These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon] Marauder rebalancing

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nero Meridan
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1441 - 2013-09-02 08:04:14 UTC
I like it. Ok i don't know where and how should they be used. But still. Awesome space vessels.

And for all ignorants out there : It's Kronos.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1442 - 2013-09-02 08:12:06 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Ytterbium pointed out that a Kronus with Null and Bastion can get to 60km Optimal+Falloff which hardly seems to suggest a focus on Rails exclusively. With longer effective blaster range and the relatively close ranges of Angel ship orbits I would say that standing still and blapping Angels is going to be as viable as ever.

Also, as you said for Rails you have the MJD to slide away and rain fire from a distance where tracking is not an issue.


Experience suggests to me that fitting blasters on a PVE battleship is rarely a good idea, even against angels.

In the situation described, a blaster ship using MJD to get away from a frigate swarm is going to put itself outside a range where it can apply damage. I think you'll find that railguns are likely to be the better option in that case.

In the situation described, you may want to stay put and use drones on the frigates while destroying the DPS ships with the blasters.

Of course if you're going to rely on drones, having a few spare would be welcome.

Does anyone know what the rationale for reducing the marauder's drone bay?

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
#1443 - 2013-09-02 08:14:27 UTC
Can I just ask.

On dreads, when you enter siege, you lose lock on anything currently locked, will that be the case for marauders?
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1444 - 2013-09-02 08:19:56 UTC
Big rEy wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:

Sry Mate, but you really don't see any advantages in lvl 4 mission running with proposed changes? The ECM immunity alone will make a lot of missions much much faster. Increased range also.

Yeah...you are right. I am used to fight guristas and their target jamming it's not something bad as long as I have some Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile. Wich I've always had just in case.Evil


Try sansha missions, where a single elite frig or cruiser reduces your range and tracking to 0 :). Permanently...
Zoe Israfil
#1445 - 2013-09-02 08:20:08 UTC
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
Can I just ask.

On dreads, when you enter siege, you lose lock on anything currently locked, will that be the case for marauders?



I personally am also VERY curious about that as well. I think you should; remote sensor boosters would then still be viable. I feel this is not in the "spirit" of these beasts.
RTSAvalanche
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#1446 - 2013-09-02 08:34:30 UTC
After thinking about this for somtime time..

Leave marauders as they are

But as for these mini-dreads - Rokh, Baddon, Hype & Mael - are all yet to see a T2 varient!

so people who want the mini dreads can have them
& those they still love the marauders as they are can still have them too!!
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1447 - 2013-09-02 08:36:18 UTC
CCP need to add one of the following bonuses to these ships, there is no need to all the bonuses but this ships does lack in one area or another

1. normal T2 resistances, the arguement against this is the tanks would be insane on some of the ships when in bastion mode, however CCP need to remember these are immobile BS hulls, all it would take is 1 tracking dread on field to kill them also they cant receive remote assistance in the mode so they do need that extra resistance already on this ship to maybe free up a slot for a AAR/ASB so you can coast in and out of the mode when you have logi support and are primary

2. 25% damage bonus while bastion module is active. your in a DPS ship just like a dread, there should be a small increase to DPS while you stuck sitting still

3. Give this ships back their drone bays, but make the drones be abandoned if you MJD or enter bastion mode and they are in space
Cade Windstalker
#1448 - 2013-09-02 08:44:08 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Ytterbium pointed out that a Kronus with Null and Bastion can get to 60km Optimal+Falloff which hardly seems to suggest a focus on Rails exclusively. With longer effective blaster range and the relatively close ranges of Angel ship orbits I would say that standing still and blapping Angels is going to be as viable as ever.

Also, as you said for Rails you have the MJD to slide away and rain fire from a distance where tracking is not an issue.


Experience suggests to me that fitting blasters on a PVE battleship is rarely a good idea, even against angels.

In the situation described, a blaster ship using MJD to get away from a frigate swarm is going to put itself outside a range where it can apply damage. I think you'll find that railguns are likely to be the better option in that case.

In the situation described, you may want to stay put and use drones on the frigates while destroying the DPS ships with the blasters.

Of course if you're going to rely on drones, having a few spare would be welcome.

Does anyone know what the rationale for reducing the marauder's drone bay?


I actually fully agree that a bigger drone-bay would be appreciated, personally I think we could bump them up to 100m drone bay without hurting very much. As someone who missions in a Rokh often (possibly out of masochism since I can fly better ships for it) I can attest that a 50m3 Dronebay is rather painful.

I suspect that this is to make them more vulnerable to small ships but personally I think they may have over-done it slightly.

Regarding a Blaster Kronus I would generally avoid using the MJD except on missions where rats spawn out past 50 km and you want to close distance on them.

Generally the problem in my experience with Blasters is that some rats orbit just outside of the range where you can apply good damage, a solid range bonus fixes this rather nicely when combine with the ability to fit large numbers of tracking computers.
Cade Windstalker
#1449 - 2013-09-02 08:50:01 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
CCP need to add one of the following bonuses to these ships, there is no need to all the bonuses but this ships does lack in one area or another

1. normal T2 resistances, the arguement against this is the tanks would be insane on some of the ships when in bastion mode, however CCP need to remember these are immobile BS hulls, all it would take is 1 tracking dread on field to kill them also they cant receive remote assistance in the mode so they do need that extra resistance already on this ship to maybe free up a slot for a AAR/ASB so you can coast in and out of the mode when you have logi support and are primary

2. 25% damage bonus while bastion module is active. your in a DPS ship just like a dread, there should be a small increase to DPS while you stuck sitting still

3. Give this ships back their drone bays, but make the drones be abandoned if you MJD or enter bastion mode and they are in space


Normal T2 resists would be over-powered under any circumstances, whether you include the Bastion Module or not. These ships would be able to fit entirely mobile buffer tanks on the order of 200-300k EHP without ever touching Bastion and fit neuts in the highs for extra nastiness, never mind the effective tank with logistics support, there are very good reasons no battleship has full T2 resists.

More damage gets them into a DPS race with the soon to be rebalanced Pirate Battleships which seem slated to be very powerful and expensive Attack Battlecruisers.

So, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that MJDing would disconnect your drones anyway or at least put them well outside of control range. As for Bastion mode, this seems entirely arbitrary and would make Bastion very poor for PvE or PvP since you have no option to engage a small fast target if he stays out of web range (oh and you're then forced to fit webs).
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#1450 - 2013-09-02 09:13:14 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Just another quick update.


  • We are removing the BASTION TRANSFORMERTHINGIE™ SKILL, as the name was just too awesome to be released to the public (ok ok, more seriously we got the point: having to train a new rank 8 skill just for this module wasn't appealing). Instead, the bastion mode will use high energy physics 4 and energy grid upgrades 5. The former is rank 5, the later you already need to fly the class. The bastion mode cycle time will be reduced to 60s by default to compensate.

  • We hear you regarding having to drop the safeties to use the bastion mode in high-sec - we're going to fix it so you don't have to drop them to use the module. However you'll still receive a weapon timer when activating it.


Adjusting OP to reflect this.

EDIT: remember all of this is subject to change - training high energy physics is at your own risk if the bastion mode skill requirements change.

May I ask what's the real problem with the Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration skill? Seems like an ideal candidate for the job, and personally I can't see any reason why looking for any other ones. Also, that'd be a nice steping stone for upcoming dread pilots, especially for those ratters (both high and nullsec) who later want to go for dreads.

Also, we'll we have both tech1 and tech2 versions of this module? And I think meta-variants would also be quite welcomed.
Cade Windstalker
#1451 - 2013-09-02 09:40:49 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:

May I ask what's the real problem with the Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration skill? Seems like an ideal candidate for the job, and personally I can't see any reason why looking for any other ones. Also, that'd be a nice steping stone for upcoming dread pilots, especially for those ratters (both high and nullsec) who later want to go for dreads.

Also, we'll we have both tech1 and tech2 versions of this module? And I think meta-variants would also be quite welcomed.


A few problems: One, it requires a long train on-map than the proposed skill does off-map. Two, it will likely cause confusion about whether or not the module requires fuel to operate. Three, it's meant to buff and unlock a single largely unrelated module (the only thing they have in common is the basics of the siege mechanic, nothing else).

