These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 buffs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#21 - 2013-04-02 13:00:48 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
SehrGute wrote:
StrongSmartSexy wrote:
Some thoughts:

Golem:
Should deserve the raven hull's 5% rate of fire bonus in place of the almost-useless and inappropriate 5% explosion velocity bonus. Powergrid of torps or the ship itself could use some attention too.
.



NO NO NO, don't touch the 5% explosion velocity, combined with target painters, torps are a deadly and viable weapon against cruisers and up. And a torp golem (with drones) can do 1300-1400 dps. so it does not in any way need a DPS boost. but it need some boost, it is by fare not a marauder by definition. and has been rendered useless by noctis.

I don't know where I would start to fix the golem, because it is a really good ship, the problem is other ships have made it useless. but if I could have it my way, even more explosion velocity and target painter bonus, or/and increase sensor strength, or/and another rig/med slot, and/or more PG, it is almost impossible to have a torp golem with cap booster, AB and shield booster.

And a blaster Kronos, with drones and T2 fittings only, can do 1400-1600 dps but I suppose you would argue that the golem has the advantage of pure damage selection.

I agree it sucks that the Golem does not have the PG to support a prop mod, cap booster and shield booster on a torpedo fit. The Vargur has the same problem with 800 ACs.
Kronos and Pally have no problem fitting blasters/pulse lasers with a cap booster, prop mod and a dual LAR setup.

Also, for your information, if the Golem's 5% explosion velocity per level bonus was changed to a 5% rate of fire per level bonus, you would not lose any damage against cruiser-sized targets and you would actually gain approximately 5-6% more DPS against targets (of any signature size) moving at any speed faster than your torpedo explosion velocity.

Given the cost and extensively long training time to get into a Marauder, I wouldn't be opposed to To Mare's suggestion of adding a 5th weapon slot to Marauders in exchange for a utility slot and the tractor/salvage bonuses.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-04-02 13:17:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
supernova ranger wrote:
They are described as "Nevertheless, these thick-skinned, hard-hitting monsters are the perfect ships to take on long trips behind enemy lines." and are anything but that. They need to be bonuses in someway that allows them to avoid larger enemy fleets or survive them, maybe both to accomplish this. I don't see them in highsec let alone in lowsec.



A good start would be to already double the sensor strength (+35 -40), yep I'm clearly for the change and give marauders the highest sensor strength of all battleships instead of the ridiculous thing they are you can almost permanently jam them with 2 out of 3 drones being ECM drones.

5th turret: why not?
Hard hitting monsters? -Vindicators do better, Machariels do better, Bhaalgorns and Rattlesnakes do better, sure wsith some pimp for some and less for others but the main thing being about the interest on getting those.

Questions:
Can a marauder survive longer or better than a pirate ship? -no
Does a marauder dps significantly enough to choose it over a pirate ship? -no
Does the fact of having T2 resists changes anything to the 2 questions above? -no

Is the sensor strength one of the major problems of these ships? -yes
Should these ships have a real role in pvp other than just be used for high sec missions? -yes

Just like Black Ops got some minor but necessary changes, when those were already very strong, Marauders are in need of some love that can be done ASAP to make them interesting enough for players to commit on training for those.

A 5th gun would be one of them, give them the strongest sensor strength (35+ is nothing more than whatever T3 cruiser gets without pimp), change that pesky useless salvager bonus for Energy Vampire one (increase the ability to fit tank and actually tank something)
This would make them hard hitting monsters, not the expensive joke they are for high sec missions. Hell even Navy Battleships are better !! (because different bonuses make them better in the end)

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#23 - 2013-04-02 13:18:51 UTC
What about changing the active bonus to a 7.5 resist?

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#24 - 2013-04-02 13:22:00 UTC
Increasing the sensor strength would be a great start. I'd love to see these ships have more of a use in PvP without having to fit multiple mods just for that. Would be nice for them to have a more useful role bonus than the salvaging stuff...

semi-troll idea - special tractor beams that can pull other ships towards them....
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#25 - 2013-04-02 13:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Not a great fan of just turning them into yet another monster battleship, the faction ones cover most of what people are asking for also.

