These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Marauder Rollback Style

Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#21 - 2013-08-29 14:46:43 UTC
Katia Echerie wrote:
The way I see Marauders is they should be Battleship sized glass cannons. Heck give them 8 guns with the 100% bonus but keep fittings almost as they are now. Also give them a significant mobility bonus. Essentially what we would get is a battleship with around 60-90k ehp and 2k+ DPS. That would give them a unique role in battleships as they would be the ultimate damage dealer to subcaps. They still wouldn't step on Dreads because they would still have significantly less DPS while.

Then they would need to reduce the cost and training time, as you are depicting the equivalent of tier three battlecruisers being raised to battleship levels.

Instead of firing weapons one size class bigger, they would effectively have the equivalent by virtue of a bonus to this.

Oh, and they should stop calling it tech two, as this is not something specialized by their own previous examples with the aforementioned BCs. Precedents must be respected, or continuity suffers.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#22 - 2013-08-29 14:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Tchulen wrote:
10,000m3 ammo bay.


Running the numbers:

Scourge Javalin Torpedo: Volume: 0.1m3

Now I take that 10,000/0.1 = 100,000 (Total Supply) x 2 (Bonus of +100% damage) = 200,000 torpedoes worth of damage.

Now take that 100,000 and divide by 4 Launchers = 25,000 torpedoes per launcher and divide that further by 30 torpedoes per load and you get 833.33 reloads per launcher.

It'd do the job that's for sure...but you wouldn't want to lose it full of T2\Faction Ammo would ya Twisted

EDIT: Mathz woz rong.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#23 - 2013-08-29 14:53:16 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
10,000m3 ammo bay.


Running the numbers:

Scourge Javalin Torpedo: Volume: 0.1m3

Now I take that 10,000/0.1 = 100,000 (Total Supply) x 2 (Bonus of +100% damage) = 200,000 torpedos.

Now take that 200,000 and divide by 4 Launchers = 25,000 torpedos per launcher and divide that further by 30 torpedos per load and you get 833.33 reloads per launcher.

It'd do the job that's for sure...but you wouldn't want to lose it full of T2\Faction Ammo would ya Twisted

EDIT: The numbers are inclusive of the bonus as if you were firing 8 launchers. Obviously doing maths while at work should never be attempted by me again!

So, the big bonus to a Marauder is that it is the new ammo hauler?

I want something worth training towards. I can't see this being worth the cost and training time.
Added to which, the cost of the ammo needed to justify the size of the ammo hold.

Put guns on a Bustard instead, and I think you have this version.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#24 - 2013-08-29 15:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I want something worth training towards. I can't see this being worth the cost and training time.
Added to which, the cost of the ammo needed to justify the size of the ammo hold.


EDIT: Maybe a Hoarder after the "Balance" is done will rival our Marauders for ammo hauling BlinkTwisted

Preaching to the choir with me Nikk, I agree with you that the Marauder needs more appeal AKA Role Bonus\Capability but my example was how it can last for "long journeys behind enemy lines" depending on how you interpret it.

Just out of curiosity what sort of "Self Rep" numbers are you thinking?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#25 - 2013-08-29 15:13:04 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I want something worth training towards. I can't see this being worth the cost and training time.
Added to which, the cost of the ammo needed to justify the size of the ammo hold.


EDIT: Maybe a Hoarder after the "Balance" is done will rival our Marauders for ammo hauling BlinkTwisted

Preaching to the choir with me Nikk, I agree with you that the Marauder needs more appeal AKA Role Bonus\Capability but my example was how it can last for "long journeys behind enemy lines" depending on how you interpret it.

Just out of curiosity what sort of "Self Rep" numbers are you thinking?

The rollback concept itself required effectively "Out of Combat" use exclusively, and was effectively as long as the delay set by the devs when your pod gets ejected in the original description.
Katia Echerie
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#26 - 2013-08-29 15:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Katia Echerie
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Then they would need to reduce the cost and training time, as you are depicting the equivalent of tier three battlecruisers being raised to battleship levels.

Instead of firing weapons one size class bigger, they would effectively have the equivalent by virtue of a bonus to this.

Oh, and they should stop calling it tech two, as this is not something specialized by their own previous examples with the aforementioned BCs. Precedents must be respected, or continuity suffers.


