These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP- what r you guys thinking towards marauders? not finished stats, just general role change

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#281 - 2013-07-04 20:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
The Djego wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Make them more M-A-R-A-U-D-E-R ish?

Give them a generalised role bonus towards hacking structures (/Techno-babble ".... need for a Battleship hull and power-grid systems to support the immense mainframes required for concerted projected electronic attacks....."/Techno-babble) possibly even other ships - kind of like a reverse/negative effect warfare link.


I can't imagine a single hacking site where I would want to use a battleship for. Oops

Gabriel Karade wrote:
Fix the oddities aswell:

like the absurdly low sensor strength, the Vargur powergrid, the defunct tractor bonus, oh did I mentioned the Vargur powergrid?.... X


The low sensor strength and lock speed are on the hulls to prevent them from being to good in solo pvp, the pg was chosen to not fit auto cannons and 3 heavy neuts(what you could if the ship was designed around fitting a full rack of 1400mm artis). In general requesting a fitting bonus to large weapons similar as on tier 3 BCs would solve the problem.

Wasn't referring to hacking sites - I meant a new, actual hacking role of player structures, and possibly something similar against player ships (the 'negative/reverse effect' warfare links)

The bit about "prevent them from being good in solo PvP" is quite redundant these days, has infact really been that way since 2008, you of all people know this.

Edit: Just to be clearer on what I mean by 'reverse' warfare links - think of all the goodness a Command Ship brings to your fleet.... now flip that round into a penalty and apply it to enemy ships/fleet (sort of 'hacking' if you will). I suppose a bit like the negative system-wide penalties in an Incursion, but localised to on-grid radius...

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Just Lilly
#282 - 2013-07-04 20:52:11 UTC

Maybe fit Marauders for the role of exploration?

Deep into unknown hostile territory...or behind enemy lines.

Less dps and more utility / survival? Blink
Powered by Nvidia GTX 690
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#283 - 2013-07-05 08:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Wasn't referring to hacking sites - I meant a new, actual hacking role of player structures, and possibly something similar against player ships (the 'negative/reverse effect' warfare links)


Edit: Just to be clearer on what I mean by 'reverse' warfare links - think of all the goodness a Command Ship brings to your fleet.... now flip that round into a penalty and apply it to enemy ships/fleet (sort of 'hacking' if you will). I suppose a bit like the negative system-wide penalties in an Incursion, but localised to on-grid radius...


I would rather like to see a bonus like this on Black ops or Command ships, for the simple reason that Marauders, with a few tweaks are very good combat ships already and a bonus like this should rather increase the utility of ships that are not totally geared towards damage but utility roles in gangs.

Gabriel Karade wrote:
The bit about "prevent them from being good in solo PvP" is quite redundant these days, has infact really been that way since 2008, you of all people know this.


I know this just to well, I never agreed to the BS solo pawnmobile problem CCP did see. Nothingness the stats where chosen to reflect this. The biggest problem today would be probably not solo BS but fleet use(this is why I dropped the idea of a resist bonus instead the active tank bonus completely). A few pages ago I did write up some posts where I see the biggest issues. The focus should not be, overcoming pirate BS in strength but providing a different option with different bonuses, that are a bit more geared towards damage applications or projection(for solo pve/pvp), what together with the utility high slots makes them a bit more flexible and different in gangs to.

I still wouldn't give the Vargur the pg to fit 3 heavy neuts, because I think this is just to much to create a ship with a similar tank than a Maelstrom(even without the boost bonus, the extra EM and Thermal resist are very good it you got far more space for cap charges), that is faster, got more range and is able to deal with smaller hulls even better than a Tempest.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#284 - 2013-07-06 07:10:52 UTC
Come on Fozzie, spill the beans, and it had better be good... the Kronos is the sexiest Megathron hull out there, needs more awesomesauce....

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Just Lilly
#285 - 2013-07-06 16:23:32 UTC
Can we expect a change to Marauders for the winter expansion?

And will that include Black Ops aswell?

I'd like some sort of timeline perspective here, pretty please Blink
Powered by Nvidia GTX 690
Khanid Voltar
#286 - 2013-07-06 18:09:57 UTC
I'd say orientate it more towards a l4 ship that isnt just for safe space use.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#287 - 2013-07-06 19:29:03 UTC
What about a change to enable a method that would encourage solo unsupported attacks?
(Of course these could be used in groups too, but this would not require them as much as other methods)

Make the Marauder truly live up to it's name. It would become popular to use it in ways that would be suicidal with other ships.

