These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2421 - 2013-09-05 08:20:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Zilero wrote:
So let me get this straight:

You are:

a) Totally removing the tanking capability of Marauders (yeah, T2 resists are lower than a full 37.5% boost increase!) making them "yet another ship meant for fleets with logistics".

b) Adding in VELOCITY web bonuses (NOT! range) AND keeping the RANGE bonus to weapons.

Seriously, who came up with this? Range bonus to weapons AND a web bonus? It makes no sense at all.

Good riddance, yet another T2 ship class destroyed - will there be any T2 hulls worth flying soon? (in terms of isk/hull performance compared to T1).


Edit: First iteration was fine - I was not particularly pleased, but meh it was OK. This iteration is DOWNRIGHT HORRIBLE. Please CCP, get a grip.


The biggest threat the devs can ever make is to give the player-base exactly what they ask for. Lol

Seriously though, calm down, we've got months. At this rate I figure this thread can break 300+ pages.



I'm all good, just really amazed at the bad job done here. The MJD bonus is iffy and weird as well.

I have a specific char and account I use for flying marauders - if these changes go through as is, that char will most likely be sold and i'll give you one guess what will happen to the account (no, you can't have my stuff, I'll still be playing on other accounts).
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2422 - 2013-09-05 08:21:11 UTC
web bonus is not that bad..
yes this new Marauder is aimed to snipe but web can save you when you are tackled...
With MJD immune to warp disrupter and bubbles, and heavy indicators could be easily hit when using script
the only thing that stops Marauder from jumping is scram, which is shorter than the web range.

having a web velocity bonus actually should help alot.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2423 - 2013-09-05 08:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The biggest threat the devs can ever make is to give the player-base exactly what they ask for. Lol


Heavy Assault Cruisers, Command Cruisers...
These changes still suck. Please burn this thread and start from scratch...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Shantetha
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2424 - 2013-09-05 08:33:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Shantetha
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Shantetha wrote:
ok this better for the paladin. I'm still not thrilled with the nerfed drone bay/bandwidth, but i can live with that.

Still you really need to give it better sensor str, like 20 radar(same as the t1 hull most t2's are +-3 of the t1 hull) and make the tractor bonus the same as the noctis 60% / lvl so that it reaches at least as far as we shooting in bastion. The marauders don't get salvage bonuses so this tractor distance wouldn't be OP to have on it given the new projection.

i can dream that the 5% per level capacitor amarr bs bonus gets flat baked into the hull with capacitor just flat gets upgraded another 25% and that bonus gets replaced with dmg, tracking, or something else. but that might be OP.

I look forward to testing this version or later revisions using bastion on the test server.


I would not count on this version being the one that hits the test server. You missed about 20 pages of yelling back and forth with the PvE crowd basically booing this iteration off the stage (and for good reason, it's worse for them than the previous one).



oh i am aware it's weaker for missioning and slightly weaker for incursions(in dmg due to drone nerf. ) but i like the idea that it's useful at close and longer ranges, basically letting you change up the play style on the fly.

i really want to like bastion but I still think the issue with bastion is 100% removal of RR, make it a partial like 50-75% reduction in RR effectiveness.

you're prob right though cade, anyways it'll be interesting to see how it winds up on sisi.
Cade Windstalker
#2425 - 2013-09-05 08:34:59 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
(cough) Heavy Assault Cruisers (cough, hack) ... (cough) Command Cruisers (cough, hack, gasp) ...


No, I actually quite like the new HACs and Command Ships. Those were well thought out and have a good theme and set of bonuses behind each.

This idea as it currently stands, however, seems to be the direct result of extensive player complaints. Ytterbium responded basically by making a quick pass and essentially gave the complaining people exactly what they asked for. Web bonus is back with a vengeance (and on every ship) and they have full T2 resists.

Now there's even more complaining from all corners.

Zilero wrote:
I'm all good, just really amazed at the bad job done here. The MJD bonus is iffy and weird as well.

