These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#1861 - 2013-09-04 00:54:18 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
They will be good at PVE, great in fact every mission runners dream.

They are however bad for PVE as content, here is a ship that breaks all game design possibilities.

Immune to E-war, no range problems can hit NPCs anywhere.

Can travel great distances quickly.

Massive tank makes omni tank easy, no need to even think about NPC damage profiles or tailoring ship fittings.

NPC ships don't scram so you can't even be pointed.

How do you make PVE that is challenging and interesting for these ships? How do you encourage diverse ship use when one ship is so strong?

This is not what PVE needs, it needs balanced communal content.


Level 4 missions have never been "challenging" and only moderately interesting.

These aren't going to be the end-all be-all of Incursions by a long shot, and they seem unlikely to be better at most Null-sec PvE than a carrier or T1 fleet setup.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Wait, so when it concerns buffing a "PvP ship," power creep is a problem, but when it comes to making an idiot-proof battleship for PvE that, "saves you having to worry much about tank in Level 4s," that is not power creep?


Power-creep in level 4 missions specifically or PvE in general is completion time. If these things don't significantly alter completion time from current Pirate Battleship or Marauder setups then they're fine.

I'd be a little concerned if I thought they were going to be better than current incursion setups but I don't think that's currently the case and the devs don't seem inclined to let them keep that level of tanking power.

Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
The Marauders are not especially fast ships. The Golem and Paladin are slower than the base battleship hull, the Kronos is faster than the Mega but slower than the Navy Mega. Even the Vargur is only the same speed as the Tempest FI (and very slightly faster than a basic Tempest), and thus slower than a Typhoon FI (and the same speed as the base Typhoon). Marauders are not good at being fast, it's not their niche, and there's no reason to push them that way, given that the faction attack BSes are already filling that role. Making the Marauders all about applied damage and giving them a super-tank option makes them comfortably different from the navy/fleet faction battleships, especially as they have the bonus to MJD use to give them a special sort of mobility.


This guy gets it.

As much as I like the name "Marauders" I would be happy to see it changed if it would silence all of the completely missing the point "but it doesn't match the definition of it's name!!!" arguments. They never did that, someone at CCP thought Marauders was a cool name six years ago and so we got Marauders.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#1862 - 2013-09-04 00:57:52 UTC
imo.... give us t2 version of maelstrom, abaddon, etc. Do what you will with marauders, but give us something....
Cade Windstalker
#1863 - 2013-09-04 01:03:28 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
imo.... give us t2 version of maelstrom, abaddon, etc. Do what you will with marauders, but give us something....


Black-Ops are due to be split and there have been more requests than I can count for a KK paint-job Rokh. I would bet you'll get your wish, just not from Marauders =P
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#1864 - 2013-09-04 01:18:24 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
Daishan Auergni wrote:
I've seen a bunch of ppl complain that the MJD isn't suited for lvl4 gates because the gates aren't exactly 100KM off...

May I introduce the concept of the TRIANGLE? 3-sided shape. Should be familiar. Pick an acute angle such that jumping BACK will make the 3rd leg of the triangle whatever distance you need? I know. Takes some reckoning skill but surely it's better than doing 6KM/minute (~100m/s). With some practice jumping twice will land you on a gate or wreck or whatever in 2 minutes.


if I jump 100km from the warp in then I'm probably doing less dps to the npcs, it is probably better to warp in and use an AB or MWD to approach the gate while shooting the npcs. the triangle is useful when afking with a domi or rattler, but a marauder not so much.



Hence the range bonus. Also nothing forces you to jump so you're 100km away from the rats, you can always jump so you're actually closer to them or more able to apply better damage, hence the damage projection bonus on the Bastion module.


most of my marauder fits the bastion mod is stacking penalized to who cares much with respect to the range bonus.

I'll stick with my thoughts that in most missions the MJD is not a bonus.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
DSpite Culhach
#1865 - 2013-09-04 01:39:34 UTC
TL;DR

As far as PvE usage, I just wanted the Marauder changes to make missioning more interesting :( I'm not sure whats on the table will do that. I Already sit still in one spot with an "unkillable" Rattlesnake, then have to fly off and get a Noctis to clean up. Bastion mode seems to be even more boring then a Sentry Rattler. Just saying.

---

I've been reading this thread as it updates. Not really grasping the mechanics regarding what will happen when players get their hands on these things on the real server, so I'm not sure I can offer hard numbers on what I'd like to see.

