These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Marauders: Underwhelming. Fix Ideas

Author
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-02-03 20:15:53 UTC
Do I need to mention tracking speed again?

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-02-03 20:20:28 UTC
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:
Do I need to mention tracking speed again?


You should probably mention tracking speed again Lol

I'm sure every golem (most flown Marauder, still) pilot in New Eden would rejoice with your terrible amazing idea to add tracking speed to Marauders, which you know- will make them entirely more desirable then Strategic Cruisers.
m3talc0re X
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-02-03 20:44:34 UTC
Actually, yes, it would. Kronos gets a tracking bonus, but it's the same based on pretty much all mega hulls. The Vargur gets a tracking bonus, too. WHY the f*** the Paladin doesn't get one is beyond me. Another CCP member dropped the ball I think.

Paladin vs Nightmare. Nightmare has more tank, more damage and better tracking. The ONLY thing the Paladin (or any marauder really) offers over the preferred faction BS's is the tractor bonus. Not to mention the gimped powergrid. Vargur can't fit arties, you can forget it. And a Paladin with tach's can't fit anything better than an Imperial Navy LAR.

Ocih kinda hit it head on, too. The marauders are completely out classed. And I do think the whole gimped for pvp thing is bulls***. This may have been a good idea back in the day, but now with faction ships becoming much more common, this needs to be fixed and ungimp our damn T2 ships that we have to train so much for.
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-02-03 20:57:49 UTC
Xolve wrote:
...with your terrible amazing idea...

I saw that!



For the Golem, easy, we replace the Tracking Speed Bonus with an Agility and Radius Bonus.

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#45 - 2012-02-03 22:31:21 UTC

Marauder's are somewhat underwhelming... especially compared to faction BS's.

I think a review of the sihp class, and a readjusting of their stats is reasonable.

1.) Maintain their focus... They are meant to be a quality PvE boat, with bonuses related to that. They currently work well as a missioning boat, even if they aren't the "best" option. Given that the lucrative PvE opportunities have signficantly changed since Marauders were introduced, its more than reasonable to adjust their bonuses and roles to be inline.

2.) They should have some drawbacks, but they should be semi-balanced around their concept. If they tank really well, put out top-quality dps, then they should have some drawbacks related to their use. Having them typically fit an ECCM when fighting guristas, a sensor booster when fighting serpentis, etc, is a good thing!

Hans Momaki
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-02-04 14:44:23 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:



2.) They should have some drawbacks, but they should be semi-balanced around their concept. If they tank really well, put out top-quality dps, then they should have some drawbacks related to their use. Having them typically fit an ECCM when fighting guristas, a sensor booster when fighting serpentis, etc, is a good thing!



no one is arguing against drawbacks. The Problem is, marauders aren't good enough to have drawbacks at the moment.
Viribus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-02-04 17:09:49 UTC
Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp?
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo
EVE Trade Alliance
#48 - 2012-02-04 20:10:33 UTC
Viribus wrote:
Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp?


Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals?
m3talc0re X
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-02-04 20:12:38 UTC
The same ones who fly around in 1bill isk fit ungimped pirate faction bs's. The justification against marauders in pvp no longer exists imo.
Pidgeon Saissore
DNS Requiem
Warped Intentions
#50 - 2012-02-05 04:26:52 UTC
The big issue with marauders is they are purely outclassed by pirate battleships. Their only advantage over them is sensor range. Pirates have about 20% more hp in all levels, one more total slot, double lock speed. In combat the tractor bonus means nothing. Since the cost is similar and marauders have significantly longer training required they should have the advantage.
Kiroma Halandri
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2012-02-05 06:34:10 UTC
Pidgeon Saissore wrote:
m3talc0re X wrote:
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
Viribus wrote:
Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp?


Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals?

The same ones who fly around in 1bill isk fit ungimped pirate faction bs's. The justification against marauders in pvp no longer exists imo.

The big issue with marauders is they are purely outclassed by pirate battleships. Their only advantage over them is sensor range. Pirates have about 20% more hp in all levels, one more total slot, double lock speed. In combat the tractor bonus means nothing. Since the cost is similar and marauders have significantly longer training required they should have the advantage.

Why not just take away everyone's Marauders, give them a faction battleship of their choice, and reimburse their skill points?
[center]I'm not Anti-Social,    **I just don't like you.[/center]**
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#52 - 2012-02-05 07:59:09 UTC
Trying to justify changes to Marauders based on a comparison with pirate hulls is flawed .. the former is specifically designed for PvE while the latter is specifically designed for PvP.
It is essentially a complaint that ones station-wagon can not outperform the neighbours two-seat boxster at the local traffic light.

Tractor bonus is hugely beneficial for anyone not multi-boxing when grinding ISK, wanting to maximize ISK/Hr and the exorbitant cargo capacity makes them immensely versatile both for looting and hauling.

Were they to be amped up to more proficient in PvP then it should be in a supportive capacity (read: it should not compromise the rather brilliant design paradigm behind them).
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#53 - 2012-02-05 11:02:30 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Trying to justify changes to Marauders based on a comparison with pirate hulls is flawed .. the former is specifically designed for PvE while the latter is specifically designed for PvP.