I have a specific char and account I use for flying marauders - if these changes go through as is, that char will most likely be sold and i'll give you one guess what will happen to the account (no, you can't have my stuff, I'll still be playing on other accounts).


The MJD bonus was first brought up by some players in the HAC threads as a more inventive role for the ships. Personally I'm glad they didn't do it on the HACs because it doesn't fit them very well because cruisers are innately faster than Battleships by a large margin and therefore don't need a MJD.

On these I don't mind it. It's already seeing a ton of use in Missions anyway. What I mind is the split between range that the MJD and Bastion emphasize, and the tankyness of the ships, web bonuses, ect that would seem to emphasize short-ranged combat.

Don't get me wrong, the MJD would be fantastic for closing distances on mission-rats with short-range guns. But at that point you don't really need the range bonus.

Also there's the issue of mid-slot EWar bonuses on Shield Tanked ships without the slots to support them.

Plus I've made my argument against velocity bonused webs a few times already, after running the numbers I'd much rather see range bonused ones. Better for incursions with the Warfare Link changes, lets you better hold cruisers out at blap-ranges, and is less OP for PvP in general since it doesn't make you immune to small ships, just somewhat resistant.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2426 - 2013-09-05 08:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.

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


In the CCP Ytterbium spirit of posting youtube links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IkMPZ7WeDck#t=152
Cade Windstalker
#2427 - 2013-09-05 08:39:20 UTC
Shantetha wrote:
oh i am aware it's weaker for missioning and slightly weaker for incursions(in dmg due to drone nerf. ) but i like the idea that it's useful at close and longer ranges, basically letting you change up the play style on the fly.

i really want to like bastion but I still think the issue with bastion is 100% removal of RR, make it a partial like 50-75% reduction in RR effectiveness.

you're prob right though cade, anyways it'll be interesting to see how it winds up on sisi.


I think Bastion would be fine if it just gave niche bonuses and wasn't required for the ship to tank missions effectively. Move the local repair bonus onto the hull and make Bastion something like an Adaptive Armor Hardener that penalizes other modules or something (or base resists, I dunno).

This makes it solidly a PvE module that should only have very niche PvP applications while allowing the ships themselves to function in Incursions and PvP with their high tank and solid damage application while not having overall higher damage than the Pirate Battleships or as much maneuverability or PvP focus as the Black Ops.

Plus long webs instead of powerful ones would make them better able to function in incursions without making them able to insta-pop any frigate or cruiser they catch in PvP.
Damage Sponge
Team Bullet Sponge
#2428 - 2013-09-05 08:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Damage Sponge
To help clarify how powerful tech 2 resist are and their effect over a 37.5% local boost.

I've EFT warriored with HAC resists to give some scenarios of the insane tanks achievable utilizing a large Rep/booster and 2 resists/hardeners and compared them to the existing Marauders.

The benefits to received RR reps and EHP also cant be under estimated.

The only Ship to suffer in a Solo PVE environment with the resist buff is the Paladin against Blood/Sansha, however its performance in wormholes and incursion is now far superior

