These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2721 - 2013-09-05 23:05:08 UTC
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/

@ccp_rise

Zolian
Murderous Impulse
#2722 - 2013-09-05 23:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Zolian
Don't touch the web bonuses on the Paladin and Kronos.
Ganthrithor
Perkone
Caldari State
#2723 - 2013-09-05 23:12:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


Here's a hint for your departmental dialogue: do what I suggested like 50 pages ago. Redo the whole T2 battleship selection with a PvE-specialized BS; an actual PvP / direct combat-focused Marauder; and a revised, more stealthy / support-oriented blackops battleship. It fits your design philosophy (T2 ships specialized for one role) and actually has a hope of making the various crowds that have been posting in this thread happy. Whatever you do, DO NOT try and make a combination PvP/PvE ship and DO NOT end up making a "HAC" version of battleships that would make a viable fleet PvP ship.

E: I guess it was more like 70 pages ago. Here's a link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3559765#post3559765
Cade Windstalker
#2724 - 2013-09-05 23:27:31 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Here's a hint for your departmental dialogue: do what I suggested like 50 pages ago. Redo the whole T2 battleship selection with a PvE-specialized BS; an actual PvP / direct combat-focused Marauder; and a revised, more stealthy / support-oriented blackops battleship. It fits your design philosophy (T2 ships specialized for one role) and actually has a hope of making the various crowds that have been posting in this thread happy. Whatever you do, DO NOT try and make a combination PvP/PvE ship and DO NOT end up making a "HAC" version of battleships that would make a viable fleet PvP ship.

E: I guess it was more like 70 pages ago. Here's a link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3559765#post3559765


PvP/Direct Combat focused -> Pirate Battleships

Defensive/PvE focused -> Marauders

Speed/Stealth -> Black-Ops Battleships

It makes very little sense to throw a PvP focused ship into a PvE focused ship-line. Even less to make a T2 ship that's flat better than Pirate Faction.
Ganthrithor
Perkone
Caldari State
#2725 - 2013-09-06 00:14:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Here's a hint for your departmental dialogue: do what I suggested like 50 pages ago. Redo the whole T2 battleship selection with a PvE-specialized BS; an actual PvP / direct combat-focused Marauder; and a revised, more stealthy / support-oriented blackops battleship. It fits your design philosophy (T2 ships specialized for one role) and actually has a hope of making the various crowds that have been posting in this thread happy. Whatever you do, DO NOT try and make a combination PvP/PvE ship and DO NOT end up making a "HAC" version of battleships that would make a viable fleet PvP ship.

E: I guess it was more like 70 pages ago. Here's a link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3559765#post3559765


PvP/Direct Combat focused -> Pirate Battleships

Defensive/PvE focused -> Marauders

Speed/Stealth -> Black-Ops Battleships

It makes very little sense to throw a PvP focused ship into a PvE focused ship-line. Even less to make a T2 ship that's flat better than Pirate Faction.


If this is a critique of my old post, then perhaps you should read it again. The idea is to have a PvE-focused T2 BS (using the current "transformer" hulls that CCP's art team devised) that would cater strictly to PvE (this is not my area of expertise, but I imagine them as having superior active tanking numbers through a rep-amount bonus while having normal resists and smaller buffers than regular BS to prevent them from excelling at fleet combat), an actual "marauder" that trades tank and damage output over a T1 / faction BS in order to gain significant mobility and sustainability advantages, and a revised blackops class that would take up covert cloaks and focus on providing logistical (read: moving things around-- not, "space-priest") support to marauder / recon / bomber / covert t3 gangs. The blackops would trade tank and even more damage output (relative to T1) than the marauder in exchange for being able to fill this cloaky support role.

Here, I've made an infographic to help demonstrate what I mean:

http://i.imgur.com/02VPuei.jpg

Note that the categories in the graphic are deliberately simplified: things like "tank" and "utility" can (and should) mean different things depending on the focus of the ship... for example, if you wanted to get really detailed you would break "tank" out into multiple categories like buffer, resists, active repping, etc. For example, a PvE-specialized ship with a maxed-out "tank" bar should mean something that has normal resists, a small HP pool, and a large active repping bonus. T1 and faction tanks should be similar to T1 in resist profiles, but with bigger hitpoint pools (to give them greater EHP without making them any more proficient at receiving remote reps), while T2 combat BS could focus on achieving moderate EHPs through small buffers with a resist bonus, making them powerful in small-gang scenarios regardless of chosen tanking method (buffer or active) while rendering them useless to fleet work due to inherent vulnerabilities to alpha / bombs.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2726 - 2013-09-06 00:18:57 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
this is funny as hell.

for years gallente pilots have griped about having the rep bonus vs the amarr resist bonus. (not taking sides, just pointing out).

now, atleast for marauder pilots, that has been fixed. i pointed out in my other post that the tank just skyrocketed and folks are griping because they dont get rep bonuses.