Perhaps, but by keeping them as T2 you are also reducing the number of Marauders floating around. I for one wouldn't want to see alpha fleets of Marauders like that as essentially you would be getting double the numbers.

That said, I think the 8 100% bonus guns is not the most interesting use for them.

Another alternative I see which would also be interesting could be as follows:

Keep the 4 100% bonus guns + 3 utility highs but change the role bonus for Marauders from tractor beams and salvagers to a 20% resistance bonus.

Essentially a Kronos for instance would then have the 100% gun damage bonus, a 20% resists bonus, a 5% per level damage bonus from Gal. Battleship, a 10% per level web velocity factor bonus from Gal. Battleship, a 7.5% per level repair amount bonus from Marauders and the 7.5% per level tracking bonus from Marauders.

This would make every Marauder have a double tanking bonus that encourages active tanking them, which by their lore, goes in line with the idea of extended deployment in enemy territory. In essence this makes them valuable vessels for small gang and solo PVP while also encouraging their use in large scale pvp.

Fittings would receive a slight adjustment for all 4 Marauders with perhaps a change or two to their slot layouts to conform to their new role but overall they would remain about the same.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#27 - 2013-08-29 15:39:51 UTC
Katia Echerie wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Oh, and they should stop calling it tech two, as this is not something specialized by their own previous examples with the aforementioned BCs. Precedents must be respected, or continuity suffers.

Keep the 4 100% bonus guns + 3 utility highs but change the role bonus for Marauders from tractor beams and salvagers to a 20% resistance bonus.

I get what you are pointing at, but this was never described as a Heavy Assault class vessel.

I question whether those are legitimate tech two directions, since the faction boats cover much of the same territory as well.

Back to the resistances, I agree they should exist in some form, this is a battleship after all, and speed tanking is outside of expectations for it.

But durable in one fight, or maybe even a couple, is not what this is portrayed as. It is suggested that it won't need to repair or resupply, which is what is accomplished by returning to friendly bases in this context.
That specific quality, long term endurance, coupled with it being a monster compared to other ships, is what we want to see.

It needs a role not practical for a faction BS, because of the specialization making it possible for this one.
Katia Echerie
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#28 - 2013-08-29 18:15:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

I get what you are pointing at, but this was never described as a Heavy Assault class vessel.

I question whether those are legitimate tech two directions, since the faction boats cover much of the same territory as well.

Back to the resistances, I agree they should exist in some form, this is a battleship after all, and speed tanking is outside of expectations for it.

But durable in one fight, or maybe even a couple, is not what this is portrayed as. It is suggested that it won't need to repair or resupply, which is what is accomplished by returning to friendly bases in this context.
That specific quality, long term endurance, coupled with it being a monster compared to other ships, is what we want to see.

It needs a role not practical for a faction BS, because of the specialization making it possible for this one.


Ok, as a comparison I did a little test in pyfa. Basically, I simulated what a 20% resist bonus would be by adding a command ship bonus (t2 link + level 5 toon = 21.6% resist bonuses) to the present Kronos and compared it to a Hyperion and a Megathron Navy Issue.

The Kronos was fit as follows
HIGH
4 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II
3 x Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
MED
1 x Heavy Capacitor Booster II
1 x Warp Scrambler II
1 x Stasis Webifier II
1 x Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I
LOW
1 x Damage Control II
2 x Large Armor Repairer II
2 x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1 x Explosive Nano Membrane II
1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
RIGS
1 x Large Nanobot Accelerator I
1 x Large Aux. Nano Pump I

Consider about 3% extra PG and CPU.

The Hyperion was fit as:
HIGH
6 x Ion Blaster Cannon II
MED
2 x Heavy Capacitor Booster II
1 x Warp Scrambler II
1 x Stasis Webifier II
1 x Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I
LOW
1 x Damage Control II
2 x Large Armor Repairer II
2 x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1 x Explosive Nano Membrane II
1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
RIGS
1 x Large Nanobot Accelerator I
1 x Large Aux. Nano Pump I
1 x Large Hybrid Burst Aerator I

The Navy Megathron was fit as:
HIGH
7 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II
MED
1 x Heavy Capacitor Booster II
1 x Warp Scrambler II
1 x Stasis Webifier II
1 x Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I
LOW
1 x Damage Control II
2 x Large Armor Repairer II
2 x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1 x Explosive Nano Membrane II
2 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
RIGS
1 x Large Nanobot Accelerator I
2 x Large Aux. Nano Pump I

Then, using these fits I compared the strength of their active tanks and damage application considering they would fire upon an MWD fitted cruiser sized vessel (150m sig radius) that is scrambled and webbed. Both in damage application and in tank strength the Kronos would be superior to both the Navy Mega and the Hyperion.

