fitting), it only really works on armor marauders(this is not sissi testing, but tested in a full marauder setup that rolls live on TQ).

    Btw, you just need to join the moveme channel and type in "bastion", it gives you marauders 5 and the skills for bastion.

    The main problem of the paladin is the low lock speed in contests, however without the web bonus it makes it a lot worse for grind.

    Hmm I was pretty sure it only gave bastion related skills...uuhh good to know it gives the full set of skills!

    Well, the lock speed has been fixed, somewhat.

    Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #5894 - 2013-10-16 17:34:24 UTC
    Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

    Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test.
    I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.




    No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships.
    Caleb Seremshur
    Commando Guri
    Guristas Pirates
    #5895 - 2013-10-16 17:36:43 UTC
    should have just given them bomb launchers
    Tramar
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #5896 - 2013-10-16 17:40:04 UTC
    baltec1 wrote:
    Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

    Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test.
    I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.




    No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships.

    Ugh making maradeurs still useless exept for some situational pvp and even more for null/low pve isn't that much of a change.
    Iris Bravemount
    Golden Grinding Gears
    #5897 - 2013-10-16 17:45:15 UTC
    I really dislike the 5% cap capacity bonus per level on the Paladin.

    Why? because it's just a hidden way of saying that the hull has 25% more cap than the base (amarr BS V is required to fly the ship) and it only gets 3 actual bonuses.

    Please add 25% to the base cap and give the hull an actual bonus. Something Amarrian, like armor resistances or laser tracking, hell even a NOS bonus would be fair game. Just don't fall back into old habits. Remember when almost all amarr ships had that cap usage bonus for lasers, and you replaced it by reducing the cap usage of lasers and giving them actual bonuses? That's the same issue here.

    "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
    Arthur Aihaken
    CODE.d
    #5898 - 2013-10-16 17:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
    Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
    But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess.

    The reality is that with the third iteration, Marauders are finally the ships the majority of us have been hoping for. I'm not sure if you've been following this from the beginning, but the latest revisions are light years from the original two proposals.

    baltec1 wrote:
    No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships.

    Yeah, I have to concur. These haven't changed so radically that they'll be drastically different from the current Marauders for PvE. If anything, they should be better for PvE.

    I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
    Arthur Aihaken
    CODE.d
    #5899 - 2013-10-16 17:48:25 UTC
    Caleb Seremshur wrote:
    should have just given them bomb launchers

    What for?

    I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
    Caleb Seremshur
    Commando Guri
    Guristas Pirates
    #5900 - 2013-10-16 17:56:27 UTC
    Arthur Aihaken wrote:
    Caleb Seremshur wrote:
    should have just given them bomb launchers

    What for?


    to bluntly force their design towards pvp. or static siegea. or capital warfare. or logi obliterating.

    instead we get... this other thing...

    give them bombs and the ability to lock on to cynos or give me my sp back