Paladin

Amarr HAC resist Armor 50,35,62.5,80

1x large armor Rep t2
1x em hardener t2
1x therm hardener t2

50%Em/50%Therm damage profile

New Tank=316
Old Tank=435


Vargur

Minimatar HAC resists shield 75,60,40,50

1x large shield Booster t2
1x adaptive Invun t2
1x adaptive Invun t2

uniform damage profile

New Tank=446
Old Tank=330


Minimatar HAC resist armor 90.67.5.25.10

1x large armor Rep
1x em hardener T2
1x therm hardener T2

50%Em/50%Therm damage profile

New Tank= 855!!!
Old Tank= 160

Kronos

Gallente HAC resist armor 50, 67.5, 85, 50

1x large armor rep t2
1x kinetic hardener t2
1x therm hardener t2

50%Kinetic/50%Therm damage profile

New Tank= 746
Old Tank= 475


Gallente HAC resist Shield 0, 60, 85, 50

1x large shield booster t2
1x thermal hardener t2
1x kinetic hardener t2

50%Kinetic/50%Therm damage profile

New Tank= 595
Old Tank= 315

Golem

Calari HAC resist Shield 0, 80, 70, 50

1x large shield booster t2
1x thermal hardener t2
1x kinetic hardener t2

50%Kinetic/50%Therm damage profile

New Tank= 542
Old Tank= 434
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2429 - 2013-09-05 08:42:20 UTC
I think the T2 resist profile is a better solution because it gives the ship something for PvP, where remote reps are used and mobility is important. The first iteration of the ship was a PvE only piece of trash and people were applauding it because they wanted to tank level 4's with 2 slot tanks.

I think there's a lot of room for improvement still, specifically in working out the discord in abilities and bonuses, but I think the new iteration is much better designed even if it doesn't make PvE even easier than the first proposal.

I do think the golem is in a wierd position with both a target painer bonus and a web bonus though. Keep one, ditch the other, and give it a more interesting bonus on the marauder skill (torpedo velocity? explosion radius? Livestock bonus cargo for all the exotic dancers and prostitutes?).
Hell Bitch
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2430 - 2013-09-05 08:43:40 UTC
Om my, over 20 pages of through the night rage, I even finished my morning coffee reading them over.

Thoughts, transforming or not the new paladin is made of FAIL.

Web bonus, for PvE, outside of incursions -> pointless.

I hope Rise or Fozzie is doing the Pirate BS changes cos these changes are terrible.

What started out looking like a fresh idea, a brave new approach now looks like an incremental improvement with all the same standard things we've come to expect. BORING

Can i suggest 2 bastion modules.

Incursion bastion module -> when activated your ship enters indestructible god mode, mass = 0, speed = infinite, web range increases by 5000%

Standard bastion module -> as it was in version 1.0

Just as well I hadn't trained anything specific to marauders just yet.
Crysantos Callahan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2431 - 2013-09-05 08:50:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Crysantos Callahan
What I'm lacking to see is what CCP want marauders to actually do and what their changes will actually do to move marauders into the best place for this. In my opinion there's no need to buff the performance for lvl 4 missions with the bastion mode, but it would make sense for low sec/0.0 sites to be able to tank more - at the risk of being caught. It's an easy trade, either don't use bastion mode and be able to gtfo or activate it and hope you won't get scrammed.

So my suggestion would be, go ahead with the T2 resists, the webbing bonus is still a very good thing, although it doesnt make much sense on the Golem, rather give it a stronger TP bonus or an explosion velocity bonus - because torps suck. With those boni a marauder should be in a good spot anyway, don't forget many people like to use this ship with tractor + salvager to be able to do stuff without a noctis while running the site.

For the siege mode - apparently CCP is reluctant to give DPS boni, which is fine if they want to boost the tanking/damage application and not make it a mini-dread. I'd say include the local repping bonus in the bastion mode to the current bonus - but increase sig radius in the bastion mode. This way it's easy as **** to scan the marauder down and have a decent downside of it.

When I think of a "bastion" mode I think of structures we encounter in the final rooms of DED sites - you know the things that rep so much dps that any of us thinks... must...have...this...repper. And with this focus on tank you could rebalance the faction battleships for mobility and high damage

P.S.: If you tackle marauders, take a look at the torps, too + please take a look at the damage resistance patterns like on the paladin. Seriously, such low em/th resistance for their em/th primary damage types? Amarr is already in a bad spot due to their limited damage types.
Herr Esiq
Viziam
#2432 - 2013-09-05 08:52:10 UTC
Just posting to say this is a bad overhaul. For my Paladin it feels as a kick in the teeth. No synergy between the bonusses of the hull, the new resist are useless (i'm supposed to move over to Angel space now or what?) and last time i checked nobody likes being stuck somewhere.

Keep your hands off the Marauders and let me keep my armor rep bonus and i'll manage.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#2433 - 2013-09-05 08:55:29 UTC
Like many others I too am confused by the recent changes. I can understand the freakout over being able to solo tank the first wave of a Vanguard. That is a bit OP'd. But what is the point of removing the original rep bonus and keeping the new Bastion? Wouldn't it just be better to just dump the Bastion and give the ship the T2 resists?