Even if a pirate/navy battleship is designed purely for PvP why are they so good at PvE at the same time? This is the main issue really. If you gimp a ship to make it only for PvE you essentially relegate it to a second place hull. For a ship that requires a hell of a lot more SP in order to fly efficiently this idea that Marauders should be "second class" is a flawed view.
Also, PvE has evolved so much now that the Marauder is outdated and needs to be brought back up to date.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:
It is essentially a complaint that ones station-wagon can not outperform the neighbours two-seat boxster at the local traffic light.

If my station wagon cost the same or more than the neihbours "two-seat boxster", required me to be a more skilled person to drive it and was considered to have more advanced technology powering it, then yes. I would expect my station wagon to outperform the boxster at the local traffic light, especially if that was the main purpose for my station wagon to exist.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Tractor bonus is hugely beneficial for anyone not multi-boxing when grinding ISK, wanting to maximize ISK/Hr and the exorbitant cargo capacity makes them immensely versatile both for looting and hauling.

Negative. You're far better off blitzing 3 or 4 missions and returning in a Noctis to salvage them all in one go. Salvaging on the go is inefficient and extremely taxing on the pilot. In order to retain long range tractors I suggested introducing medium and large varients.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Were they to be amped up to more proficient in PvP then it should be in a supportive capacity (read: it should not compromise the rather brilliant design paradigm behind them).

To be honest, I think Marauders should be very good at both PvE and PvP. They should be considered "Premium" battleships as they are very expensive and require so many SP to fly them. I don't think that they should be the next FOTM but I do believe that they should have a "pressence" on the PvP battlefield.
Viribus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-02-05 13:06:45 UTC
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
Viribus wrote:
Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp?


Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals?


Have you seriously never seen anyone PVP in a 2b+ battleship?

Since you're obviously living in the year 2005, could you please let scotland yard know about the 7/7 bombings?
m3talc0re X
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-02-05 20:35:54 UTC
Lets do this car analogy.

This is more like comparing a Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG (marauder) to a Ford Mustang (navy bs). Only, CCP has decided to leave the parking brake engaged on the ML63 and cut the lines for the power steering and removed a spark plug or two. That would be a more accurate analogy.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#56 - 2012-02-06 01:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
I would give em same range as Noctis and would buff with shield or armor hp that mach piwate ships,that's a start i would buff align more not speed if i want to fly mach over varg il do it i dont want mach with different name and shape to it.

As specific ship go i would like for Varg to use 1400mm w/o fitting mods with tracking that it have it would completely over shadow mach in using the same and make it staple war vessel when long range artillery is in use,also 100(125) drone bay as standard with 75(100)mb control for anyone that doesn't have it.

How did i go?

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Sasori michi
The Dirty Thukkers
#57 - 2012-02-06 04:49:03 UTC
From a Golem info ;

Role: Marauder

Geared toward versatility and prolonged deployment in hostile environments, Marauders represent the cutting edge in today’s warship technology. While especially effective at support suppression and wreckage salvaging, they possess comparatively weak sensor strength and may find themselves at increased risk of sensor jamming. Nevertheless, these thick-skinned, hard-hitting monsters are the perfect ships to take on long trips behind enemy lines.

And i see people saying "Marauder's are not mean for pvp".
Role description seems to say otherwise.

As to Op. not so sure on EW immunity, but some improvement is needed. Especially on torp/cruise damage application across all Battleship missle platforms.
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2012-02-07 09:19:00 UTC
Kiroma Halandri wrote:
Pidgeon Saissore wrote:
m3talc0re X wrote:
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
Viribus wrote:
Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp?


Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals?

The same ones who fly around in 1bill isk fit ungimped pirate faction bs's. The justification against marauders in pvp no longer exists imo.

The big issue with marauders is they are purely outclassed by pirate battleships. Their only advantage over them is sensor range. Pirates have about 20% more hp in all levels, one more total slot, double lock speed. In combat the tractor bonus means nothing. Since the cost is similar and marauders have significantly longer training required they should have the advantage.

Why not just take away everyone's Marauders, give them a faction battleship of their choice, and reimburse their skill points?

Now now, at least give them the choice.

Also, why not give each Marauder that uses turrets one missile hardpoint and the golem one turret hardpoint? This wouldn't be a replacement, it would just allow some extra diversity and some extra DPS.

Hell, we may as well make Marauders the BS equivalent of Assault Ships, assuming that isn't already what they are suppossed to be.

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-02-07 10:13:28 UTC
*snaps fingers*
How about not bonuses against E-War, but bonuses TO E-War.
Who would like to buy a melon?  Madame, would you like to buy a--   ...oh. I see you've already got some.   Who would like to buy a melon?
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#60 - 2012-02-07 12:14:56 UTC
Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius wrote:
*snaps fingers*
How about not bonuses against E-War, but bonuses TO E-War.


are you tollin'?

Bonuses to web effectiveness and target painter effectiveness are EWAR bonuses