On that note, when I found out about Bastion mode, before reading anything on it, my brain tried to guess what It "should" behave like, and this was basically it:

* Bastion off, you fly it like a normal (as in what we have now) Marauder. I would only have expected some tweaks to happen, maybe making tractor beams reach MUCH further out, that sorta thing, and a more flexible MJD system would have been awesome, on a ship designed to pop around the battlefield via mini-jumps, ie, click MJD, and it charges up, and if re-clicked, it makes a "partial" jump, with a faster cooldown.

* Bastion mode for the "oh crap" moments in order to help the tank and
* Bastion mode for "deathblossom" mode like in the Last Starfighter, as in:

- Bastion shifting grid or computer power from normal systems like propulsion, warp drive etc, and pumping it to either weapon system, or shield/armor repair system.

So like a script in targeting systems, you could up your tank to try and wait out the extra DPS, possibly draining extra cap in the process, so timing is still of the essence, or cutting weapon range, upping weapon power drain - or for missiles just upping fuel burn for extra flight speed at cost of range - to gain a DPS spike to remove DPS from the field.

Anyway, what I'm getting at, Bastion should be a PvE mode where you have to make a tactical decision to use, at the correct time, to get something done, not simply "turn on, activate FOF's, hit F1, go for lunch" (maybe possible on a Golem?), not because "it's too easy" but mainly cause it would be boring.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1866 - 2013-09-04 01:46:19 UTC
Arya Greywolf wrote:

This is the primary reason why the Talos has a 25 drone bay and the other ABCs do not: it has the shortest range - by far - of all the ABCs and thus the full flight of ECM drones or Warrior IIs give it the extra protection it needs. With the Paladin and Vargur, this range disparity is dissimilar and nearly non-existent. Whilst the Paladin has an optimal bonus, the Vargur has a falloff bonus (and we all know how much falloff Barrage has). Further, with the Bastion module, both boats receive a substantial bonus to optimal and falloff.

With scorch Mega Beam's optimal is greater than the optimal+falloff of 800mm ACs with Barrage. The Vargur's DPS won't exceed the Paladin's until about 75km out. Against a battleship target, the Paladin is simply superior. The availability of mids for Tracking Computers, as opposed to Tracking Enhancers in the Vargur largely negates the superior tracking the Vargur againt frigates with high transversal. The Vargur's advantages revolve around the X-ASB, not around better damage application.
Quote:

And so, my point still stands that the Paladin is more susceptible to smaller targets and therefore should have a larger (or at least equal) drone bay as compared to the Vargur.

They are both about equally susceptible to frigates that get within ~15km. This does argue that they deserve a similar size in drones.

Note that 'racial traits' argues about equally for both Amarr and Minmatar - the Minmatar battleships have bays about the same size as those carried by Amarr battleships.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1867 - 2013-09-04 01:49:44 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
[The Vargur's advantages revolve around the X-ASB....


understatement of the century...

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".
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1868 - 2013-09-04 01:55:31 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
imo.... give us t2 version of maelstrom, abaddon, etc. Do what you will with marauders, but give us something....


Black-Ops are due to be split and there have been more requests than I can count for a KK paint-job Rokh. I would bet you'll get your wish, just not from Marauders =P

Finally a Khanid Abbadon...
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1869 - 2013-09-04 01:57:20 UTC
Zeus Maximo wrote:
So the marauder can now be deemed worthless to pvp?

minus drone bay
minus webs
minus sensor strength
minus HP
minus ability to move with its bonus(What fool fights a fight sitting at zero speed?)

In the future I picture a brand new category being brought to the market labeled PVE SHIPS. Marauders will be the first type in there and their name will have no relation to their actual purpose.

Sensor strength is not changing. Hit Points are dropping a little on some (Vargur), and remaining much the same on others. They're also getting smaller signatures, more sensor range, and better resolution (so faster locks). So, loss of web bonus (which only ever applied to two of the four ships) they are at worst about the same now as they will be once changed, outside of bastion, with the option of using bastion as well.

So, at worst the 'new marauders' will be no worse at everything than they are now except killing frigates inside web range, and only two of them see any change there.

But don't think for a moment that I'm trying to get in the way of your hyperbole - it's most entertaining.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1870 - 2013-09-04 01:59:44 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
[
As much as I like the name "Marauders" I would be happy to see it changed if it would silence all of the completely missing the point "but it doesn't match the definition of it's name!!!" arguments. They never did that, someone at CCP thought Marauders was a cool name six years ago and so we got Marauders.


