These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2141 - 2013-09-04 19:49:26 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
I still can't believe people are complaining about level fours. If you need T2 resists to tank level fours, I don't know how to fix what's wrong with you.

BTW, the Paladin is still far far superior to any turret ship for Amarr space because bastion mode makes you immune to tracking disruptors.

It isn't about tanking the mission. The mission can be tanked with a battlecruiser ffs.

It's about a high EHP, evenly distributed resist profile that discourages ganking, or at least makes organizing a successful one much more difficult.

Because the best way to go through more level IV's in less time, and thus make more isk/hr, is to bling on damage. Faction/Officer Tracking Comps, Heatsinks and even Officer Guns. Right now, doing such is considered a fail fit, because the EHP of the ship is so abysmally low that a six man gang can gank you and make a healthy profit. If you DON'T bling, then a Nightmare will easily out isk/hr a Pally, and for less isk in mods and hull. This contributes greatly to their lack of use.

The changes, as originally proposed, made a bling fit Pally a moderately responsible choice. It allowed you to NOT bling your tank, so that ISK could be spent on damage, and then wrapped it in (potentially) 200k of armor brick/8kps permashield. That's what this was: A gank-resistent highsec PvE ship.

Now the EHP is not only right back to square one, or slightly reduced, but the Active tank is gimped as well. So not only does a Nightmare retain clear dominance over the Pally in terms of raw damage, application, speed and burst tank, it continues to do so for less SP and ISK. That just isn't right.

The salt in the wound is the 37.5% reduction in the tank o the current ship, paired with useless resists. Now Blinging on tank is pretty much mandatory to avoid a 5 slot tank and the crippling damage reduction that accompanies it.


TD immunity, optimal range bonus, and the ability to salvage the mission while it's being run makes up for the "inability" (2000 more armor and shield HP aren't going to save you from a dedicated suicide gank) to fit officer modules ten times over.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#2142 - 2013-09-04 19:50:51 UTC
The web bonua was added to appease a small percentage of players whom use a ship already with a small percentage of use in game.

The changes as well as the whole thing being opened up for public discourse 6 months early smacks to me of CCP having no actual room in the game design philosophy for marauders - as we know them. They don't know what to do with this relic. It was a poor choice then and it's barely worth training specifically for now. The golem is pretty much a waste of time. I coukd spend 900mil on the hull and still only run missions as fast as an rni with two rigors..

I think CCP should just scrap this bastion module idea and start again. It's a terrible idea. It is literally awful.

A much better specialisation for this ship would be if they had their hull attributes now changed out with the original bastion module stats and then iterate from there.

Kronos gets tracking and falloff.
Paladin gets tank and drones
Vargur gets rof and speed
Golem gets velocity plus radius plus explosion velocity buffs.

make the ships different from each other. Why have them do the same thing 4 different ways? They should represent different philosophies rather than be merely different weapon platforma
Grombutz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2143 - 2013-09-04 19:51:21 UTC
I like the new updates.

More application (not through even MOAR stacking penalized TC's/TE's or TP's) thanks to webz and a beefed up tank (with AND without bastion) makes up for the loss in mobility and actually SOLVES some issues with marauders (Lolz@ no T2 resists).

Makes much more sense now, although I think that the web-bonus should be a RANGE bonus for webs on the Golem instead, so you can use webs out to proper ranges on Torp-fits.

Sounds a little OP, but if turrets get the ability to counter "it's under the guns" with insane webs, torps should get the ability to counter speed-tanks on proper ranges.



Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#2144 - 2013-09-04 19:54:15 UTC
Scrapping bastion means scrapping any work Art has already done on the transformation and remodeling. Something I seriously doubt CCP is willing to do.