They could definitely do with a little bit of a resist buff i.e. Kronos v Deimos: [50, 43.1, 51.3, 10] v [50, 67.5, 83.8, 10] tho not necessarily to the same level as HACs. (I guess its somewhat due to them having an active tanking bonus but IMO the design decision that lead to that balance probably needs revisiting with the progress eve has made since).

I think a lot of the other stuff works with the earlier suggestion I made regarding an overheating bonus or module whilest giving them some unique flavor of their own - i.e. sensor strength isn't great at base but with an overheated eccm module with a bonus to both the duration and strength bonus from overheating it could burst its sensor strength to massive levels (and the big cargo hold would be useful for lots of repair paste :D).
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#26 - 2013-04-02 13:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
Drake Doe wrote:
What about changing the active bonus to a 7.5 resist?

You mean 5% to armor/shield resistances per level. This gives you the same active tanking ability as a 7.5% boost/rep bonus but resist bonuses are better since they are flexible to be good for both active and buffer fits.

Supposedly CCP Fozzie is not in favor of adding resist bonuses to more ships in the game so I doubt we would see a change like this.
I think the most we could ever expect, tank-wise, is the boost/repair bonus changed to 10% per level and perhaps allow Paladins and Kronoses to fit multiple Ancillary Armor Repair modules.

I'm personally not a fan of battleship hulls that force you to local rep; Hyperion, Maelstrom whilst the Rokh and Abaddon get to choose buffer or active tank - I would like Marauders to have their rep bonus changed to resists.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#27 - 2013-04-02 13:44:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
StrongSmartSexy wrote:

I'm personally not a fan of battleship hulls that force you to local rep; Hyperion, Maelstrom whilst the Rokh and Abaddon get to choose buffer or active tank - I would like Marauders to have their rep bonus changed to resists.


Agree with this, I think having the active tanking bonus on them (T2 hulls) is a bit limiting in todays eve (another story for t1 hulls).
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#28 - 2013-04-02 13:45:55 UTC
StrongSmartSexy wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
What about changing the active bonus to a 7.5 resist?

You mean 5% to armor/shield resistances per level. This gives you the same active tanking ability as a 7.5% boost/rep bonus but resist bonuses are better since they are flexible to be good for both active and buffer fits.

Supposedly CCP Fozzie is not in favor of adding resist bonuses to more ships in the game so I doubt we would see a change like this.
I think the most we could ever expect, tank-wise, is the boost/repair bonus changed to 10% per level and perhaps allow Paladins and Kronoses to fit multiple Ancillary Armor Repair modules.

I'm personally not a fan of battleship hulls that force you to local rep; Hyperion, Maelstrom whilst the Rokh and Abaddon get to choose buffer or active tank - I would like Marauders to have their rep bonus changed to resists.

To me it would help them not be as confined to pve since in that scenario they would all be able to field decent buffers without losing much, if any of their current active tank

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#29 - 2013-04-02 13:55:37 UTC
so far I have flown with maxed skills 3 out of the 4 marauders, paladin, vargur and golem, cant speak about the kronos, but the other 3 marauders are way too underpowered, not only is their DPS lower than their pirate counterparts, in some cases is lower than the faction counterparts and the damage application its really lame.


Nightmare outdps on tachyons at any range a paladin with any type of weapon at any range while having a way stronger tank and the utility slots.


Machariel, its a complete beast that not only outdps the vargur, but by being twice as fast, will stay on range and apply its damage way better, also having a nasty tank.


The Navy raven actually has longer range and does more DPS than the golem, has twice the tank. so why the **** does the golem even exists? the target painter and missile explosion bonus really don't help with the torps since once dual painted any npc bs gets hit by full damage, T2 damage torps are imposible to use regardless of the ship, and it costs 1/3 of the price of a golem.


Now to top it off, they all are extremely gimped on sensor strength and ehp, and the 2 mentioned turret marauders CAN NOT fit properly the large long range guns while the pirate counterparts and T1 equivalents can fit and be as equally effective.