Here is some text taken directly from a marauder's description in the info screen:

"Marauder Geared toward versatility and prolonged deployment in hostile environments, Marauders represent the cutting edge in today's warship technology. While especially effective at support suppression and wreckage salvaging, they possess comparatively weak sensor strength and may find themselves at increased risk of sensor jamming. Nevertheless, these thick-skinned, hard-hitting monsters are the perfect ships to take on long trips behind enemy lines."

Since this is what it says on the tin, this is what the players can be forgiven for expecting and demanding.

"prolonged deployment" argues for large cargo (check!) and drone bays (nerfed).

"support supression" argues for anti-frigate measures.

"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.

Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.


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".
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1871 - 2013-09-04 02:04:15 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.

Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.

I was thinking about this earlier, and I think this might silence the lore critics AND make lowsec missioning more viable:

Role Bonus: +2 Warp Stability.

It wouldn't be gamebreaking power creep to make these things a little harder to lock down. It would fit the established description, the name, and the idea of a mission boat with enhanced jumping capabilities. I think this would work awesome...
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1872 - 2013-09-04 02:08:03 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:

So that just leaves this ship being 'easy' due to not moving.... but then you have to deal with either MJD'ing multiple times to reach optimal ranges or gates..... or using an MWD which is really nasty slow with the new reduced speeds, so compared to a normal ship it is no easier as reaching your optimal will take much much longer even if you have amazing projection.

I don't think you realise just how the projection on these will be, nor how good the application will be. Also, the marauders will have (especially the Paladin) better cap recharge than standard battleships (or navy/fleet battleships, for that matter), and so will be able to run their MWDs for longer. Overall, I'll be very surprised if their effective applied DPS is anywhere near as poor as you seem to think it will be.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1873 - 2013-09-04 02:15:34 UTC
Zeus Maximo wrote:

+Web bonus back(something that will lock down targets, open for ideas)

Again, half of them never had a web bonus. So, either you're trying to get something you never had under the guise that 'it was always there', or you're actually only talking about two of the ships, and if so, you should say so. It seems likely to me that you're saying "marauders need their webs back" to make it sound like all of them have been grievously nerfed by losing a bonus to webs - an untruth.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1874 - 2013-09-04 02:25:36 UTC
Aglais wrote:

In order for the Marauder to be useful in PvP it has to deploy Bastion Mode. Which makes it stationary. Which makes it far more of a 'point defense'/area denial style fighter, than a skirmisher. As a result, "Marauders" end up with the MOST MISLEADING NAME IN THE ENTIRE GAME.

Oh, rubbish. Check out the history of 'frigates'. The name once meant a ship with a role like that of a 20th century cruiser ('cruiser' was a direct replacement for the term). Then, in the 20th century it came to mean a dedicated anti-submarine ship, or a small destroyer. EVE's frigate are none of those. Or, how about 'battlecruiser'? Well, a battlecruiser was a ship class introduced shortly before WWI (and abandoned by the end of WWI as being a bad idea). These ships were the size of battleships, but sacrificed a small amount of firepower and a lot of armour for speed if British, and if German more firepower was sacrificed and only a little armour (again, for speed). The only EVE battlecruisers that are even close to the original meaning of the term are the 'attack battlecruisers', and they aren't very close - the ships that most closely fir the description are the various 'attack battleships', and they too aren't especially close. 'Marauder' is a rather looser term than people have been claiming here, and could fit a great many of EVE's combat ships - it would be good for all T1 frigates and assault frigates, for stealth bombers, for the T1 combat cruisers, HACs, half the recon ships, the battlecruisers, the Black Ops battleships, and the marauders, without even stretching the term.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1875 - 2013-09-04 02:27:04 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.

Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.

I was thinking about this earlier, and I think this might silence the lore critics AND make lowsec missioning more viable:

Role Bonus: +2 Warp Stability.

It wouldn't be gamebreaking power creep to make these things a little harder to lock down. It would fit the established description, the name, and the idea of a mission boat with enhanced jumping capabilities. I think this would work awesome...


I didn't go that far in a previous proposal. I suggested that the ship could be immune to webs and the effects of scrams on the MWD.

This would mean that the ship could run back to gates and stay mobile enough to burn away from warp disruption bubbles, even while tackled.

Couple that with the "anti-support" web bonus at least on the armour versions) and it has a fighting chance of evading a gank attempt - by no means a guarantee, but a chance.

warp stability would of course be another feather in its cap, and this is a bonus that already exists on T1 mining ships as well as T2 haulers.

