These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

does golem (and marauders) need a slight buff??
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CMD IronHeart
Hunters of capsuleers
#1 - 2012-04-30 11:21:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CMD IronHeart
what do others think of this? I haven't thought it all the way trough.

but, the way I see it, golems are suppose to be king of the hill when it comes to mission running. but with the noctis as a salvager, and other ships matching and supersede the golem in DPS, plus all the disadvantages of the golem, it is far from KTH. Almost all missions has defender missile on NPC's, witch cutes down the dps on golem even further and it gets easily jammed.

it does not feel like a T2 ship at all. and have been laging behind with introduction of competing ships.

I dont know what would make it a fair rebalanced, but I would like to see a slight more DPS, or a 5th luncher hard point, it is still not a good pvp ship with it's low sensor strength.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#2 - 2012-04-30 11:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarn Kugisa
I don't like marauders.
Why?
I hate when my ship travels SLOOOOOWWWWWW

Tengu is worth it.

I do however think marauders need a buff.

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Alara IonStorm
#3 - 2012-04-30 11:28:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Light Missiles 42 km
Heavy Missiles 84km
Cruise Missiles 168km

Rockets 10km
HAM's. 20km
Torpedo's 20km

Think I found the Golems problem. Roll

Give it the proper Missile Range so you can use those Rig Slots for Flares and it will get a lot better.

Well that and ditching that stupid Sensor Strength problem now that the NPC ECM Formula is calculated off of Sensor Strength.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#4 - 2012-04-30 12:00:03 UTC
I also think that marauders need to be looked at again to give them greater pvp viability, allowing that ecm will not be changed in my lifetime and that eccm will remain as ineffectual as it currently is.
CMD IronHeart
Hunters of capsuleers
#5 - 2012-04-30 12:06:54 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
I also think that marauders need to be looked at again to give them greater pvp viability, allowing that ecm will not be changed in my lifetime and that eccm will remain as ineffectual as it currently is.



correct me if I'm wrong, but T2 ships are suppose to be specific ships, and not good at 2 things? I rather have a marauder specific and good at mission running, and another ship for PvP. This also justify buffing marauders, if they suddenly become KTH mission ship, AND dissent PvP ship, it will be over-powered
Sunviking
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-04-30 12:09:54 UTC
The main thread discussing Marauders and the Golem is here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=793193#post793193

But I like it that there is now another one!! Big smile
Alara IonStorm
#7 - 2012-04-30 12:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
CMD IronHeart wrote:

correct me if I'm wrong, but T2 ships are suppose to be specific ships, and not good at 2 things?

You can find multiple uses for most T2 Ships. Nothing says a T2 Ships has to suck at PvP to be good at PvE.
CMD IronHeart wrote:

I rather have a marauder specific and good at mission running, and another ship for PvP. This also justify buffing marauders, if they suddenly become KTH mission ship, AND dissent PvP ship, it will be over-powered

No not really. Battleships are great mission runners and good at PvP. Pirate Faction Ships often blitz Missions faster then Marauders.

This is the progression CCP wants.

T1 > Faction > T2 > Pirate Faction.

Even with better Sensor Strength Marauders won't be better then Pirate Faction at PvP. Mach will even still run Missions better then a Vargur.

Giving them good Sensor strength won't make them over powered. Just fit them in properly with the progression.
CMD IronHeart
Hunters of capsuleers
#8 - 2012-04-30 12:24:25 UTC
Quote:
This is the progression CCP wants.

T1 > Faction > T2 > Pirate Faction.


And with raven,CNR,golem it looks more like:

T1 > T2 > Faction > Pirate Faction.

no?


oh, and isn't the training time to pirate faction shorter than to marauder?
Alara IonStorm
#9 - 2012-04-30 12:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
CMD IronHeart wrote:

And with raven,CNR,golem it looks more like:

T1 > T2 > Faction > Pirate Faction.

no?

Yes which is why I say they should increase Torp Range to 30 or 40km base, 45-60 with bonus so like the Raven and CNR it can use it's rigs for accuracy. That and give it Sensor Strength for Guristas Rats.

CMD IronHeart wrote:

oh, and isn't the training time to pirate faction shorter than to marauder?

Yes.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-04-30 12:33:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nalha Saldana
CMD IronHeart wrote:
Quote:
This is the progression CCP wants.

T1 > Faction > T2 > Pirate Faction.


And with raven,CNR,golem it looks more like:

T1 > T2 > Faction > Pirate Faction.

no?


oh, and isn't the training time to pirate faction shorter than to marauder?


http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

So yes, the pirate ships are supposed to be better but Marauders are supposed to be specialized. What this specialization is supposed to be im not sure of because its ship descriptions are about pvp while everything on it points towards pve but i guess the tractor beam bonus and free highs is it which is pretty underwhelming.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-04-30 12:54:14 UTC
Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders.
TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Alara IonStorm
#12 - 2012-04-30 13:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Nalha Saldana wrote:

So yes, the pirate ships are supposed to be better but Marauders are supposed to be specialized. What this specialization is supposed to be im not sure of because its ship descriptions are about pvp while everything on it points towards pve but i guess the tractor beam bonus and free highs is it which is pretty underwhelming.

The thing about Marauders is that everything that makes them good at PvP makes them good at PvE and vice versa.

So unless they remove ECM from Guristas they can't do there job effectively.

I think Marauders should be good active tanked combat ships and the free high slots for NOS helps support that. A Tractor Beam Bonus tagged on for policing of Loot of destroyed ships plays to there combat role.

Everything about them plays into the name Marauder. Marauders are meant to work in small numbers hence the active tank and bonuses that forgo support and the tractor beam and cargo hold for policing of loot. All that plays into PvE as well because PvE is all about a good solo combat ship with looting capabilities.