Proposal:
Once per day, the Marauder is able to execute an emergency jump, to a location preset by a bookmark.

The range of this jump to be modified by the pilot's jump drive calibration skill, and is the same as the BLOPs BS.

To be specific, this would not be wise to use for attack if it would also be needed for defense.
(It would drain 80% of cap, so using this as an attack would risky)
How is this different? In the event the cap is below 80%, it still jumps, but it arrives at the preset BM with zero cap.

The once per day is a balance point, it could be done more often if dev balance found it practical.

This will obviously encourage wilder behavior in null and low, security hits will still happen where applicable.
This obviously may be blocked from use in high sec.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#288 - 2013-07-06 20:42:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Nikk Narrel wrote:

You are approaching this from a two dimensional perspective by limiting yourself to a single type of solution.

Random combinations and sub elements mixed together, and the resulting experience will be too improbable to predict in a manner leading to the dull sensation we have now.
all randomness will do is produce more annoyance (well ****, i got the crappiest version of the mission with ewar and all the other stuff i hate!). as for actually completing missions, players will just develop a setup that is robust enough to deal with any combination of random factors (Rattlesnake) and then only fly that one setup. if that is not possible, your solution just forces them to go out, take a look at the mission and then redock and bring out the right setup. if you go so far as to randomize missions while they are already being completed, players will just streamline their redocking to the right point in the mission or just stop running missions (because, frankly, at this point it's too annoying to put up with).
Quote:
You can keep the same AI over structure, so long as it's elements are unknown before the encounter. Just tweak the encounter speed to emphasize the value of a buffer tank and high alphas.

aaah, so this is a stealth buff minmatar thread? news flash: designing missions for alpha will instantly force any serious min/maxer into artillery.
Quote:
Stick in the means to recharge cap / shields and armor between encounter aspects, or work in a method to bank like cap boosters or NPC logistics aiding between fights. Under the right circumstances you might need to guard the NPC logi in order to survive.

yea i'm sure people will love protecting the logi just like they love saving the damsel.... by the way how much fun is it to notice something shooting at your logi and then waiting out an 11 sec lock time before being able to do anything against it?
Quote:
Be creative, and don't rely on the AI being limited to the same resources as the player.

no amount of creativity will keep a mission exciting when you are running it for the 7456th time. the only question left by then is: do i get the easy/fast version or one of the annoying, tedious versions that throw the kind of stuff at me that i do not want to have to deal with?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#289 - 2013-07-06 21:09:00 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
all randomness will do is produce more annoyance (well ****, i got the crappiest version of the mission with ewar and all the other stuff i hate!). as for actually completing missions, players will just develop a setup that is robust enough to deal with any combination of random factors (Rattlesnake) and then only fly that one setup.

Sounds more like PvP already.

Not knowing exactly what to expect, but fitting to be the least vulnerable all around.

Daniel Plain wrote:
if that is not possible, your solution just forces them to go out, take a look at the mission and then redock and bring out the right setup.

Which I said would not be possible.

It would make no sense to go to the effort of multiple random possible mission details, only to have the player know for certain so they can min max a fitting.

If the player should have any clues, they can be given in the briefing. Otherwise, the point is specifically being unable to plan for the consequences.

Did you try scouting, and left only to return with a new fit? So did they, with a random result again.

The point of being like PvP, is that your opponent is trying to min max beating you as much as you are them.
Unlike PvP, the server can categorize and read your fit, and do the job better. This can compensate for the lack of human originality and skill as needed.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Sir Dragon
Einherjar Yggdrasils
#290 - 2013-07-07 00:00:20 UTC
shouldn´t each turret consume 2 pieces of ammo per shot?
Since the existence of an turret that is 2xstronger then the others . . . eehhh
So the turret should use 2 ammo pieces per shot.
Pantera Home Videos:    http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/ck2ykdBrDRM/Pantera-Vulgar-Video-Full-Completo.html  ;  http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/xpma3u7OjfU/Pantera-Watch-It-Go-Full-Completo-CD1.html ;    http://pktube.onepakistan.com/video/yyO9rAx8eoQ/Pantera-Watch-It-Go-Full-Completo-CD2.html .
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#291 - 2013-07-07 00:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
all randomness will do is produce more annoyance (well ****, i got the crappiest version of the mission with ewar and all the other stuff i hate!). as for actually completing missions, players will just develop a setup that is robust enough to deal with any combination of random factors (Rattlesnake) and then only fly that one setup.