Katrina Oniseki
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2145 - 2013-09-04 19:56:57 UTC
Another option to give the marauder a place without making it outright better then pirate... would be to give it a unique bonus like better loot drop chance, really good salvage and tractor bonuses, the ability to accept and complete missions while not in station, a drone loading bay, the ability to manufacture ammo from loot/salvage, the ability to in some way refit itself while outside of station (obviously would have to put a heavy penalty on that or time of weakness), All of these things would make it not only unique, but allow it to stay out longer and maraud. Would make it more into a sort of go out there and grab stuff kind of ship.

although personally id like to see it be just outright better then pirate, but i know that isn't happening. I like the idea of the best ship being high isk cost and high sp cost.
Dave Stark
#2146 - 2013-09-04 19:57:11 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
I find it superfluous to compare marauders which are going threw a balance phase to Pirate Battleships which have not.

How about lets balance Marauders to ships that have been balanced so that means tech I bs's.

lets compare marauders to Pirate Battleships when the Pirate Battleship thread gets opened in two weeks.


well until we know what is happening to pirate battleships we have no choice but to compare them to the current state pirate ships because that's the alternative to a marauder.

and currently there's 0 compelling reasons to pick a marauder over a pirate battleship for my purposes which is mostly incursions.

a t2 resist profile isn't worth sacrificing the damage and other bonuses of pirate battleships, it really isn't.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2147 - 2013-09-04 19:57:13 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
I like the new updates.

More application (not through even MOAR stacking penalized TC's/TE's or TP's) thanks to webz and a beefed up tank (with AND without bastion) makes up for the loss in mobility and actually SOLVES some issues with marauders (Lolz@ no T2 resists).

Makes much more sense now, although I think that the web-bonus should be a RANGE bonus for webs on the Golem instead, so you can use webs out to proper ranges on Torp-fits.

Sounds a little OP, but if turrets get the ability to counter "it's under the guns" with insane webs, torps should get the ability to counter speed-tanks on proper ranges.





Interesting. Web range bonus would actually make them useful in C5 and C5 sleeper sites, taking the place of rapiers and lokis. On the flip side, web range bonus is OP on toast in PVP.

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".
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2148 - 2013-09-04 20:00:33 UTC
Ranamar wrote:

To be fair, the increase in native resists somewhat makes up for the on-hull tanking nerf, given that the old T2 resists for it were 25%/12.5%, and the new ones are going to be 50/25 or 75/50 or something like that. That's going to give the Vargur and the Paladin really entertaining resist profiles.

@CCP Ytterbium: can you post the new resist profiles for the Marauders?


Just look up the resists of the HACs.

The thing is, while the Vargur is going to do fine (expect 75/50/40/60 shield resists), even it would have had 47.5/65/58/51 when in bastion with the v1 design (slightly lower overall, but more even, which is useful any time you want an omnitank). The Golem won't do so well, probably getting 0/50/70/80, when the v1 bastion would have given 30/65/63.25/58 - better and more evenly spread. The Paladin will also do okay, and the Kronos will also not do so well.

The problem here is at least in part the T2 resist profiles - they may make sense in terms of lore, but that lore doesn't apply especially well to marauders, and IMO they'd be better off giving more even profiles to them.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2149 - 2013-09-04 20:01:04 UTC
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Scrapping bastion means scrapping any work Art has already done on the transformation and remodeling. Something I seriously doubt CCP is willing to do.


I completely agree, which is a shame because the bastion module is a solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Probably the result of a morning latte-fueled design meeting: "guys! I've just had a cool idea....", rather than looking at game design objectives in a calculated and scientific manner.

ah well, we're probably stuck with it for now. It can be quietly swept under the carpet in the Winter 2014 expansion.

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".
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#2150 - 2013-09-04 20:01:35 UTC
I like the current Marauders a bit less than the original for one main reason: Competing bonuses. Also the originals had lolop tanks and for that reason alone I would buy one.



There are 4 bonuses I'm looking at when I say that

Bastion mode
25% Range bonus
Web bonus
MJD bonus. (Good idea, helps the Marauder hold down its target in Bastion mode, +1)

Now the Bastion mode and web bonus go together, those make for a strong brawler.
And the MJD bonus and range bonus (which I know is part of Bastion mode) go together and make for a good skirmish battleship.

