These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Rubicon] Marauder rebalancing

First post First post First post
Temuken Radzu
Gallente Federation
#1161 - 2013-08-31 18:28:47 UTC
How about instead a bonus to the normal tractor beam range, the Marauder can fit Capital Tractor beams?
solves all problems and will give Captial Tractors also some use. As far i know they are rarely used on the only ship that can fit them right now the Rorqual as they only sit at a pos.
Mr Doctor
Star Nation
Goonswarm Federation
#1162 - 2013-08-31 18:31:08 UTC
Tractor bonus is clearly to keep it useful singleboxing PvE like they said they wanted. I doubt if it was removed that we'd get another replacement so its fine.
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#1163 - 2013-08-31 18:31:30 UTC
Return 10% web bonus on maradeurs!

Siege module for maradeurs is crazy idea and it will only help noobs to kill maradeurs on missions, but many people use them NOT only for mission.
CCP stop doing stupid things for trial players who will be happy to kill expensive ships and leave the game in few month.
Why ccp always think only about new idiot players and never about old players?!

We have enough idiots in this game, look at TESTS, no more please, we tired kill theys noobships and empty pods and read spam in local chats!

Return 10% bonus to maradeurs and remove this crazy 60 sec siege cycle for maradeurs, it's again simply crazy idea of CCP members who never play in this game.

You want to use this new module on maradeur CCP Ytterbium ?
Ok, come to us and try to run missions on this ship with new module, and you will see it will be impossible to do even 1 mission cos you will be killed in this 60 sec cycle.

Antagonistic Tendencies
#1164 - 2013-08-31 18:40:51 UTC
Mr Doctor wrote:
Tractor bonus is clearly to keep it useful singleboxing PvE like they said they wanted. I doubt if it was removed that we'd get another replacement so its fine.

I'm not against the tractor beam bonus myself - I don't really use it but I could and I know some people have a use for it. I think tho if its going to have a tractor beam bonus then it needs other relevant bonuses/functionality in the fit to make it a complete package rather than being sidelined by just using a noctis or whatever.
Anselm Cenobite
Gold Ring Enterprises
#1165 - 2013-08-31 18:44:22 UTC
The whole microjump bonus is kind of cool--but I'm a sad panda that there's no more web bonus. Am I reading that correctly? I normally fly a Paladin with two Fed Navy stasis webbers--but that flight style is going to be fubared if the web bonus goes away.

Please, please don't take my webs! Or if you want to shake up Marauders, create a plug-in module for Paladins--one type of module gives the ship the microjump bonus. The other module gives the web bonus. Or to create variety, make two versions of each Marauder for each race with slightly different skins--one for webbing, one for Microjump boost.
MJ Incognito
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1166 - 2013-08-31 18:47:49 UTC
I would suggest an added bonus of a 1 second reduction in activation time for jump drives per level since these things are so immobile and easy to jam.
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#1167 - 2013-08-31 18:57:25 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Adwokat Diabla wrote:
These will be:

-broken for pve, especially plexing, and probably whing
-impossible for any small gang to break
-medium/large fleets will just scram and probably alpha through any self-given reps

These just don't seem like a good addition to the game.

after sleeping on it, i tend to agree with this one. the bonuses to resists and repairs are so over the top that marauders become the ultimate solo pve pimpmobile bar none, obsoleting all other hulls. in incursions they lose their role as web providers to the vindicator and are thus if not useless, then at least strongly disadvantaged.
in pvp, their designed play style may or may not shake up the meta game but my guess is that players who can afford to pvp with a 1bil hull will not give up their mobility advantage for some range and active reps.

As little I know about PVP I find this concept appealing, actually. To me Marauder idea is a solo ship or a small band without internal structure. Well, 1 minute commitment is rather against this idea. OTOH, strong local tank without ability to rely on remote, seems to work along the line.

It will be interesting to see if/how it works in practice.
Abyss Azizora
Amarr Empire
#1168 - 2013-08-31 18:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Abyss Azizora
These changes will make marauders so useless at every role (Except maybe highsec pos bashing and even then, only an offline pos.) that I'm debating selling mine before noone uses them anymore.

Even atm they are kind of crap at everything, and only flown by people that don't understand that a Pirate BS outperforms them in every way that matters. I didn't think they could be made any worse, clearly I underestimated CCP.
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1169 - 2013-08-31 18:59:18 UTC
this is very exciting change. I do not want them to give marauders anymore dps bonus as it will make them OP and everyone will use this ship for pve. I rather have people make choices between dps or utilies. Also, if you fly a marauder and salvage the whole room. this is not the ship for you. marauder is perfect for missions with only a few BS here and there which means its not profittable to redock and bring in a noctis to salvage a few wrecks. also i find salvaging is really poor, most of the extra isk comes from the loot from large wrecks (angels)

The only thing that i have see a major problem with is the tiny dronebay. The bandwidth isnt too much of a problem but only 25m3 bay is too tiny for a BS.

No matter what there will always be people not happy about the new changes because they want the dev to make ships that suits the way they play.
Amarr Empire
#1170 - 2013-08-31 19:03:36 UTC
At first I thought this idea was a little weird, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. This will definately a huge impact on getting these ships out there fighting, and will help shift the meta back away from the fast skirmish (I hope).

One request though - could you consider (or comment on why if you already have) switching the Paladin's optimal bonus (which replaced the web factor bonus) to a tracking bonus? The loss of web bonus is going to seriously hinder its ability to hit closer ships, and it would be the only marauder to not get a tracking bonus of any kind. That paired with the cap capacity bonus (which I believe is one of the weakest you give) might put a Paladin a tiny step behind its peers.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1171 - 2013-08-31 19:49:50 UTC
If the Kronos could get a +10% stasis web range per level (instead of 10% falloff per level) it would work well with the bastion module. The Bastion module puts void charges to around 16Km, a T2 web with a 50% range bonus is 15Km.

Also the need a way to GTFO with the mass increase it really hit the align time hard, letting them micro jump with out the spool-up time would work quite well as a GTFO while at the same time not making them uncatchable.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Baggo Hammers
#1172 - 2013-08-31 19:51:51 UTC

If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.

The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1173 - 2013-08-31 20:16:21 UTC
Paladin stands to gain the most out of this. It will obsolete everything for killing EM/THERM weak rats.

The reason is that the optimal buff makes conflagration builds viable. We are looking at 1218 plain gun dps without implants at 37+25 range sieged, 27+18 unsieged. This is well enough for missions when complemented with 1k@50+30 Gamma and 875@90k scorch. This also tanks easily with just t2 repper and damage control.

Any damage buff on these would just obsolete other PVE ships for many purposes.
#1174 - 2013-08-31 20:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: NiteNinja
Well heres my two sense as a seasoned Golem Pilot...

I do like this mini Siege-Mode idea, but the attributes you've given to the Golem have conflicts.

For one, the bonuses given favor for Cruise Missiles, but the ship's attributes still favor Torpedoes.

With Maxed Missile skills and faction missiles, I can belch a torp at 31km. With 25% bonus, won't amount to much (Comparable to a missile velocity rig). Switching to T2 torps, Rage will see worse range than that, and Javelin doesn't have enough damage to make a difference over T2 fury Cruise Missiles. T2 Torpedo launchers still eat way too much powergrid even with the extra 2k MW jacked in to properly use a T2 heavy cap booster and micro jump drive.
Micro Jump Driving will put your tush at inconvinient areas of your torpedoes, making that bonus useless in this case as well.

Now on the other hand, if I fit cruises, the explosion velocity bonus on the ship is useless. You can hit just about anything with a well aimed T2 Fury missile and a target painter. So why have that?

So here are my proposed suggestions to resolve this imbalance.

- If favoring torpedoes; make the Micro Jump Drive have an ability to have a range selector from 10km to 100km, that way you won't overshoot your target if you wish to hop over.
- If favoring Cruises; remove the explosion velocity attribute altogether, move the target painter bonus to Caldari Battleship, then add a 5% rate of fire (or damage) to the Marauder skill like the Paladin. We need to get the DPS of a T2 battleship higher than the T1/Faction Variant anyway, just makes better sense.

These ideas won't favor an overpowering, but a more versitile selection of ways to fit it, since it seems that once again, Torpedoes are getting the shaft in the rebalance, making the Typhoon the only viable torpedo boat in the game.

Edit: Just thought of something as well... in Odyssey 1.1, local shield and armor reps are gaining a 15% repair bonus, and I would assume that a Bastion-mode Marauder won't be immune to gang links, which means gank linked Bastion-mode Marauders may become extremely overtanked. Might want to hurry up on fixing the Off-Grid/On-Grid gang link boost issue.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1175 - 2013-08-31 20:18:54 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it. Please keep it civil people!

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

#1176 - 2013-08-31 20:20:27 UTC
i own a vargur atm and cant speak for other marauders but stealing a good deal of the drone bandwith and bay will make PVE a bit "uncomfortable" to say it in a friendly tone.

one can compensate killing frigs by MJD 100km away and start Shooting frigs as they reaproach.

i also dislike to make the vargur THAT slow. the other changes are ok and look promising. 5000 power grid are VERY needed to give artys an Option, also in pvp right now MWD, large neut and large smartbomb + local tank + guns are not possible atm. after Change it will be possible.

for pvp i see some possibilities. with the right (expensive) Fitting vargur and Golem with Crystal set might tank in deployed mode Close to a Triage carrier.

i see a possibility to make fleets for Tower busting. dickstars with lots ECM required either capitals or large fleets with tons of logistics. now a bunch of marauders might just do the trick without logi.

Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#1177 - 2013-08-31 20:31:33 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
" Two" way mode ship...

Well for a two way mode ship one mode is nerfed across the board former shadow of it self and 2nd is immobile tanked sentry other word there is no 2 way mode ship

CCP consider not nerfing ship mobility / tank in non bastion mode.

Do not "encourage" me to fly it how you want let me play this game.

I believe those are simple changes that can be make without any fuss and cover more of pilot / game playstiles.

i agree, good way of putting it...
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#1178 - 2013-08-31 20:33:12 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I am a sadpuppy that 80% of this Thread is just ignorant or "to-stupid-to-read", please no changes CCP we dont want something New we just want just better and more expensive **** like in WoW, bigger is better, T3>T1 at any means give us MOAR!!!!!

its not that we want it to be just better, its that this ship is both expensive and skill intensive, meaning that ships that arent as expensive and skill intensive should not be just plain better than it.
Goonswarm Federation
#1179 - 2013-08-31 21:32:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
You're ********-- pre-nano nerf, ALL T2 webs were 90% webs... web strength bonii have only become useful *since* the nano nerf. Furthermore they don't cause balancing problems between ship sizes-- they work as intended to make webbing-specialized ships a lethal threat to things that speed-tank, which is pretty much their whole gimmick.

Personal abuse not withstanding you are mostly incorrect, the bonuses were increased when the Nano-Nerf went into effect way back in 2008 but it was basically a line-item at the time. A sort of "oh, yeah, that". The arguments from the time still apply to current 90% webs.

The other part of this is that these aren't on specialized ships, they're on high DPS, fairly tanky Battleships. The Vindicator has the highest DPS of any ship in the game right now and a 90% web bonus to go with it. This hardly makes it a "specialized and lethal" threat, it's a threat to anything within web-range and if you do get in web range you'll only be there as long as it takes 11 effective turrets of blaster damage (and probably a full flight of Sentries) to peel back your hull.

This is hardly a "whole gimmick". You can, in most situations, achieve a similar effect but at greater trade-offs by simply fitting two webs or using two different webbing ships but this never reaches quite the level of ridiculousness that bonused webs do because of stacking penalties.

I think that if CCP didn't believe that the web bonus was over-powered they wouldn't be taking it off both of these ships and this supports the idea that it's likely going to be completely phased out of the game or relegated to crusier hulls either during the Recon rebalance or the Vigilant when they do pirate-cruisers.

Wow you're totally right. People should probably be expected to pay 1.3b isk for a battleship with no special features going forward, because a combination of massive DPS and a webbing bonus on a short-range battleship definitely isn't a gimmick that can convince people to spend extra coin on a ship. I'd say that a ship who's entire gimmick is creating an 18km circle of absolute destruction around itself at the expense of a massive pricetag and no utility slots fairly specialized.

Oh, and thanks for repeating exactly what I said-- that web strength bonuses in fact have nothing to do with pre-nerf webs and are an entirely post-speed-nerf phenomenon.

And lastly, you're going to speculate as to "why" CCP are taking web bonuses off Marauders? Did you read the OP? Clearly there's no justifiable "why" to anything they're doing with this proposal. It's like the "select all, right-click, fit to ship" approach to game design in here. Totally ridiculous.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1180 - 2013-08-31 21:42:28 UTC
Can I just have my SP points back from Maraders...hell I'd even take 1/2 of them back. What a waste.