The numbers are pretty clear, with this fit the Kronos has the ability to tank 1176 dps before heat compared to 904 dps of the Hyperion and 743 dps of the Navy Mega. Next the Kronos also has the highest raw dps with Void loaded out of the 3 with 931 dps, compared to 860 dps of the Hyperion and 891 dps of the Mega. However, its in damage application where the Kronos shines. Both the Hyperion and the Navy Mega would be shooting at a cruiser sized target that would be moving at around 84 m/s after web and scrambler, netting approximately 560 and 740 effective dps at optimal ranges respectively. The Kronos however would be able to reduce the target velocity down to 21 m/s, applying its full 904 dps at optimal range.

Thus, in a combat situation the Kronos would be a combination of the Hyperion's tanking ability with the Mega's damage application and would fill the ultimate combat role for a battleship.


Lets keep in mind though that my test is providing an extra 1.6% resists compared to what it would actually be were it a 20% bonus.

So if we consider this it becomes clear that this vessel would be able to do what neither vessel can. At the same time it doesn't step on their toes because the Kronos would be very vulnerable to cap warfare and it wouldn't be as effective as the Mega buffer tanked.




Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#29 - 2013-08-29 18:33:26 UTC
Katia Echerie wrote:
So if we consider this it becomes clear that this vessel would be able to do what neither vessel can. At the same time it doesn't step on their toes because the Kronos would be very vulnerable to cap warfare and it wouldn't be as effective as the Mega buffer tanked.

They should not be comparable in the first place, it should be an apples vs oranges conflict.

The same logic applies to substituting the BLOPs for the Marauder, in your previous analysis.
The BLOPs would do damage, but the fact that it can effectively cloak, travel by covert cyno, and bridge other craft, makes it difficult to compare on just one facet like that.
The value of the craft is that it is a battleship, and so much more.

If we only want good tank and DPS, faction already does this, look no further.
I have a lovely Rattlesnake that is fun to fly, why would I skill up a Marauder if all it can do is the same basic battleship roles?

Marauders need two things.

A hook, something they can point at as specialized, not being present on other ships.

Not finding their in game use superseded by faction BS options, like they are too frequently now.
Katia Echerie
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#30 - 2013-08-29 18:58:45 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

They should not be comparable in the first place, it should be an apples vs oranges conflict.

The same logic applies to substituting the BLOPs for the Marauder, in your previous analysis.
The BLOPs would do damage, but the fact that it can effectively cloak, travel by covert cyno, and bridge other craft, makes it difficult to compare on just one facet like that.
The value of the craft is that it is a battleship, and so much more.

If we only want good tank and DPS, faction already does this, look no further.
I have a lovely Rattlesnake that is fun to fly, why would I skill up a Marauder if all it can do is the same basic battleship roles?

Marauders need two things.

A hook, something they can point at as specialized, not being present on other ships.

Not finding their in game use superseded by faction BS options, like they are too frequently now.


Sorry but I disagree. Its not the case of an apples and oranges kind of thing. By that logic, if we compare HACs and ABCs, the latter pretty much substitutes the former. Sure one gets high resists, better speed and tracking but the other fills pretty much the same role, does more damage, is easier to skill for and is also cheaper.

Furthermore if you look at HACs specifically the only thing they do is have high durability and high damage application. Even still, I would still use in most cases a faction cruiser over a HAC unless fleeted with logistics.

The truth is that pretty much every role available has already been filled with something. There is nothing novel to be filled which is probably why CCP is taking so long to decide what to do with Marauders. I for one would like to have a large vessel with high damage application and good active tanking ability. Right now you can do one or the other but you can't have both. Theres no ship that can do both.