See maelstrom vs vargur, abaddon vs paladin.

Marauders are not only weaker on absolutely everything compared with the other battleships, they cannot even do their own job well.
SehrGute
Hunters of capsuleers
#30 - 2013-04-02 14:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: SehrGute
StrongSmartSexy wrote:
SehrGute wrote:
StrongSmartSexy wrote:
Some thoughts:

Golem:
Should deserve the raven hull's 5% rate of fire bonus in place of the almost-useless and inappropriate 5% explosion velocity bonus. Powergrid of torps or the ship itself could use some attention too.
.



NO NO NO, don't touch the 5% explosion velocity, combined with target painters, torps are a deadly and viable weapon against cruisers and up. And a torp golem (with drones) can do 1300-1400 dps. so it does not in any way need a DPS boost. but it need some boost, it is by fare not a marauder by definition. and has been rendered useless by noctis.

I don't know where I would start to fix the golem, because it is a really good ship, the problem is other ships have made it useless. but if I could have it my way, even more explosion velocity and target painter bonus, or/and increase sensor strength, or/and another rig/med slot, and/or more PG, it is almost impossible to have a torp golem with cap booster, AB and shield booster.

And a blaster Kronos, with drones and T2 fittings only, can do 1400-1600 dps but I suppose you would argue that the golem has the advantage of pure damage selection.

I agree it sucks that the Golem does not have the PG to support a prop mod, cap booster and shield booster on a torpedo fit. The Vargur has the same problem with 800 ACs.
Kronos and Pally have no problem fitting blasters/pulse lasers with a cap booster, prop mod and a dual LAR setup.

Also, for your information, if the Golem's 5% explosion velocity per level bonus was changed to a 5% rate of fire per level bonus, you would not lose any damage against cruiser-sized targets and you would actually gain approximately 5-6% more DPS against targets (of any signature size) moving at any speed faster than your torpedo explosion velocity.

Given the cost and extensively long training time to get into a Marauder, I wouldn't be opposed to To Mare's suggestion of adding a 5th weapon slot to Marauders in exchange for a utility slot and the tractor/salvage bonuses.


edit: were did my text go?????? damit, i'll rewrite later.
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#31 - 2013-04-02 14:44:45 UTC
SehrGute wrote:
edit: were did my text go?????? damit, i'll rewrite later.


Did you click post and then it loaded up the same screen with your reply gone but the quote still there? Because that happens to me if I take too long to type up my reply.
If you click post and it reloads the same page and what you typed is missing, then simply press back and it'll be there again.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2013-04-02 17:11:45 UTC
I think the problem with all the battleships is that they tend to fill one role: kill all the things. Without a wide variety in slot layouts or bonuses they tend to step on each others toes. Because pirate faction ships, navy faction ships, and marauders are all in the same area with ship bonuses there's going to be one that will blow the others away.

Maybe tiericide will help, but trying to find a niche for each battleship would be a difficult task.
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#33 - 2013-04-02 17:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I think the problem with all the battleships is that they tend to fill one role: kill all the things. Without a wide variety in slot layouts or bonuses they tend to step on each others toes. Because pirate faction ships, navy faction ships, and marauders are all in the same area with ship bonuses there's going to be one that will blow the others away.

Maybe tiericide will help, but trying to find a niche for each battleship would be a difficult task.

Yeah, especially with the similarities between the Kronos and the Vindicator as both are armor blaster boats with webbing bonuses.
Good luck trying to make the Kronos original beyond simply "This one is better at active tanks and the Vindi is better at buffer tanks!"
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-04-02 19:40:53 UTC
StrongSmartSexy wrote:
Yeah, especially with the similarities between the Kronos and the Vindicator as both are armor blaster boats with webbing bonuses. Good luck trying to make the Kronos original beyond simply "This one is better at active tanks and the Vindi is better at buffer tanks!"