Cuz this new Bastion idea ain't so hot. You are immobile which is usually a death sentence in PvP, and this new version doesn't have the crazy tank to offset the immobility. For Bastion to work it either needs that crazy tank back (which is obviously a problem for PvE), or it needs a DPS boost to kill off the baddies before they kill you. But just "immobility + great tank" is still gonna equal death. Especially if you can't pull RR. To offset the immobility, you need "crazy tank" or "great tank + great dps".

Also the mish-mash of Range and Tanking in general seems kinda weird. At first I was okay with it cuz of the crazy tank. But without that, it does give one pause. The range bonuses allow for great distance - 100km Scorch is fantastic. But if I'm at 50+km I'm usually not overly worried about tanking. (Unless it's a fleet fight, but in that case tank is meaningless and it's about resists and buffer.) But now you are kinda stressing the short-range thing too with the web bonus, but at the expense of the repper bonus - which seems counter-intuitive. So it just seems odd that you are forcing the two styles together. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine the tanking with some sort of short-range bonus (like the web I guess) for situations when you are more likely to be taking heavy damage? Or keep the long-range bonus and combine that with something that more closely compliments a sniper role? Hell! Make two different types of Bastion module, one for each play-style so nobody can throw a fit.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2434 - 2013-09-05 09:01:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack C Hughes
saw many people complaining...
I believe these changes do have internal logic with them and pointed directly towards one direction.

First with PVE.
You are better anyway with the new Bastion module so please don't complain about PVE anymore
Even without the new module, the resist shift should helps even with the removal of rep bonus.
Well maybe only for certain ways of PVE.

For PVP
These ship cost alot, like T3, so if you want to use it you have to make sure you lose less frequently.
All the changes seems to provide a way of survive.

You have range for your weapons so you could MJD away from the main battlefield, maybe not for golem, which is critisized lol.
You have MJD to reach to that range, and even more powergrid to fit long range weapons.
You have extreamly high self repping power (may be not after the Bastion module change, but still very high)
And you can actually run your rep with guns for more than 1 min even in a Paladin, beam fitted.
You have MJD which is immune to bubbles and warp distrupter, and the cool down is reduced to 56 seconds to fits with the Bastion.
You have velocity bonused webs that deal with small ships with scrams (that is shorter than web range).
You could deal with heavy indicators, and even not, there are not going to be 10 HIs in a normal 50 people fleet.

So idealy, you could jump in (even not at range), MJD away to a place you like. Shoot everything within your range, take care of the ships with scram in the last 10 seconds with velocity bonus webs, while tanking with a 8000-9000 defence if someone is hitting you. when the Bastion module is off the MJD could start again. While considering the field situation and other factors the fleet commander could choose to MJD away and warp or MJD away and start the Bastion again.

I know this seems too theoretical but in the current fleet combat, bubbles are the main way to stop the opponent but not scram. so MJD could have a great performence. I belive these new Marauder would be useful when 50-100 people is on grid.

EDIT
Yes the tank need to be better.
I prefer the 30% non stacking resist bonus on the module, not T2 resist, which makes them good at tanking some damage but sucks on others.
Jungleland Roy
#2435 - 2013-09-05 09:06:34 UTC
Ok Balance Team - listen up

You guys just lost some respect. You are supposed to be looking at the big picture here and have a long term vision of what the new ship balances achieve and not be trying stuff on a whim. Every balance change you make is going to annoy somebody - it's inevitable and part of your job. But the big picture and your vision is what matters for the long term future.

So you came up with a new, exciting and tbh "out of left field" module which would have opened up new and challenging opportunities for players. Good Job.

You then receive some whining from the incursion running community and then after an office discussion you rip the guts out of your original idea. Seriously?