I would think the skill requirements along with the stats clearly indicate it's going to be a single module, not an entire meta-line. Meta versions would likely be difficult to balance without simply adding pointless modules to the game. It's not like there are meta siege modules beyond T1 and T2 and even then the T2 Siege Module didn't exist for years. In this case there doesn't seem to be a balanced way to add a T2 variant which makes the idea of one pointless.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1452 - 2013-09-02 09:43:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
marVLs wrote:
What's the sense of keeping TP bonus on Golem when You (CCP) planning to bring new modules for missilesQuestion

srlyAttention who will use TP when he can fit tracking computer (for missiles) module?


Presumably for the same reasons that people choose to fit a painter over a TC when using turrets - ignoring the multiple modules and stacking argument, that is.

The skilled painter gives a bigger bonus to tracking than a tracking-scripted TC (37.5% (or 40% for a 20 mill RF one) and 30%), but ofc the TC has the option of the range script. If a missile guidance computer follows this path then it'll give less to precision than a painter, but have an option for a script to increase missile velocity or flight time.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1453 - 2013-09-02 09:46:49 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Normal T2 resists would be over-powered under any circumstances, whether you include the Bastion Module or not. These ships would be able to fit entirely mobile buffer tanks on the order of 200-300k EHP without ever touching Bastion and fit neuts in the highs for extra nastiness, never mind the effective tank with logistics support, there are very good reasons no battleship has full T2 resists.

More damage gets them into a DPS race with the soon to be rebalanced Pirate Battleships which seem slated to be very powerful and expensive Attack Battlecruisers.



Fair Point, in that case i would say they need about 20% more resistance to make it so they can cope, so maybe a 4% bonus per level buff on the ship
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1454 - 2013-09-02 09:51:15 UTC
MBizon Osis wrote:
Daniel Plain " in missions anything more than a flight of lights (and maybe a flight of salvage drones) is absolutely irrelevant in terms of dps."

So anything more than 5 lights in any mission any where is doing it wrong? How magnanimous of you to let us know how wrong we have been all these years, using more than 5 lights. Man, what were we thinking? I get 190 dps from 3 sentries or 3 heavy drones but my fitting window must be broke cause thats nearly double the DPS I get with 5 lights?

yes and it's also less than 10% of your total paper dps, which in exchange pin you down to one place (or in the case of heavies travel so slow that you often kill their target before they arrive) and get switched on by almost all mission rats (whereas lights are only targeted by elite frigates and elite cruisers).
absolutely irrelevant may have been an overstatement, so i will rephrase it: in missions, anything more than a flight of light drones is not worth the hassle unless you are in an actual drone ship or have terrible gun/missile dps (because of bad skills or bad fit).

I should buy an Ishtar.
Cade Windstalker
#1455 - 2013-09-02 09:51:17 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
marVLs wrote:
What's the sense of keeping TP bonus on Golem when You (CCP) planning to bring new modules for missilesQuestion

srlyAttention who will use TP when he can fit tracking computer (for missiles) module?


Presumably for the same reasons that people choose to fit a painter over a TC when using turrets - ignoring the multiple modules and stacking argument, that is.

The skilled painter gives a bigger bonus to tracking than a tracking-scripted TC (37.5% (or 40% for a 20 mill RF one) and 30%), but ofc the TC has the option of the range script. If a missile guidance computer follows this path then it'll give less to precision than a painter, but have an option for a script to increase missile velocity or flight time.


Except that the missile damage formula is a bit different than the turret formula. Given how missiles work I'd more expect a script-able module that boosts explosion radius and velocity with options to buff one or the other more, then a low-slot that buffs flight time and velocity. The trading of range for damage application ends up not making a lot of sense for missiles but trading between damage application type does since you can "max out" one half of the damage application of missiles without touching the other.
Cade Windstalker
#1456 - 2013-09-02 09:59:33 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Normal T2 resists would be over-powered under any circumstances, whether you include the Bastion Module or not. These ships would be able to fit entirely mobile buffer tanks on the order of 200-300k EHP without ever touching Bastion and fit neuts in the highs for extra nastiness, never mind the effective tank with logistics support, there are very good reasons no battleship has full T2 resists.

More damage gets them into a DPS race with the soon to be rebalanced Pirate Battleships which seem slated to be very powerful and expensive Attack Battlecruisers.



Fair Point, in that case i would say they need about 20% more resistance to make it so they can cope, so maybe a 4% bonus per level buff on the ship


It would be easier for CCP to simply adjust their base resists and probably more balanced. As it is though they still get ~60% resists, just added to two categories instead of spread across all four and the Bastion Module gives them better than T2 level base resists.

The resist bonus on the module is probably CCP's answer to the inherent balancing issue with T2 tanked battleships.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1457 - 2013-09-02 09:59:49 UTC
RTSAvalanche wrote:
After thinking about this for somtime time..

Leave marauders as they are

But as for these mini-dreads - Rokh, Baddon, Hype & Mael - are all yet to see a T2 varient!

so people who want the mini dreads can have them
& those they still love the marauders as they are can still have them too!!


T2 hyperion... heh. I can imagine a youtube channel dedicated to the 20:1 gatecamp fights...

Hyp is my favourite ship, but I don't think even I would argue for a T2 monster hyperion in the game Smile

But I agree with your sentiment.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1458 - 2013-09-02 10:00:45 UTC
Pookoko wrote:

.....
I'm all up for interesting changes, and this definitely is something new, but I do have some practical concerns regarding the use of rails for Kronos in PvE situations.

1) From actual experience, I do know that rail Kronos has hard time applying DPS on Angel battleships inside 10km range without 90% webs.
.....


let me clarify i'm against the proposed changes but here i had to say something....

if you even get into 10km of angle bs with the proposed changes you didn't understand the intended use nor how to play eve missions with a mjd bs.

why not bring some vailid complains about those proposed changes???
like an immobile target with selfsustained tank only wont last longer OR wont apply more dmg than a mobile BS that can have logi support in pvp?
Crysantos Callahan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1459 - 2013-09-02 10:02:06 UTC
Kaeden Dourhand wrote:
Crysantos Callahan wrote:
I think it's good first step in rebalancing those ships, I'd suggest to give missile boats an explosion velocity bonus.

But the really reall really important thing is to make the bastion mode only work in low/null sec, don't make highsec carebearing even more attractive than it already is. This could be a good thing to lure people in lower sec


Do you even know what you're talking about?

Marauders are fine for any content highsec can throw at them tank-wise. If you can't tank it in a marauder, you're doing it wrong.

In incursions using these would even be super-bad since you can't get RR anymore.

The defensive bonuses of the bastion mode are lost on highsec players, simply because it's overkill. Maybe you can fit a 4th weapon upgrade or something, to squeeze out an extra 50-100dps or so, but that's DPS lost anyway because of the removal of drone bandwith.


Sorry, have been away for a few days, but now to answer you... not true. If you can boost the tank with 1 module in the highslots then you can free other mid/lowslots for better damage application or even dps. And if your case would be true then the HS bears wouldn't mind not being able to use it, right?

I just think it would make sense to make a mod like this only available in the lower security regions to lure people to go there. Give people reasons to move out of their little empire space and if it's just to unleash the full power of their marauders! I don't see why this would be a big issue, it works for many other mods, too - and especially as a stepping stone between BS - Cap-sized ships it'd make sense.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1460 - 2013-09-02 10:08:09 UTC
Crysantos Callahan wrote:

Sorry, have been away for a few days, but now to answer you... not true. If you can boost the tank with 1 module in the highslots then you can free other mid/lowslots for better damage application or even dps. And if your case would be true then the HS bears wouldn't mind not being able to use it, right?

I just think it would make sense to make a mod like this only available in the lower security regions to lure people to go there. Give people reasons to move out of their little empire space and if it's just to unleash the full power of their marauders! I don't see why this would be a big issue, it works for many other mods, too - and especially as a stepping stone between BS - Cap-sized ships it'd make sense.


Are you saying that the bastion module makes you feel safer about lowsec pve?

I think most people would see the bastion module as a liability in lowsec, in the same way as triage mode on carriers. Being forced to stay still is a huge liability.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".