Yeah. The original idea was that Marauders would be for PVE use. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but it was probably a mistake to force a PVP weakness in the form of the weak sensor strength. So improve the electronics so PVP use is viable, then emphasise the PVE use by giving them bonuses to exploration thingies - probe strength, salvaging, can hacking, maybe even cloaking (no scan res or velocity penalty with cloak fitted?), to emphasise the ability to survive in hostile space.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2013-04-02 20:31:04 UTC
Just a random thought I had, if you wanted to keep them focused on PvE you could remove the drone bay and give them the option to fit on assault launchers in the extra highs. Swap out salvage bonuses for light missile bonuses. With the changes to PvE rat AI this may give it a niche that it can live in, especially if the total damage output of pirate ships and marauders was close.

It makes sense for the vargr, not so much for the paladin and kronos. The golem would have to be investigated because people would be trying to shove powergrid mods in the lows to fit extra torpedo launchers.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#36 - 2013-04-03 13:28:40 UTC
Would prefer them to have a special unique highslot point defence style module for anti-drone/frigate work rather than than using a currently existing small weapon and having to balance it in a way to stop people just using a fuel rack of torps or similar.
On the other hand, full rack of 100% bonus weapons, that'll make up for their lacking sensor strength :p lol
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#37 - 2013-04-03 14:01:35 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
Would prefer them to have a special unique highslot point defence style module for anti-drone/frigate work rather than than using a currently existing small weapon and having to balance it in a way to stop people just using a fuel rack of torps or similar.
On the other hand, full rack of 100% bonus weapons, that'll make up for their lacking sensor strength :p lol

This idea I like.

Friends
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#38 - 2013-04-03 14:54:20 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Would prefer them to have a special unique highslot point defence style module for anti-drone/frigate work rather than than using a currently existing small weapon and having to balance it in a way to stop people just using a fuel rack of torps or similar.
On the other hand, full rack of 100% bonus weapons, that'll make up for their lacking sensor strength :p lol

This idea I like.



it would give them twice DPS... given ALL the weakness and the ******* hard it would be to fit full weapon racks with their powergrids, it actually would be balanced... they would be like oversized attack battlecruisers, in short, HUGE glass cannons (quite adequate to grind down capital ships fast actually...)
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-04-03 15:46:46 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Would prefer them to have a special unique highslot point defence style module for anti-drone/frigate work rather than than using a currently existing small weapon and having to balance it in a way to stop people just using a fuel rack of torps or similar.
On the other hand, full rack of 100% bonus weapons, that'll make up for their lacking sensor strength :p lol

This idea I like.



it would give them twice DPS... given ALL the weakness and the ******* hard it would be to fit full weapon racks with their powergrids, it actually would be balanced... they would be like oversized attack battlecruisers, in short, HUGE glass cannons (quite adequate to grind down capital ships fast actually...)


This is actually what I was looking at. Powergrids on Marauders tend to be very low because they only need to fit 4 battleship sized weapons, trying to fit 5 or 6 would be extremely tight with grid mods/rigs. Additionally, unbonused cruise missiles/torpedoes are terrible, especially if you didn't fit the necessary prop mod. Without drones to fall back on, tackle frigs/drones would suck really really bad in PvE.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-04-03 15:56:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
I would suggest they refocus them towards pvp.
Replace the role bonus with cargo bay bonus of 50% and maybe a cap capacity bonus/ bonus to cap batteries.
Geared towards more solo and small gang stronger active reps and better tracking.
And buff the T2 resists there focus should be on survival and whilst having good damage application.
Extra slots should have more than T1 counterparts and ofc rebalance the damage bonuses for a more normal turret setup with maybe 1utility slot and sort out the fittings to be for 7 guns.
And nerf the drone capabilities with the tracking bonus its less necessary maybe a set of smalls and keep the large dronebays

Paladin
remove the web bonus its out of place and replace with a tracking bonus
HP bonus instead of reps its more ammarian

Golem
remove TP bonus its a minmatar thing and replace with explosion radius bonus

Kronos
remove web bonus and refocus towards speed and repping as to provide a bigger difference to the vindi

Vargur
replace the falloff bonus its too good on bs and its conflicts with the machariel

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high