But the Bastion/Web brawler bonuses don't make sense when put on a ship with MJD/Range bonuses.


I think that Marauders should be given a role: brawler or skirmisher and given role bonuses that fit.


That said, I think they could be useful as they are, but mostly for mission runners, as they are quite expensive for PVP ships. They do seem like they will be fun solo, but with a billion isk price tag they will likely be nothing more than bait.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#2151 - 2013-09-04 20:01:57 UTC
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Scrapping bastion means scrapping any work Art has already done on the transformation and remodeling. Something I seriously doubt CCP is willing to do.



its 6 months out and this is a purely theoretical module. They probably haven't even started
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#2152 - 2013-09-04 20:02:31 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Kronos gets tracking and falloff.
Paladin gets tank and drones
Vargur gets rof and speed
Golem gets velocity plus radius plus explosion velocity buffs.

make the ships different from each other. Why have them do the same thing 4 different ways? They should represent different philosophies rather than be merely different weapon platforma

golem velocity ?! huh ? maybe shiled rez , it their philosophie to have many shields + good rezs
but overall idea is good

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Jaded Sky
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2153 - 2013-09-04 20:02:43 UTC
It doesn't need to be scrapped Bastion mode just needs to be reworked into something that is actually useable.
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2154 - 2013-09-04 20:04:42 UTC
As a missile user I must say that a web bonus on the Golem seems very stupid. I would much prefer a increase in explosion velocity or a 2nd bonus to TP instead.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
marVLs
#2155 - 2013-09-04 20:07:01 UTC
Suzuka A1 wrote:
As a missile user I must say that a web bonus on the Golem seems very stupid. I would much prefer a increase in explosion velocity or a 2nd bonus to TP instead.


I would like something like 20% torp velo bonus instead of 10%
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2156 - 2013-09-04 20:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Overall this feels more lackluster with the proposed changes. Outside of bastion there is a loss of ~20% tank after the new resists are factored in. Innate tank was the strong separating factor between the Marauders and the pirate BS's. With this distinction gone bastion becomes necessary for the marauders to draw any notable advantage.

While the web bonus is being returned to help I'd question how complementary this is with the MJD+Bastion philosophy (pull range instantly and apply damage at long ranges). While it does help cover a potential weakness on the apparent design intent I can't help but question if this is a positive turn. After all the BS class has what I thought were inherent and intentional drawbacks to engaging smaller targets. Were it not for the fact that pirate BS's already outperform the marauders in ranges that webs are effective in, and for most real purposes will probably continue to do so, I'd argue that this would approach being OP.

Edit: Actually it looks like I did the math wrong as a base onmi tank on the paladin seems to have increased a bit after the resist change.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#2157 - 2013-09-04 20:10:56 UTC
Suzuka A1 wrote:
As a missile user I must say that a web bonus on the Golem seems very stupid. I would much prefer a increase in explosion velocity or a 2nd bonus to TP instead.


Golem
+25% missile velocity
+30% missile explosion velocity
+20% missile explosion radius

there are your bastion module stats.

in addition to the pre existing golem bonuses you just fixed this ships problem. Golem now has the best way to apply damage in the game.
Minister of Death
Colossus Enterprises
#2158 - 2013-09-04 20:11:22 UTC
I don't really understand where CCP is going with these changes anymore.

Can only echo the guy a few pages back who said this is headed for full r e t a r d.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2159 - 2013-09-04 20:16:04 UTC
I have to agree the new bastion module is quite pointless, it no longer tanks enough to sacrifice 100% mobility. It projects damage out long distances making a close range web kinda meh, a range bonus to the web would be better. But not at the expense of the ship tanking bonus.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2160 - 2013-09-04 20:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravasta Helugo
Maybe Marauders should be split.

One that keeps v1 changes, the other with v2 + a Warp Stability bonus.

One designed for high sec PvE, one for lowsec PvE- each with separate niche PvP applications.

I dunno... I'm just completely non-plussed by this change now.