These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#2161 - 2013-09-04 20:18:17 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
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


One ship takes 3 months to redesign. There are four ships to do. You do the math.

CSM has seen the transformations already. That means they are already far enough into the process to show a working example. That's significant.

Katrina Oniseki
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#2162 - 2013-09-04 20:19:39 UTC
Repeat after me: mini-dreads are a dumb idea.

I've been saying this for what feels like months and now when presented with the opportunity to get a mini dread people are saying that it's a bad idea. like what I've been saying all along...

wake up and smell the roses people..
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#2163 - 2013-09-04 20:21:24 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Repeat after me: mini-dreads are a dumb idea.

I've been saying this for what feels like months and now when presented with the opportunity to get a mini dread people are saying that it's a bad idea. like what I've been saying all along...

wake up and smell the roses people..


So don't fly it. Fly a pirate battleship. Sell your Marauder and get on with your life.

Katrina Oniseki
Esna Pitoojee
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#2164 - 2013-09-04 20:21:39 UTC
Adding my voice that the new changes seem lackluster in comparison with the original versions.

I don't think there's anything I can say that hasn't already been said here - insufficient tank for immobility, lack of a clear role with the conflicting bonuses, lack of significant distinguishing features from some pirate BSes - so I'll just +1 what has been already said.



I will add something on the design process, though: CCP, when you propose something and people come up with ridiculous figures (lol10k tank), that doesn't mean you should toss your idea out the window. The idea itself may be entirely sound; don't be afraid to weaken, rather than eliminate.
HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
#2165 - 2013-09-04 20:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: HazeInADaze
Booooo

I thought CCP was on to something with this class; something different and useful. Now it feels like CCP is retreating back to the known and safe. There are lots of ships with web bonuses and no sub caps with an Alamo mode. Give bastion tracking/exp velocity bonuses instead of making vindi variants.

I really like the idea of highly mobile Battleships with a strong area-control ability. Fast, hard to catch, and squishy outside of bastion. Hard as nails, and deadly beyond belief inside of bastion. It would have a completely different feel than pirate faction, be usable in PvP and PvE. But right now I just see spiralling into a spendy RR fleet.

Also I would suggest making bastion having something to do with the warp core so a scrambler will prevent bastion from activating. Then the pilot must choose to cycle up the MJD or bastion, once the scam lands all that power is lost. This would also mean any fleet that can remain in scram range of this monster and not die will get the kill eventually. And the bastion can't be used as a back up plan after the ship is caught - the pilot shall be punished for cowardice!
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2166 - 2013-09-04 20:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Battle Cube
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Repeat after me: mini-dreads are a dumb idea.

I've been saying this for what feels like months and now when presented with the opportunity to get a mini dread people are saying that it's a bad idea. like what I've been saying all along...

wake up and smell the roses people..


mini dreads are a fine idea, its just that these are NOT mini dreads

id still like to see it be literally a mini dread. Experimental siege module, could still take fuel or whatever. Allow it to target subcaps at some expense, i don't know what would be a fair trade, but reduced range and increased lock time could be part of the balance.




edit: random thought. They are adding an animation for the transformation and really, they want it to have a transformation and a module to facilitate that. An option (although i actually prefer the way it is proposed right now, this is just an idea) 'bastion' mode would literally just be salvage mode. Convert ship into solo/l4 ship..... at end of site, ship transforms into bastion mode.... you get 4 tractors 4 salvagers with bonuses to each and possibly better loot chance....
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2167 - 2013-09-04 20:27:35 UTC
Bastion's PvP usefulness seems highly marginalized without it's effect on EHP after the change to only providing active tank assistance. The base resist increase help make up the difference, but at the cost of making the bastion itself far less relevant.
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2168 - 2013-09-04 20:27:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravasta Helugo
The more I think about it, the more I think this requires two different ship types.

A ship that is good for incursions just seems to be very different from one that is optimized for missions. The newly proposed changes clearly benefit the former, but they've gimped the latter.

Advocates of v2 are trying, weakly, to attest that the changes don't actually hurt mission running or (more honestly) that this ship isn't designed to do missions at all. Yesterday, the roles were reversed. I would argue that in this conflict, mission running should win, as that is what the hull is predominately used for/designed for currently. But that only reveals my bias as a mission runner.

I think the two roles (missions and incursions) are in direct conflict with each other, and trying to make a hull that does both will end in either disaster, or the most OP ship in Eve.

The entire concept of an all in one PvE ship needs much more thought on the part of CCP.
Black XIII
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#2169 - 2013-09-04 20:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Black XIII
I agree with needing a different ship class, leave marauders as marauders, make them quick battleships with excellent damage application, the mjd bonus could work for them, and take the cool idea of a bastion module and create a new t2 battleship class to utilize it, how about heavy battleships?
Scarlet Thellere
Natasha Aleksejewa Republik
#2170 - 2013-09-04 20:33:07 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
(...)

  • Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.



You say abuse, I say pvp application. One less pvp use for bastion module.What?
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2171 - 2013-09-04 20:35:55 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think this requires two different ship types.

A ship that is good for incursions just seems to be very different from one that is optimized for missions. The newly proposed changes clearly benefit the former, but they've gimped the latter.

Advocates of v2 are trying, weakly, to attest that the changes don't actually hurt mission running or (more honestly) that this ship isn't designed to do missions at all. Yesterday, the roles were reversed. I would argue that in this conflict, mission running should win, as that is what the hull is predominately used for/designed for currently. But that only reveals my bias as a mission runner.