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".
Flamespar
WarRavens
#1876 - 2013-09-04 02:45:26 UTC
Marauders should get a bonus to orbital strikes when in bastion mode.
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1877 - 2013-09-04 02:47:44 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.

Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.

I was thinking about this earlier, and I think this might silence the lore critics AND make lowsec missioning more viable:

Role Bonus: +2 Warp Stability.

It wouldn't be gamebreaking power creep to make these things a little harder to lock down. It would fit the established description, the name, and the idea of a mission boat with enhanced jumping capabilities. I think this would work awesome...


I didn't go that far in a previous proposal. I suggested that the ship could be immune to webs and the effects of scrams on the MWD.

This would mean that the ship could run back to gates and stay mobile enough to burn away from warp disruption bubbles, even while tackled.

Couple that with the "anti-support" web bonus at least on the armour versions) and it has a fighting chance of evading a gank attempt - by no means a guarantee, but a chance.

warp stability would of course be another feather in its cap, and this is a bonus that already exists on T1 mining ships as well as T2 haulers.

Exactly, as it's a mechanic that already exists, specifically on ships designed for PvE/Hauling and is shown to be far from game-breaking, I thought it might have a remote chance of being implemented.

However, Scram immunity for any function or module I think WOULD be game-breaking in some applications...
Cade Windstalker
#1878 - 2013-09-04 03:00:31 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
most of my marauder fits the bastion mod is stacking penalized to who cares much with respect to the range bonus.

I'll stick with my thoughts that in most missions the MJD is not a bonus.


No one is forcing you to use the MJD but anything that lets you better apply damage is definitely a bonus.

As for the stacking penalties, meh, it's still a pretty good bonus, better than ~2-3 range modules.

DSpite Culhach wrote:
TL;DR

As far as PvE usage, I just wanted the Marauder changes to make missioning more interesting :( I'm not sure whats on the table will do that. I Already sit still in one spot with an "unkillable" Rattlesnake, then have to fly off and get a Noctis to clean up. Bastion mode seems to be even more boring then a Sentry Rattler. Just saying.


There is absolutely nothing CCP can do to these ships that will make missions more interesting compared to currently available high end ships and fits.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Here is some text taken directly from a marauder's description in the info screen:

"Marauder Geared toward versatility and prolonged deployment in hostile environments, Marauders represent the cutting edge in today's warship technology. While especially effective at support suppression and wreckage salvaging, they possess comparatively weak sensor strength and may find themselves at increased risk of sensor jamming. Nevertheless, these thick-skinned, hard-hitting monsters are the perfect ships to take on long trips behind enemy lines."

Since this is what it says on the tin, this is what the players can be forgiven for expecting and demanding.

"prolonged deployment" argues for large cargo (check!) and drone bays (nerfed).

"support supression" argues for anti-frigate measures.

"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.

Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.


Also, one of the main things that makes a ship good at suppressing support is damage projection and application, which these definitely have. Only half of them have ever been good against frigates and even then you can do that with two webs, you just have to spend the slots on it.

If what it takes to get to the point that most players consider them meeting that definition is something horrifically over-powered then I'd rather just see the definition changed. Somehow I don't see people taking any Battleship into low/null sec for PvE unless it's hilariously OP.

Ravasta Helugo wrote:
Finally a Khanid Abbadon...


There's a player-made reskin of one of those!Big smile
Cade Windstalker
#1879 - 2013-09-04 03:08:01 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I was thinking about this earlier, and I think this might silence the lore critics AND make lowsec missioning more viable:

Role Bonus: +2 Warp Stability.

It wouldn't be gamebreaking power creep to make these things a little harder to lock down. It would fit the established description, the name, and the idea of a mission boat with enhanced jumping capabilities. I think this would work awesome...


I was thinking about it and really my one weak and rather frail argument is that it removes the last hint of risk from missions but even that's a stretch. The MJD does that on its own since rats don't actually scram.

Overall I think I would support this, it's certainly completely failed to be game breaking on the Deep Space Transports so far... Lol
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#1880 - 2013-09-04 03:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
The more I think about bastion module more I believe all 4 ships should become bastions class!

After all new marauders will be reduced to that module kinda make sense to me.

just change text info...built for controlling and show off force in empire space this hard tanking monsters are mighty opponent to ravaging hordes of very dangerous non pod pilots.capable of roaming even most dangerous parts of high sec space.

Advanced t2 engineering allow them to be ultimate hand holding machines., where pilot skills, experience and tactics are taking comfortable back seat.

...something along those lines...

And then give Marauder call to pirate ships they are and will be more in right to be named that, then current one are or will ever be.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard