These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Should marauders have been T3 battleships?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2016-03-31 08:45:58 UTC
Some good points made above my post here.

I'm in the group of thinking that T3 has generally been bad for the game. BUT! That's not to say it is without purpose. I'm not really involved in industry, but I've been told that T3 production, whether it's destroyer or cruiser, is a significant part of wormhole income. So, without T3, there's a heck of a lot less incentive to live out in wormholes, and I do NOT want to do that to wormholers.

So while T3 discussions mainly focus on ship balance (and for good reason), we have to think about everything else T3 effects. If we advocate for it's removal, we ought to have ideas ready to shore up the vacuums left behind by T3 content.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#22 - 2016-03-31 09:28:03 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I think you're projecting hard and have been this whole time.

Really? How do you come to this conclusion? The general concensus of thought behind submitting an idea for discussion by others is a need for the idea to become reality. You submitted the idea, therefore you must have thought there was a need for your idea. You now state that there is no need for it, so why did you submit it in the first place?

This is not projecting, it is pointing out the flaws in your thought process. Projecting is an entirely different animal.


http://imgur.com/fnRhVcu
))))
Quote:

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
No I think that if people want T3 battleships, marauders already fit the bill. A couple of small changes and they're T3. Done.

After the debacle of the last two introductions of t3 ships, no one with any sense wants t3 battleships. Not one of the many people I know that flies marauders wants them to undergo repeated smacks by the nerf bat in order to compensate for the changes you suggest. Marauders are in a very nice place at the moment, a place that your idea would put them in very real danger of losing.

Marauders are one of the better balanced ships in the game. We should leave them precisely where they are until there is a definite need for them to be adjusted.


And you committed another fallacy there, the appeal to emotion for thinking I give a toss about whether feeliings get hurt. Did you see what they're doing to my Nyx? Something that costs about 16x as much as a marauder? I could argue that supers are in a 'very good place right now' as well, as existing at the top of the food chain is a great place to be for very sure.

At no point ever did I say they need to be changed. This was supposed to be a thought exercise but you have dragged it down with your baseless assumptions and attempts to call me out on things I literally did not say.

What I have said is: Marauders are close enough to being T3 battleships as we know T3 to be. They can do almost literally everything with abundant spare highs, generous utility/tank and a multitude of bonuses. With a tiny amount of work and some extra gadgets they can officially be T3 and that it woudn't change much for anyone other than being 'the T3 battleship' and thus allowing room underneath for some other kind of battleship more specialised in a particular field. Is it a NEED? No. Do I even especially want this? Couldn't care less actually, and I fly the things myself. Do you have an actual argument? I don't even know?
Pookoko
Sigma Sagittarii Inc.
#23 - 2016-03-31 11:19:39 UTC
I'm not too concerned/interested in changing the role of Marauders. I think they are fine as they are at the moment, but if there are interesting proposals then why not?

What I want to point out though, is that changing Marauders (or any other existing T1 or T2 ships) is surely connected to changes in manufacturing process. If a ship becomes T3, it should mean that the build materials for that ship should also follow the other T3s, i.e., materials sourced from wormholes. I don't know what the market trading volume of Marauders are across the universe, but a class of a ship suddenly needing wormhole materials to build could have some impact on the market.

So making a certain ship a T3 class shouldn't just be considered in terms of ship's roles and pvp balances with other ships, but in the bigger scheme of the whole industry and market sense, as in how the BPC/BPOs will be acquired, what datacores will be needed for invention/reverse engineering, what build materials are needed, etc.

I think that's a actually bigger change than ship's role/balance change. So if you propose 'let's give this new role to Marauders' then yeah, we can talk about it in terms of pvp balances and such. But if you say 'let's make this ship class a T3', then whoa, that's a BIG topic.



Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2016-04-01 10:04:31 UTC
Currently I am just sad to be marauder-able when rattlesnake can do it better for less. PvE wise. Ofc there are specific niches when the ship type shines. But the pricing is on par with a carrier and training time is also undeserved punishment.
They could use a redesign of sorts (yey another one) but t3 takes it too far.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Previous page12