Unless CCP does something absolutely bonkers for Marauders like maybe giving it a jump drive or a special ability unique to Marauders (some kind of module that can only be fitted to them that does something useful - if theres anything left to be done) there really isn't much to do to them other than make them the ultimate combat vessel. Frankly, to me Marauders should be the ultimate subcapital combat ships, its not something difficult to make them do more damage or have better durability than Pirate vessels.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#31 - 2013-08-29 19:12:34 UTC
Katia Echerie wrote:
Unless CCP does something absolutely bonkers for Marauders like maybe giving it a jump drive or a special ability unique to Marauders (some kind of module that can only be fitted to them that does something useful - if theres anything left to be done) there really isn't much to do to them other than make them the ultimate combat vessel. Frankly, to me Marauders should be the ultimate subcapital combat ships, its not something difficult to make them do more damage or have better durability than Pirate vessels.

I don't think a special ability is uncalled for, in this case.

We have really nice tier 1 2 & 3 BS hulls already, as well as the faction hulls.
They are designed for solid combat options, whether PvP or PvE.

Making the Marauder worth the training time and cost to get into, without creating a graduating effect, should be worth the effort.

PvP, specifically, is geared to not flying what you cannot afford to lose. The Marauder will never be a mainstay PvP ship, so long as it's role can be filled with a less expensive ship.
Noone will covert bridge in anything but a BLOPs, however.

The role of Marauder does not exist in PvP, since it does nothing not already practical with other hulls.

The ship does not exist as tech 2, except in name only.

Katia Echerie wrote:
Furthermore if you look at HACs specifically the only thing they do is have high durability and high damage application. Even still, I would still use in most cases a faction cruiser over a HAC unless fleeted with logistics.


As I already stated, I question whether HACs and AFs are legitimate tech two directions, since the faction boats cover much of the same territory as well.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#32 - 2013-08-29 19:47:02 UTC
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#33 - 2013-08-29 19:50:15 UTC

Yeah, I already posted in it.

Thank goodness they gave it a hook, even if it was a mini dread thing.
Katia Echerie
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#34 - 2013-08-29 19:55:29 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

I don't think a special ability is uncalled for, in this case.

We have really nice tier 1 2 & 3 BS hulls already, as well as the faction hulls.
They are designed for solid combat options, whether PvP or PvE.

Making the Marauder worth the training time and cost to get into, without creating a graduating effect, should be worth the effort.

PvP, specifically, is geared to not flying what you cannot afford to lose. The Marauder will never be a mainstay PvP ship, so long as it's role can be filled with a less expensive ship.
Noone will covert bridge in anything but a BLOPs, however.

The role of Marauder does not exist in PvP, since it does nothing not already practical with other hulls.

The ship does not exist as tech 2, except in name only.

Katia Echerie wrote:
Furthermore if you look at HACs specifically the only thing they do is have high durability and high damage application. Even still, I would still use in most cases a faction cruiser over a HAC unless fleeted with logistics.


As I already stated, I question whether HACs and AFs are legitimate tech two directions, since the faction boats cover much of the same territory as well.


Nikk, I agree that perhaps what we want/need is a special ability to warrant the training time and cost but I don't demerit the value of a Battleship sized HAC. While I have said that ABCs step all over HACs, in a fleet with logistics support that is not the case. AFs have a role of their own in that they are excellent at applying damage to targets bigger than themselves while still retaining some resemblance of survivability, even more so in a fleet, accompanied by bigger vessels. In both cases you could get similar or better bang for buck with alternative ships meaning either ABCs for HACs or cruisers (if hunting cruisers)/ destroyers (if hunting frigates) for AFs. That said, when used in the correct situation they will greatly outperform their alternatives.

What we need for battleships, if they are to fill a role similar to HACs and AFs is a niche that they can do better than their alternatives. BLOPS are already interesting, albeit broken so what we need for Marauders is something different in terms of combat. There really aren't any other combat roles that haven't yet been filled other than a ship that could encourage solo/small gang play.

With the current meta there aren't any battleship hulls that can jump straight into a 5-6 man bc/cruiser gate camp, fight it out and survive. What I'm thinking for Marauders is something like what used to be possible with the Dominix before the ASB nerf, where you could fit a 2 xl asb, 2 invuln, 1 boost amp and easily tank out a gate camp while blasting away ship by ship.