To me that means either you really didn't have a view of where these ships fit in with the long term picture of Eve OR you just caved to a minority community because they whined on the forum and wouldn't adapt. TBH I don't know which is sadder.

-1

Roy

_if you could fly it before, you can fly it now. _ Read the Blog.
Crysantos Callahan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2436 - 2013-09-05 09:08:29 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
saw many people complaining...
I believe these changes do have internal logic with them and pointed directly towards one direction.

First with PVE.
You are better anyway with the new Bastion module so please don't complain about PVE anymore
Even without the new module, the resist shift should helps even with the removal of rep bonus.
Well maybe only for certain ways of PVE.

For PVP
These ship cost alot, like T3, so if you want to use it you have to make sure you lose less frequently.
All the changes seems to provide a way of survive.

You have range for your weapons so you could MJD away from the main battlefield, maybe not for golem, which is critisized lol.
You have MJD to reach to that range, and even more powergrid to fit long range weapons.
You have extreamly high self repping power (may be not after the Bastion module change, but still very high)
And you can actually run your rep with guns for more than 1 min even in a Paladin, beam fitted.
You have MJD which is immune to bubbles and warp distrupter, and the cool down is reduced to 56 seconds to fits with the Bastion.
You have velocity bonused webs that deal with small ships with scrams (that is shorter than web range).
You could deal with heavy indicators, and even not, there are not going to be 10 HIs in a normal 50 people fleet.

So idealy, you could jump in (even not at range), MJD away to a place you like. Shoot everything within your range, take care of the ships with scram in the last 10 seconds with velocity bonus webs, while tanking with a 8000-9000 defence if someone is hitting you. when the Bastion module is off the MJD could start again. While considering the field situation and other factors the fleet commander could choose to MJD away and warp or MJD away and start the Bastion again.

I know this seems too theoretical but in the current fleet combat, bubbles are the main way to stop the opponent but not scram. so MJD could have a great performence. I belive these new Marauder would be useful when 50-100 people is on grid.


For PVP - why use such an expensive hull? For big fleet engagements it won't work, it's too expensive and nobody would SRP it - plus the bastion mode doesn't support remote repping, which means you're dead anyway if 100x enemy BS primary you. For small fleet engagements - any decent small roam has enough scrams to pin you down and at very close range you wont be able to hit **** with the marauder, no matter what. T1 BS aren't that much worse with a way lower price tag and the faction BS will still do a better job at it than the marauders, plus they'll be cheaper (if cheap can come to mind when talking about faction bs/marauders).

The primary goal of marauders is pve and this is why we're discussing it, it is supposed to work in that environment and if CCP is currently taking a look at it - yeah then people will try to show weaknesses or other approaches in order to get the best out of it. It's not always plain complaining but useful discussion to get the best compromise.
Lixia Saran
Perkone
Caldari State
#2437 - 2013-09-05 09:12:53 UTC
Three things:

1. The first iteration was better, more original and more fun.

2. The ships seem to be all over the place now. Web bonuses that don't fit with MJD / Bastion Projection, really weird resist profiles that are clearly better on some marauders vice others. Total lack of direction.

3. This 180degree turnaround / unfocused change gives me a sour taste in the mouth as I lost confidence that you guys have an actual mid/long-term plan as to what the various ship classes should be balanced for.

4. (you know when I said I had 3 things; I lied) T2 Rokh hull please (Bonus points if it transforms)
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2438 - 2013-09-05 09:17:31 UTC
Crysantos Callahan wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
saw many people complaining...
I believe these changes do have internal logic with them and pointed directly towards one direction.

First with PVE.
You are better anyway with the new Bastion module so please don't complain about PVE anymore
Even without the new module, the resist shift should helps even with the removal of rep bonus.
Well maybe only for certain ways of PVE.

For PVP
These ship cost alot, like T3, so if you want to use it you have to make sure you lose less frequently.
All the changes seems to provide a way of survive.

You have range for your weapons so you could MJD away from the main battlefield, maybe not for golem, which is critisized lol.
You have MJD to reach to that range, and even more powergrid to fit long range weapons.
You have extreamly high self repping power (may be not after the Bastion module change, but still very high)
And you can actually run your rep with guns for more than 1 min even in a Paladin, beam fitted.
You have MJD which is immune to bubbles and warp distrupter, and the cool down is reduced to 56 seconds to fits with the Bastion.
You have velocity bonused webs that deal with small ships with scrams (that is shorter than web range).
You could deal with heavy indicators, and even not, there are not going to be 10 HIs in a normal 50 people fleet.

So idealy, you could jump in (even not at range), MJD away to a place you like. Shoot everything within your range, take care of the ships with scram in the last 10 seconds with velocity bonus webs, while tanking with a 8000-9000 defence if someone is hitting you. when the Bastion module is off the MJD could start again. While considering the field situation and other factors the fleet commander could choose to MJD away and warp or MJD away and start the Bastion again.

I know this seems too theoretical but in the current fleet combat, bubbles are the main way to stop the opponent but not scram. so MJD could have a great performence. I belive these new Marauder would be useful when 50-100 people is on grid.


For PVP - why use such an expensive hull? For big fleet engagements it won't work, it's too expensive and nobody would SRP it - plus the bastion mode doesn't support remote repping, which means you're dead anyway if 100x enemy BS primary you. For small fleet engagements - any decent small roam has enough scrams to pin you down and at very close range you wont be able to hit **** with the marauder, no matter what. T1 BS aren't that much worse with a way lower price tag and the faction BS will still do a better job at it than the marauders, plus they'll be cheaper (if cheap can come to mind when talking about faction bs/marauders).

The primary goal of marauders is pve and this is why we're discussing it, it is supposed to work in that environment and if CCP is currently taking a look at it - yeah then people will try to show weaknesses or other approaches in order to get the best out of it. It's not always plain complaining but useful discussion to get the best compromise.


Yeah but when T3 came out everybody says that no one is going to pvp with them, they are too expensive and loosing them would cost skill points.
but that is not true.

When you know you are facing 100 BS you should not engage! please bear in mind MJD should save the fleet when 100 bs come down on top of you. if you are facing long range HACs, their dps should be tankable. there is only a few HACs could hit over 100km, while long ranged new Marauder could do 200km with PG for long range weapons. If you are afraid of probs, I will tell you you should not worry too much. you need time to scan, to warp the fleet and to apply the dps. With 56 of WJD cooldown the new Marauder should have enough time to react to it.

As I said the Maraduer should have higher tank, they should be able to reach 10000+ tank to deal with the dps.

And the primary goal of marauders.. That what ccp is trying to change here.
The primary goal of Amargeddon was dps and now its a neut boat.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2439 - 2013-09-05 09:21:25 UTC
CCP I love your concepts but here you clearly don't know what role a marauder should have.

1) If you wanted to improve current marauders for PvP than:

Increase sensor strenght, give T2 resists, no bastion module, give more drones, moblility etc.

2) If you want PvE lvl 4 mission kings than:

Your initial proposition was right on spot (almost).

3) What u actually did:

Made a ship with contradicting roles (sniper/brawler, stationary/mobile, pve focused/pvp focused, passive tanked/active tanked), contradicting bonuses (range/web, bastion/mjd) and no advantages in either.

Dear CCP tell us what exact, specialised role u want for this ship and we tell you what we want. Now you have a ship that on paper can do a lot, but in practice is outclassed by ships that are just great at what they were designed to do.

My opinion: For PvP Pirate BS should be DPS kings, Marauders should be Tank kings. PvP Tank kings (resisatance, buffer, remote rep, no bastion). This should be theier role - outsurvive anything else.
Cade Windstalker
#2440 - 2013-09-05 09:22:42 UTC
Lixia Saran wrote:
4. (you know when I said I had 3 things; I lied) T2 Rokh hull please (Bonus points if it transforms)


On that note...

Kaalakiota Rokh

Ishukone Rokh

Mordus Rokh

Kinda hoping for these as Mordu's/Black Ops hulls though, not Marauders.