Sounds more like PvP already.

Not knowing exactly what to expect, but fitting to be the least vulnerable all around.

which does not mean it is fun. it's just another restriction on viable ships for high end missioning.

Quote:
Which I said would not be possible.

It would make no sense to go to the effort of multiple random possible mission details, only to have the player know for certain so they can min max a fitting.

If the player should have any clues, they can be given in the briefing. Otherwise, the point is specifically being unable to plan for the consequences.

Did you try scouting, and left only to return with a new fit? So did they, with a random result again.

The point of being like PvP, is that your opponent is trying to min max beating you as much as you are them.
Unlike PvP, the server can categorize and read your fit, and do the job better. This can compensate for the lack of human originality and skill as needed.

aaaaand here we go. not only have you just made people roll mission rats until they get the one combination that is easiest/most profitable, you have also made mission rooms into ever-respawning bounty and loot piñatas to be farmed for hours nonstop to then come back for the wrecks.
by the way, at this point we are very close to the limit of what CCP can probably achieve without overcommitting dev resources. any more changes to the system would gobble up an entire expansion cycle for something that is not even broken (compared to other aspects of the game).

I should buy an Ishtar.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#292 - 2013-07-07 01:34:51 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
aaaaand here we go. not only have you just made people roll mission rats until they get the one combination that is easiest/most profitable, you have also made mission rooms into ever-respawning bounty and loot piñatas to be farmed for hours nonstop to then come back for the wrecks.

Everything comes back to farming for you.

These NPCs must have udders with full teats on them, you speak of milking them so often.
Fine, have at it, if that's what suits you.

I never indicated those existing missions should be removed, I understand many players want this type of milk run rather than mining or ratting. Each to their own...

Daniel Plain wrote:
by the way, at this point we are very close to the limit of what CCP can probably achieve without overcommitting dev resources. any more changes to the system would gobble up an entire expansion cycle for something that is not even broken (compared to other aspects of the game).

This must be some type of attempt at humor.

You may not have noticed it, but a huge chunk of the playerbase seems to operate in a manner quite evasive to typical PvP interests.
It's not that the devs can't make it more challenging, rather too many players apparently can't handle a greater challenge.
Their afraid of raising the bar too high, and alienating paid subscribers who also are responsible for a healthy amount of plex purchases too.

No, CCP identified the limits of the players as their boundary, not the potential of NPCs.

For example, wormholes were truly inspired, their greatest flaw in my view was that they made them more extreme in too many different directions at once, and that is the only reason they are not a lot more popular.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
EXIA MIKOSZ
Strike Birds Zero
#293 - 2013-07-07 10:31:32 UTC
Hopefully CCP Will Show Marauders Changes Soon becaouse im starting to be a bit Nervous
I Trained Hardly for my Golem becaouse that ship fits my Playstyle
As Long as they want to keep Tractor Beam(yes Im Not using Noctis and i feel better using 1 ship) and Painter Bonus i will be fine with other changes
4 Launchers are fine when we have Torps and not attacking ships with defenders using cruises
we save isk for ammo and also we have free slots for other modules
I Wish Also CCP will make Golem Better with Torps

If They Totally Rework That Ship i will be very dissapointed
I didnt fly other Marauders so im not saying anything about them
thats your role guys
CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2013-07-07 13:16:31 UTC
Golem with insane cruise/torp range+missile velocity.

Maybe 3x missile velocity so It wouldnt SUCK so much in incursions.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#295 - 2013-07-07 13:32:31 UTC
2 things I'm seeing here.

First of all level 5 missions are a thing. Fix them or scrap them. Bring them back to highsec.

secondly golem/et al for incursions = not using them for what they're designed for.

CNR is a great damage projection mobile. Damage might be delayed and lower but less cap/RR dependant due to range manipulation. Golem might be better off as a torpedo boat that that realistically might require looking at introducing missile modules that affect range/flight time/explosion radius.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#296 - 2013-07-07 16:56:09 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Everything comes back to farming for you.

These NPCs must have udders with full teats on them, you speak of milking them so often.
Fine, have at it, if that's what suits you.

I never indicated those existing missions should be removed, I understand many players want this type of milk run rather than mining or ratting. Each to their own...

nice try to shift the goal post there... if you never intended to change the currently available missions, why didn't you say so from the beginning?
as for farming: as i have stated before, one of the major reasons why pve in eve is just a farmfest is that there is no way to create anything exciting out of eve's clunky game mechanics, aesthetics and balancing. your guns aim for themselves, fire by themselves and reload themselves. there are no combos, no twitch reactions, no shiny explosions, (no boobs), nothing that will actually get the player excited on a visceral level. just take a look at this video. that's what other mmo's have to offer in the pve department, and i'm not even talking single player games.
Quote:
This must be some type of attempt at humor.

You may not have noticed it, but a huge chunk of the playerbase seems to operate in a manner quite evasive to typical PvP interests.

so every non-pvper is a mission runner? funny how so many of them have no combat skills and sit in jita 24/7. as 'huge' as the chunk of missioners may be, i'm sure an even larger chunk of the community is affected by things like terrible pos mechanics, sov mechanics, ship balance, industry UI etc. etc..
Quote:
It's not that the devs can't make it more challenging, rather too many players apparently can't handle a greater challenge.
Their afraid of raising the bar too high, and alienating paid subscribers who also are responsible for a healthy amount of plex purchases too.

No, CCP identified the limits of the players as their boundary, not the potential of NPCs.

nonsense. if any type of player is able to adapt and endure it's the eve player. the reason CCP is conservative with changes to missions is that they know perfectly well how limited eve's mechanics are and how much effort it would take to overhaul the entire game to be able to produce anything other than farmable content. they tried several times with cosmos missions, wormholes and incursions and they have finally learned their lesson.
Quote:
For example, wormholes were truly inspired, their greatest flaw in my view was that they made them more extreme in too many different directions at once, and that is the only reason they are not a lot more popular.

you never were in a wormhole, were you? if there is anything more dull than chaining missions, it's farming sleepers. the only exciting aspect of wormhole life is the ever-present danger of being involved in pvp.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#297 - 2013-07-07 18:41:39 UTC
Truly, you assume a lot.


Daniel Plain wrote:
nice try to shift the goal post there... if you never intended to change the currently available missions, why didn't you say so from the beginning?

Your assumption that I was replacing existing missions rather than adding new content was not obvious enough.
I pointed it out once it was made plain to my awareness.
No change occurred except regarding your awareness. Removing a type of content is always notable, and should never be assumed.

I said:
This must be some type of attempt at humor.

You may not have noticed it, but a huge chunk of the playerbase seems to operate in a manner quite evasive to typical PvP interests.

Daniel Plain wrote:
so every non-pvper is a mission runner? funny how so many of them have no combat skills and sit in jita 24/7. as 'huge' as the chunk of missioners may be, i'm sure an even larger chunk of the community is affected by things like terrible pos mechanics, sov mechanics, ship balance, industry UI etc. etc..

I said a huge chunk, not ALL, or even MOST.
As in "more than enough" to be significant to design interests in this context. Sorry if that seemed unclear to you.

Then I said:
It's not that the devs can't make it more challenging, rather too many players apparently can't handle a greater challenge.
Their afraid of raising the bar too high, and alienating paid subscribers who also are responsible for a healthy amount of plex purchases too.

No, CCP identified the limits of the players as their boundary, not the potential of NPCs.

Daniel Plain wrote:
nonsense. if any type of player is able to adapt and endure it's the eve player. the reason CCP is conservative with changes to missions is that they know perfectly well how limited eve's mechanics are and how much effort it would take to overhaul the entire game to be able to produce anything other than farmable content. they tried several times with cosmos missions, wormholes and incursions and they have finally learned their lesson.

Perhaps you put motives to their actions too quickly.

Perhaps they noticed that the old missions were not abandoned, despite the new opportunities, which could be seen as defining a plateau of ability / interest of the player base involved.

Then I said:
For example, wormholes were truly inspired, their greatest flaw in my view was that they made them more extreme in too many different directions at once, and that is the only reason they are not a lot more popular.
Daniel Plain wrote:
you never were in a wormhole, were you? if there is anything more dull than chaining missions, it's farming sleepers. the only exciting aspect of wormhole life is the ever-present danger of being involved in pvp.

Yes, I actually spent a couple of months in wormholes.

It demanded a rather specific play style, that ultimately was more time intensive than I could manage.
It also demanded that I adapt to living out of a POS exclusively, with no reliable transportation logistics. Sure, you eventually get useful connections to reach sale and resupply opportunities, but not on a convenient enough basis for my play interest.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#298 - 2013-07-07 18:44:42 UTC
Marauders?:O

the name is missleading for a pve ship
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#299 - 2013-07-07 20:07:55 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Truly, you assume a lot.


Daniel Plain wrote:
nice try to shift the goal post there... if you never intended to change the currently available missions, why didn't you say so from the beginning?