I think the two roles (missions and incursions) are in direct conflict with each other, and trying to make a hull that does both will end in either disaster, or the most OP ship in Eve.

The entire concept of an all in one PvE ship needs much more thought on the part of CCP.


the 'new' version is very similar to the last, the non-bastion mode has higher tank for rr, while the bastion mode has slightly less tank. Either way its got plenty of tank
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#2172 - 2013-09-04 20:41:42 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
Alamo mode


If it weren't for the fact that I know how many people outside the US know what the Alamo is, that would make a totally AWESOME name Big smile

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#2173 - 2013-09-04 20:41:51 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
[quote=Suzuka A1]
Golem
+25% missile velocity
+30% missile explosion velocity
+20% missile explosion radius

there are your bastion module stats.


Bastion mode doesn't give any turret tracking bonuses, so no, no missile tracking bonuses for you Cool

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Khori Renalard
Those Once Loyal
#2174 - 2013-09-04 20:42:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Khori Renalard
Quoting the relevant poast:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
YaSiS wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll make sure we talk tomorrow about the tracking bonus for turret ships (I had understood that neither turrets or missiles were getting an application bonus). I believe its meant to say 25% optimal and 25% falloff.

Either way it won't be unequal as it is currently listed.


Who cares about this?
You are wrecking both the Kronos and Paladin by removing a key element: the web bonuses, plus gimping all of them in DPS by nerfing the drone bays.

Yah, you have made this into a PvP ship, but once again wrecked another PvE ship.

All part of the plan, I assume.


+1


I'm not sure I follow this Shocked - if you're talking about missions, a web bonus is not needed - with turrets, you snipe the frigates first before they come in close. Even when they do come close, a 90% web usually isn't enough to keep transversal down to hit them with large guns.

When they're close, use drones - and Marauders still have enough dronebay to use lights and take care of that. With missiles, bit pointless to shoot frigates first. In all cases the web strength is highly situational in missions. Maybe using 2 webs? But that's a bit overkill when they can just be dealt faster with drones while you focus on larger ships with guns.

However, the extra resists, damage projection, EW immunity is going to be of tremendous help in missions like "The Blockade" where there are 1346454 NPCs using E-war while in Bastion mode. Even without it, Kronos and Paladin new falloff and optimal range bonuses are going to be useful 100% of the time, instead of extreme close range like a web bonus.


Then replace the 7.5% rep bonus with a web strength bonus.

Seriously?
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2175 - 2013-09-04 20:42:44 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.

We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:


  • Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.

  • We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.

  • Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.


I will change the OP to match the changes.


Wow,

So you take ships that were at least pretty good for PVE, even if they kind of stunk for PVP, and now made them so they suck for both.
Mocktar Olachenko
#2176 - 2013-09-04 20:43:15 UTC
First iteration was way more interesting.
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2177 - 2013-09-04 20:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravasta Helugo
Battle Cube wrote:
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think this requires two different ship types.

A ship that is good for incursions just seems to be very different from one that is optimized for missions. The newly proposed changes clearly benefit the former, but they've gimped the latter.

Advocates of v2 are trying, weakly, to attest that the changes don't actually hurt mission running or (more honestly) that this ship isn't designed to do missions at all. Yesterday, the roles were reversed. I would argue that in this conflict, mission running should win, as that is what the hull is predominately used for/designed for currently. But that only reveals my bias as a mission runner.

I think the two roles (missions and incursions) are in direct conflict with each other, and trying to make a hull that does both will end in either disaster, or the most OP ship in Eve.

The entire concept of an all in one PvE ship needs much more thought on the part of CCP.


the 'new' version is very similar to the last, the non-bastion mode has higher tank for rr, while the bastion mode has slightly less tank. Either way its got plenty of tank

v1 offered a 30% straight resist buff with a 100% tank buff over current.
v2 offers a 45% tank buff over current. Out of Bastion, there is a 37.5% tank nerf.

I and several others have already articulated why the T2 resists are pointless. The web is pointless, and comes at a huge price. The speed nerf in conjunction with all of this is terrible.

These changes make the ship worse at running most missions. Only high EWAR missions see improved performance. That is fewer than one in five. To ice the cake, the ship is now more susceptible to ganking.

The new version is in no way similar to the last. It's just optimized for your style of play now.
maGz
Hookers and Blackjack II
#2178 - 2013-09-04 20:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: maGz
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.

We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:


  • Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.

  • We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.

  • Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.


I will change the OP to match the changes.


Let me get this straight - web bonus, mjd bonus and range bonuses... really? What exactly do you want these abominations to do?
Dave Stark
#2179 - 2013-09-04 20:48:04 UTC
maGz wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.

We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:


  • Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.

  • We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.

  • Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.


I will change the OP to match the changes.


Let me get this straight - web bonus, mjd bonus and range bonuses... really? What exactly do you want these abominations to do?


you forgot to point out how half arsed the web bonuses are, too.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2180 - 2013-09-04 20:48:50 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.

We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:


  • Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.

  • We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.

  • Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.


I will change the OP to match the changes.


Wow,

So you take ships that were at least pretty good for PVE, even if they kind of stunk for PVP, and now made them so they suck for both.

How do you figure? Seems the resist increases make up for the loss of the rep bonus and they all get web bonuses. Granted the 2 that had them got their bonus reduced, but the effect is still very significant. Outside of drone capabilities most of the ships have only gained.