So while I was writing this it occured to me that perhaps what we need is a battleship sized "siege" module. This module would only be fitted to Marauders and would boost both damage and local rep ability significantly, with a penalty to maximum velocity and inability to warp. Say your Kronos can now toggle a siege module that has a 2 min cycle boosting your DPS by a factor of 2 or 2.5, active tank by a similar amount at the cost of not being able to warp away and a 75% max speed penalty. This essentially forces you to commit to a fight but gives a compelling reason to use one. That perhaps could be interesting....

....

Then the devs posted exactly what I was thinking would be cool the second I was gonna post it.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#35 - 2013-08-29 23:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Out of combat repair.

Restore all hull armor and shields to like new condition.
Restore ammunition and charges used up by the ship.

Temporal stabilizer function.
Ship is rolled back, (restored), to the last point in time it was undocked.
Items in cargo hold are destroyed. Ejecting items you wish to save before is recommended.
Pilot capsule is auto ejected in this process, X seconds before activating.
(X = dev balancing aspect)
(This is a weakness in the process, exposing the ship unmanned briefly.)

ONLY Ammunition and charge class items are restored to cargo hold, in amounts present when last saved.
Any item besides this is lost.
(Same limit to items allowed onboard ships in a carrier)
Any ammo or charge item not used by the ship, or otherwise removed from the ship, is left as is.
Only items expended by the ship are restored in this manner.
(They are not present to be restored, otherwise)

I am happy to clarify any aspects left unclear!



not getting this idea.....


why is the marauder getting this banged up? With active tank bonuses it should not be redocking damaged. And if it has hull damage, said pilot needs to sell it....they are doing something wrong and need to not be flying this boat. Generally even a crap pilot will work out how to fly a CNR in the 28+ days of BS 5 and however long AWU 5 is it takes to even sit in a golem.


The loss of item besides ammo.....a major issue with marauders is its salvage/loot as you go ability is basically useless at this point. Its more effective to rush the mission, git her done and noctis it later on. Especially on say cruise golem, you tend to get wrecks clusters spread all over and notcis' range boost much better post mission for clean up. Not really a downside this feature....this jsut motivates the small percentage of pilots left to join the rest of the noctis users post mission run.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#36 - 2013-08-29 23:59:03 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Out of combat repair.

Restore all hull armor and shields to like new condition.
Restore ammunition and charges used up by the ship.

Temporal stabilizer function.
Ship is rolled back, (restored), to the last point in time it was undocked.
Items in cargo hold are destroyed. Ejecting items you wish to save before is recommended.
Pilot capsule is auto ejected in this process, X seconds before activating.
(X = dev balancing aspect)
(This is a weakness in the process, exposing the ship unmanned briefly.)

ONLY Ammunition and charge class items are restored to cargo hold, in amounts present when last saved.
Any item besides this is lost.
(Same limit to items allowed onboard ships in a carrier)
Any ammo or charge item not used by the ship, or otherwise removed from the ship, is left as is.
Only items expended by the ship are restored in this manner.
(They are not present to be restored, otherwise)

I am happy to clarify any aspects left unclear!



not getting this idea.....


why is the marauder getting this banged up? With active tank bonuses it should not be redocking damaged. And if it has hull damage, said pilot needs to sell it....they are doing something wrong and need to not be flying this boat. Generally even a crap pilot will work out how to fly a CNR in the 28+ days of BS 5 and however long AWU 5 is it takes to even sit in a golem.


The loss of item besides ammo.....a major issue with marauders is its salvage/loot as you go ability is basically useless at this point. Its more effective to rush the mission, git her done and noctis it later on. Especially on say cruise golem, you tend to get wrecks clusters spread all over and notcis' range boost much better post mission for clean up. Not really a downside this feature....this jsut motivates the small percentage of pilots left to join the rest of the noctis users post mission run.

The idea predates the official thread.

The idea was that it recoups it's ammo and charges, as well as fixes any damage due to combat or overheating.

The recovered ammo was very specifically the ammo used by the ship since it had undocked.

The entire point was that it never needed to resupply, unless it was to sell a hold full of loot.
Previous page12