Your assumption that I was replacing existing missions rather than adding new content was not obvious enough.
I pointed it out once it was made plain to my awareness.
No change occurred except regarding your awareness. Removing a type of content is always notable, and should never be assumed.

I said:
This must be some type of attempt at humor.

You may not have noticed it, but a huge chunk of the playerbase seems to operate in a manner quite evasive to typical PvP interests.

Daniel Plain wrote:
so every non-pvper is a mission runner? funny how so many of them have no combat skills and sit in jita 24/7. as 'huge' as the chunk of missioners may be, i'm sure an even larger chunk of the community is affected by things like terrible pos mechanics, sov mechanics, ship balance, industry UI etc. etc..

I said a huge chunk, not ALL, or even MOST.
As in "more than enough" to be significant to design interests in this context. Sorry if that seemed unclear to you.

Then I said:
It's not that the devs can't make it more challenging, rather too many players apparently can't handle a greater challenge.
Their afraid of raising the bar too high, and alienating paid subscribers who also are responsible for a healthy amount of plex purchases too.

No, CCP identified the limits of the players as their boundary, not the potential of NPCs.

Daniel Plain wrote:
nonsense. if any type of player is able to adapt and endure it's the eve player. the reason CCP is conservative with changes to missions is that they know perfectly well how limited eve's mechanics are and how much effort it would take to overhaul the entire game to be able to produce anything other than farmable content. they tried several times with cosmos missions, wormholes and incursions and they have finally learned their lesson.

Perhaps you put motives to their actions too quickly.

Perhaps they noticed that the old missions were not abandoned, despite the new opportunities, which could be seen as defining a plateau of ability / interest of the player base involved.

Then I said:
For example, wormholes were truly inspired, their greatest flaw in my view was that they made them more extreme in too many different directions at once, and that is the only reason they are not a lot more popular.
Daniel Plain wrote:
you never were in a wormhole, were you? if there is anything more dull than chaining missions, it's farming sleepers. the only exciting aspect of wormhole life is the ever-present danger of being involved in pvp.

Yes, I actually spent a couple of months in wormholes.

It demanded a rather specific play style, that ultimately was more time intensive than I could manage.
It also demanded that I adapt to living out of a POS exclusively, with no reliable transportation logistics. Sure, you eventually get useful connections to reach sale and resupply opportunities, but not on a convenient enough basis for my play interest.


* eats popcorn* So... anytime you Gent's going to stop Arguing over PVE content or the lack of Interesting PVE content.. and back to actually Discussing... Marauders or the future of them. While I do know in the end you both might wander back to the ship itself. I fear it might occur AFTER the changes Go live and all Relevant Conversation about them that might occur will be to late. But as one of them Slightly More PVE vs PVP players.. I would like to see them Rats more Intense. Would rather See my Rattle, Nightmare, Or Kronos actually Get Damaged Instead of me just ya know, Load FOF or Drones into a ship, Watch Ani's Stream, check my indy alt mining Ice.. and glancing at the Level 4 occasionally... I would as others have mentioned (not many) Like to see the PVP aspect of it rise up remarkably.. Especially for a T2 Battleship being built with the best technology available at the time.. to act that way... Just my two Cents..

I do like the mentioned possibility someone Said of a Jump Drive on it.. Let it get behind enemy lines and actually Cause chaos. That Idea I do enjoy.. Kind of like the Big Nastier Brother of a BOP. Just without the Cloak.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#300 - 2013-07-07 20:27:54 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Removing a type of content is always notable, and should never be assumed.
removing and replacing are not the same thing. but frankly, i don't care so much since you already gave up the argument on all essential points.

Quote:
I said a huge chunk, not ALL, or even MOST.
As in "more than enough" to be significant to design interests in this context. Sorry if that seemed unclear to you.
frankly, i disagree flat out. account for account, mission runners are not a sufficiently large portion of players to justify diverting major resources from other sorely lacking aspects of the game.
Quote:
Perhaps you put motives to their actions too quickly.

Perhaps they noticed that the old missions were not abandoned, despite the new opportunities, which could be seen as defining a plateau of ability / interest of the player base involved.

yea or it could be seen the way it actually is: missions are not abandoned because they offer a unique combination of steady income, low ramp up, solo play and pve combat.
Quote:
Yes, I actually spent a couple of months in wormholes. [...]

after admitting that wormhole life was too tedious for you, how can you justify adding more tedium to mission running?

I should buy an Ishtar.