These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tilly Delnero
Doomheim
#6541 - 2013-10-22 14:26:18 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Aren't you about 100 pages late?

That was iteration two which has then bee reverted to iteration one which has been further altered to iteration three.

You have a point. Hmm, seems I've been successfully trolled by someone in-game yet again. Maybe next time I'll double-check the page number and only post after having a full nights sleep... Lol
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#6542 - 2013-10-22 15:27:14 UTC
Silly Tilly
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6543 - 2013-10-22 16:23:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Personally, slowing the Marauders down, giving them a MJD bonus and then bringing it to a dead stop with Bastion all seem to be a bit at odds with each other. To me "Marauder" doesn't imply plodding along - it suggests fast hit and runs.

• Increase the speed (not necessarily "Mach" fast, but faster than each Faction equivalent by 5-10 m/s)
• Retain the MJD feature/bonuses and give them full T2 resists already
• Turn Bastion into a performance-based module with the following bonuses (per) Marauder level: +10% sensor strength, +10% scan resolution, +10% cooling and +5% to shield/armor/hull resistances

By tying Bastion into the Marauder skill, it actually justifies training it and rewards those players who already made the commitment. With the higher T2 resists and no longer being stationary, Bastion bonuses have been adjusted down, removed or replaced entirely. Because Bastion still runs in 60-second increments, effectively managing the overheating and cooling aspects of Marauders will prove to be a challenging skill to master. However, it does offer some interesting scenarios:

• Engaging Bastion to allow for an attempted escape (overheating a MWD to get clear to initiate a MJD)
• Engaging Bastion to allow for short-range offense (overheating webs, scrams and weapons, increasing sensor strength and providing increased defense against EW)
• Engaging Bastion to allow for rapid engagements (overheating an afterburner or MWD to close range to targets)
• Engaging Bastion as a limited tank (base resistance increase; overheating active resistance and increasing the boost/repair rate while reducing cycle times)

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
zentary
Tactical Grace.
Vanguard.
#6544 - 2013-10-22 16:39:26 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Personally, slowing the Marauders down, giving them a MJD bonus and then bringing it to a dead stop with Bastion all seem to be a bit at odds with each other. To me "Marauder" doesn't imply plodding along - it suggests fast hit and runs.

• Increase the speed (not necessarily "Mach" fast, but faster than each Faction equivalent by 5-10 m/s)
• Retain the MJD feature/bonuses and give them full T2 resists already
• Turn Bastion into a performance-based module with the following bonuses (per) Marauder level: +10% sensor strength, +10% scan resolution, +10% cooling and +5% to shield/armor/hull resistances

By tying Bastion into the Marauder skill, it actually justifies training it and rewards those players who already made the commitment. With the higher T2 resists and no longer being stationary, Bastion bonuses have been adjusted down, removed or replaced entirely. Because Bastion still runs in 60-second increments, effectively managing the overheating and cooling aspects of Marauders will prove to be a challenging skill to master. However, it does offer some interesting scenarios:

• Engaging Bastion to allow for an attempted escape (overheating a MWD to get clear to initiate a MJD)
• Engaging Bastion to allow for short-range offense (overheating webs, scrams and weapons, increasing sensor strength and providing increased defense against EW)
• Engaging Bastion to allow for rapid engagements (overheating an afterburner or MWD to close range to targets)
• Engaging Bastion as a limited tank (base resistance increase; overheating active resistance and increasing the boost/repair rate while reducing cycle times)


I do agree with you on the class marauders and what they should be. However, look at their names paladin and golem just don't depict a fast attacker. Those titles depict a ship which is both a heavy hitter and one who can take heavy blows which also equates to being rather slow. That and they were never meant to be pvp ships
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#6545 - 2013-10-22 16:47:54 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

• Increase the speed (not necessarily "Mach" fast, but faster than each Faction equivalent by 5-10 m/s)
• Retain the MJD feature/bonuses and give them full T2 resists already
• Turn Bastion into a performance-based module with the following bonuses (per) Marauder level: +10% sensor strength, +10% scan resolution, +10% cooling and +5% to shield/armor/hull resistances

By tying Bastion into the Marauder skill, it actually justifies training it and rewards those players who already made the commitment. With the higher T2 resists and no longer being stationary, Bastion bonuses have been adjusted down, removed or replaced entirely. Because Bastion still runs in 60-second increments, effectively managing the overheating and cooling aspects of Marauders will prove to be a challenging skill to master. However, it does offer some interesting scenarios:

• Engaging Bastion to allow for an attempted escape (overheating a MWD to get clear to initiate a MJD)
• Engaging Bastion to allow for short-range offense (overheating webs, scrams and weapons, increasing sensor strength and providing increased defense against EW)
• Engaging Bastion to allow for rapid engagements (overheating an afterburner or MWD to close range to targets)
• Engaging Bastion as a limited tank (base resistance increase; overheating active resistance and increasing the boost/repair rate while reducing cycle times)


You just invalidated every other BS.
zentary
Tactical Grace.
Vanguard.
#6546 - 2013-10-22 17:04:43 UTC
ok ccp wtf kinda logic is this....

Why keeping the damage projection in Bastion stacking penalized?

We want to keep the projection in check. A Paladin with Scorch can already reach insane ranges (to the point where Beams are quite redundant on it), so we are not willing to remove the stacking penalty for now. Or at least not until we are seeing some hard use numbers on TQ first.

If your that worried why even give the paladin a range bous per level? That's like the epitome of backwards thinking..... How changing that buff to somthing else so this thought of needing some stacking penelty in bastion mode isn't needed. it just hurts every other ship just because you didn't think of another bonus to give the paladin. Give it tracking speed per level or 2% resists per level for armor or scan res per level (i know it's dumb) Or even 2% armor amount per level since amarr are extreme armor freaks. I Just don't see a point in giving a bonus to a ship and then penelizeing everyone else because of some off form of logic on your part.

I do hope you reply to this question and somwhat of a resolution to this conudrum of yours.

You guys think of some off things to fix a simple problem like this all the time.... Ohh.... this one shoots too far so instead of chaning a bonus (a new one mind you) you penelize every ship of that type for it. You guys often go to extremes when only a small simple fix is needed.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6547 - 2013-10-22 18:39:19 UTC
What's the point, really. There's been almost zero interaction from the devs and almost 6,000 odd posts later we're back at a slightly modified version of the first iteration. This has been the case for almost every rebalancing effort, ie: what you first see is more or less what you're going to end up with.

Which I'm fine with. But let's dispense with the guise that this actually provides an opportunity to have any kind of real input or interaction with CCP devs. This is a basically an announcement forum for changes that are more or less already carved in stone, with the "features and ideas" aspect basically here for us to entertain ourselves with.

This isn't our game - we're merely tourists.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#6548 - 2013-10-22 19:10:58 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
What's the point, really. There's been almost zero interaction from the devs and almost 6,000 odd posts later we're back at a slightly modified version of the first iteration. This has been the case for almost every rebalancing effort, ie: what you first see is more or less what you're going to end up with.

Which I'm fine with. But let's dispense with the guise that this actually provides an opportunity to have any kind of real input or interaction with CCP devs. This is a basically an announcement forum for changes that are more or less already carved in stone, with the "features and ideas" aspect basically here for us to entertain ourselves with.

This isn't our game - we're merely tourists.


aye; allot of wasted time and effort;
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#6549 - 2013-10-22 19:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravasta Helugo
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
What's the point, really. There's been almost zero interaction from the devs and almost 6,000 odd posts later we're back at a slightly modified version of the first iteration. This has been the case for almost every rebalancing effort, ie: what you first see is more or less what you're going to end up with.

Which I'm fine with. But let's dispense with the guise that this actually provides an opportunity to have any kind of real input or interaction with CCP devs. This is a basically an announcement forum for changes that are more or less already carved in stone, with the "features and ideas" aspect basically here for us to entertain ourselves with.

This isn't our game - we're merely tourists.

What was first suggested was superior. That's why it remains, with a few necessary tweaks.

Incursionbear's whinings over webs that have **** all to do with the rest of the hull were eventually ignored, and they should have been.

The feedback from this thread has gotten the speed increased, agility increased, a very sizable EHP bump, and the Drone bay back where it should be. And it got the disaster that was the 2nd version thrown into the trash heap. That's a justification of this thread's existence if I ever saw one.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6550 - 2013-10-22 20:10:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
The feedback from this thread has gotten the speed increased, agility increased, a very sizable EHP bump, and the Drone bay back where it should be. And it got the disaster that was the 2nd version thrown into the trash heap. That's a justification of this thread's existence if I ever saw one.

I think this can largely be attributed more to actual testing on SISI than anything informative suggested here.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#6551 - 2013-10-22 20:11:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
What's the point, really. There's been almost zero interaction from the devs and almost 6,000 odd posts later we're back at a slightly modified version of the first iteration. This has been the case for almost every rebalancing effort, ie: what you first see is more or less what you're going to end up with.

Which I'm fine with. But let's dispense with the guise that this actually provides an opportunity to have any kind of real input or interaction with CCP devs. This is a basically an announcement forum for changes that are more or less already carved in stone, with the "features and ideas" aspect basically here for us to entertain ourselves with.

This isn't our game - we're merely tourists.

We are back here with the first iteration for a reason.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#6552 - 2013-10-22 20:15:34 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
The feedback from this thread has gotten the speed increased, agility increased, a very sizable EHP bump, and the Drone bay back where it should be. And it got the disaster that was the 2nd version thrown into the trash heap. That's a justification of this thread's existence if I ever saw one.

I think this can largely be attributed to testing on SISI than anything informative suggested on here.

The thread added an extra " we told you so" element to the sisi tests I think.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6553 - 2013-10-22 20:16:18 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
We are back here with the first iteration for a reason.

Yeah, because certain elements were always set in stone.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6554 - 2013-10-22 20:17:41 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
The thread added an extra " we told you so" element to the sisi tests I think.

You won't get any argument from me, but that kind of establishes my point that these threads really don't seem to be given the weight that they should.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#6555 - 2013-10-22 20:18:07 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
We are back here with the first iteration for a reason.

Yeah, because certain elements were always set in stone.

Lol, probably closer to the truth than you'd like to think, Shocked

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#6556 - 2013-10-22 21:43:21 UTC
zentary wrote:
ok ccp wtf kinda logic is this....
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Why keeping the damage projection in Bastion stacking penalized?

We want to keep the projection in check. A Paladin with Scorch can already reach insane ranges (to the point where Beams are quite redundant on it), so we are not willing to remove the stacking penalty for now. Or at least not until we are seeing some hard use numbers on TQ first.


If your that worried why even give the paladin a range bonus per level? That's like the epitome of backwards thinking..... How changing that buff to something else so this thought of needing some stacking penalty in bastion mode isn't needed. it just hurts every other ship just because you didn't think of another bonus to give the paladin. Give it tracking speed per level or 2% resists per level for armor or scan res per level (i know it's dumb) Or even 2% armor amount per level since amarr are extreme armor freaks. I Just don't see a point in giving a bonus to a ship and then penalizing everyone else because of some off form of logic on your part.

I do hope you reply to this question and somewhat of a resolution to this conundrum of yours.

You guys think of some off things to fix a simple problem like this all the time.... Ohh.... this one shoots too far so instead of chaining a bonus (a new one mind you) you penalize every ship of that type for it. You guys often go to extremes when only a small simple fix is needed.


Or instead of that, CCP could.. you know.. make Scorch not completely ridiculous.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#6557 - 2013-10-22 23:22:57 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
zentary wrote:
ok ccp wtf kinda logic is this....
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Why keeping the damage projection in Bastion stacking penalized?

We want to keep the projection in check. A Paladin with Scorch can already reach insane ranges (to the point where Beams are quite redundant on it), so we are not willing to remove the stacking penalty for now. Or at least not until we are seeing some hard use numbers on TQ first.


If your that worried why even give the paladin a range bonus per level? That's like the epitome of backwards thinking..... How changing that buff to something else so this thought of needing some stacking penalty in bastion mode isn't needed. it just hurts every other ship just because you didn't think of another bonus to give the paladin. Give it tracking speed per level or 2% resists per level for armor or scan res per level (i know it's dumb) Or even 2% armor amount per level since amarr are extreme armor freaks. I Just don't see a point in giving a bonus to a ship and then penalizing everyone else because of some off form of logic on your part.

I do hope you reply to this question and somewhat of a resolution to this conundrum of yours.

You guys think of some off things to fix a simple problem like this all the time.... Ohh.... this one shoots too far so instead of chaining a bonus (a new one mind you) you penalize every ship of that type for it. You guys often go to extremes when only a small simple fix is needed.


Or instead of that, CCP could.. you know.. make Scorch not completely ridiculous.


Marauders will make some peopel feel what is the drawback of scorch for real. Lower trackign in the lowest trackign weapon wil be a PAIN when you cannnot move to reduce transversal.

Scorch is not overpowered, Mega Pulses altough coudl loose the enhanced trackin they got in 2009 for no sane reason. That would keep scorch in check

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#6558 - 2013-10-23 00:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
See, they won't feel that pain at all and here's why: Scorch reaches out into beam laser territory. In order to match the range of Scorch with a beam laser, you have to use X-Ray or higher. With 70k optimals on Scorch in Bastion, you can just pick everything off before it comes near your guns at all.

I'm not saying that Scorch needs a massive range nerf but if it's the only reason that the bastion module's range bonuses remain stacking penalized then maybe that's indicative of something.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6559 - 2013-10-23 02:00:35 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
See, they won't feel that pain at all and here's why: Scorch reaches out into beam laser territory. In order to match the range of Scorch with a beam laser, you have to use X-Ray or higher. With 70k optimals on Scorch in Bastion, you can just pick everything off before it comes near your guns at all.

I'm not saying that Scorch needs a massive range nerf but if it's the only reason that the bastion module's range bonuses remain stacking penalized then maybe that's indicative of something.


Without a stacking penalty, you would be looking at upwards of 75km (maybe more) with jav torps.
Granted, Fury can go 208km with bastion as it is now, and that's at 900 dps or more on Golem, compared to 750 or so with Javs.
Tilly Delnero
Doomheim
#6560 - 2013-10-23 03:31:51 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I think I've heard Kroni used in the alliance tournament....
But then again I've probably also heard Kronoses.

I've also heard 'Kit-soon' and 'A-bad-un', so don't take AT pronunciations as gospel. Lol