Better then Faction because they are more specialized in Looting and Active Tanking, while Pirate Faction Ships have multiple advantages. So forget that it is supposed to be a good PvP Ship and think of it as a good Marauder which honestly fits a lot better.

Reversing the Sensor Strength is good idea all around. As for buffing them the Golems problems are 100% a problem with its weapon system. Sensor Strength is all they need.
stoicfaux
#13 - 2012-04-30 13:28:15 UTC
CMD IronHeart wrote:
what do others think of this? I haven't thought it all the way trough.

but, the way I see it, golems are suppose to be king of the hill when it comes to mission running. but with the noctis as a salvager, and other ships matching and supersede the golem in DPS, plus all the disadvantages of the golem, it is far from KTH.

Way ahead of you: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=749712 =)

Quote:
Almost all missions has defender missile on NPC's, witch cutes down the dps on golem even further and it gets easily jammed.

NPC defenders cannot kill a torpedo, except for the extreme, few, rare NPCs with a huge missile damage multiplier.


Quote:
I dont know what would make it a fair rebalanced, but I would like to see a slight more DPS, or a 5th luncher hard point, it is still not a good pvp ship with it's low sensor strength.

Sensor strength would be a good starting point.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
stoicfaux
#14 - 2012-04-30 13:32:09 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Well that and ditching that stupid Sensor Strength problem now that the NPC ECM Formula is calculated off of Sensor Strength.

NPC ECM has always been based on the target's sensor strength. The problem was that NPCs were not trying to jam every 20 seconds. There could be minutes between jam attempts. When CCP fixed the auto-repeat on NPC ECM is when jamming became intolerable in any missions with multiple jamming NPCs.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-04-30 15:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Cedo Nulli
Jack Miton wrote:
Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders.
TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed.


How is that even relevant ? You cant buff 2 shiptypes the same time ? Is it about you wanting your toy polished up first and not the ones others play with ?

Golem is the worst off from the marauders due to its crippling torpedo-weaponsystem. CNR is better in 90% of the missions.

Marauders in general are in a wierd position .. needing a big load of SP to be poured into to get a worse ship then pirate ones that can be flown with no V skills.

Not to mention .. why do they have to be artificially crippled in terms of PVP ... pirate ships are allready better then them. Maras have the same price ticket to NM,Mach,Vindi anyway.

Maybe tiercide will fix this sillyness from years and years back.
Sunviking
Doomheim
#16 - 2012-04-30 16:41:02 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders.
TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed.


How is that even relevant ? You cant buff 2 shiptypes the same time ? Is it about you wanting your toy polished up first and not the ones others play with ?

Golem is the worst off from the marauders due to its crippling torpedo-weaponsystem. CNR is better in 90% of the missions.

Marauders in general are in a wierd position .. needing a big load of SP to be poured into to get a worse ship then pirate ones that can be flown with no V skills.

Not to mention .. why do they have to be artificially crippled in terms of PVP ... pirate ships are allready better then them. Maras have the same price ticket to NM,Mach,Vindi anyway.

Maybe tiercide will fix this sillyness from years and years back.


Glad there are a people out there who agree with me that Torpedoes have severe weaknesses at the moment.
Heun zero
MAYHEM BOYZ
#17 - 2012-04-30 17:45:03 UTC
personally I'd be happy if the golem got a small range buff, enough to keep up with the new t2 tractor beams (48km)
Skorpynekomimi
#18 - 2012-04-30 19:35:38 UTC
TBH, they don't seem to need a buff, so much as a rethink.

If they're meant to be mission-running boats, they've been obsoleted by T3 cruisers, pirate BSes, and the Noctis. They need something to distinguish them, and give you a reason to use the things.
Maybe losing the bonus to tractor beams, and adding a bonus to some other PvE utility highslot module?

I don't think they need to be made 'better', just DIFFERENT. Unique, compared to other ships. More than just half ammo usage and a bit more damage, and a bonus to something you have a whole other ship for.

Economic PVP
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-04-30 20:04:56 UTC
Basically, the sensor strength has to be fixed (an extra low or mid slot would not hurt either).

Torps have bad range? So do blasters (I love the whines about HAM range more though, spoiled brats with heavy missiles...)

If sensor strength was fixed, they might get some use in PvP (nice active tank), but they would not outshine the pirate BS. Hell, would you really fly a Kronos over a Vindicator, given that the Vindicator has 5 mids to the Kronos's 4? The Golen's DPS problem comes from the fact that a CNR has an extra weapon slot over a Raven, while the other faction BS just get an extra mid or low.
Alara IonStorm
#20 - 2012-04-30 20:31:28 UTC
Demon Azrakel wrote:

Torps have bad range? So do blasters (I love the whines about HAM range more though, spoiled brats with heavy missiles...)

Torps do have bad range, same range as HAM but being a size smaller that range is fine for a medium weapon. Torps are the only weapon that don't get a range buff by size. There lack luster use in both PvE and PvP prove this.

The only place they are commonly used is Stealth Bombers which get a 10% Flight Time and 20% Velocity Bonus per lvl... for this fine ranged weapon...

Difference between Large Blasters on a Battleship and Torpedo's on a Battleship... The Blasters are common in PvP.

If High Damage and Accurate is good for the brawl race, medium range and inaccurate would be a good complimenting weapon system.

Demon Azrakel wrote:

The Golen's DPS problem comes from the fact that a CNR has an extra weapon slot over a Raven, while the other faction BS just get an extra mid or low.

No it has one more effective slot and no damage bonus. But that isn't a problem unless you want CCP to turn it into another cookie cutter PvE Cruise boat instead of the Torp Boat they tried and failed to make.

I would rather they make Torps work.
12Next page