ok, so u can heal 39% better.
with these resists, you take less damage than you would have needed to rep in the first place. therefore, your point is moot.
its even to the point of being silly because when cap runs out with normal resists, you get smoked. now, atleast you can keep resisting and taking less damage than normal. you will even be able to get away if needed and not be scattered all over space because you wouldnt have to rep as much and you would still have cap.

an easy tank on the paladin as i pointed out, is 161k omni in your worst resist (thermal). 225k in your best. thats armor..i dont look at EHP. EHP takes into account hull and shield. i care less about shields and i dont fight in hull. i am going to tank my armor as best as i can and fight there. with these changes, we gain tons of points in our armor...means we can stay longer and kick more butt.

as pointed out, we could tank angel extravaganza all day. imagine that, on stock resists.
what do we do with the other 7 low slots?

these resists are a good thing. being an amarr ship lover and embrasing everything resistance based, these are a blessing.
my sac tanks like a beast and now we have a bs that can do better due to bastion mode and having tons more armor to
start with?
whats the problem? we have t2 resistance people! we need less tank for the same effect. THEN we pimp it with bastion mode and have god like tank.
t2 resists, double repping in bastion mode, 1 LAR II and 1 LAAR together means they will have a helluva time breakin your tank.
1 LAAR give more than double rep anyway, now you are going to double that in beast mode.

wow.


my drake can tank angel extravaganza. whoopdeedo.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

Pi Selina
Midnight Oil Irregulars.
#2727 - 2013-09-06 00:20:28 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
Periapsis Retrograde Burn wrote:
Pi Selina wrote:
[quote]GOLEM

Marauders Skill Bonus:
7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level
10% bonus to effectiveness of target painters per level

I have to say this looks just plain wrong. It looks like the red-haired stepchild of a drunken night between a RNI and a Vindicator. There's no direction with these bonuses.


Thats nonsense.

Golem is quite cool. It's just the web-bonus which is a little weird.


This is my point, this is my hull bonus (that is a x10 skill), and it gives me a head-scratcher of combination of Ewar bonuses. The thought of webs being kicked out to 42km is intriguing, but that seems too OP.

The velocity bonus to missiles from the bastion is cool, and compliments the hull bonus. Overall torps would go to 50km with T1 ammo. May heaps a little boost to torp range?
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#2728 - 2013-09-06 00:31:49 UTC
Pi Selina wrote:
Grombutz wrote:
Periapsis Retrograde Burn wrote:
Pi Selina wrote:
[quote]GOLEM

Marauders Skill Bonus:
7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level
10% bonus to effectiveness of target painters per level

I have to say this looks just plain wrong. It looks like the red-haired stepchild of a drunken night between a RNI and a Vindicator. There's no direction with these bonuses.


Thats nonsense.

Golem is quite cool. It's just the web-bonus which is a little weird.


This is my point, this is my hull bonus (that is a x10 skill), and it gives me a head-scratcher of combination of Ewar bonuses. The thought of webs being kicked out to 42km is intriguing, but that seems too OP.

The velocity bonus to missiles from the bastion is cool, and compliments the hull bonus. Overall torps would go to 50km with T1 ammo. May heaps a little boost to torp range?


80% webs and bonused TPs sounds very compelling for torp-usage.

Edit: Warp Sanctum at 0, would that work?
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2729 - 2013-09-06 00:33:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


Hey, Rise;

I think we're all on board with 'we want them to be awesome', but you know, you've said in the past that T2 is for specialization, and in the rebalance, there's actual thought going into 'what role are these ships meant to fill?'

So how about we start there? What role are Marauders meant to fill? Because just judging by the vast majority of the comments in here, either we're not on the same page as you guys, or you guys aren't on the same page as you guys, or nobody has any idea of what the 'real purpose' of a Marauder is.

The idea of a ship that can go behind enemy lines and support itself on long-term deployments is great, but ultimately, in a game where nobody needs to eat, drink, or take a crap, every ship can do that. And the Noctis pretty much obsoletes the tractor bonuses on everything short of an Orca. So the original conceptualization of the Marauder seems to be a non-starter now - given that, I think it's pretty clear that we all would find it a lot easier to evaluate any proposed ideas if we knew where those ideas were supposed to lead.

It's been suggested that there should be 3 T2 battleship classes - a dedicated PVE hull, a dedicated PVP hull, and a dedicated BlOps hull. Does the dev team have any thoughts on that? Is it a mad, mad thought? If the Marauders were to be the PVE hull in that scenario (which seems like how they'd best be used, since it's where they currently are anyway), what about leaving them largely intact, but adding a single high-slot for a salvager, and giving them a salvage bonus to take back that 'in-mission salvager' role from the Noctis?

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of Bastion. More ships with visible transformation animations will always get my attention, but the first thing that has to be asked is: what is this ship supposed to do?
Pi Selina
Midnight Oil Irregulars.
#2730 - 2013-09-06 00:36:08 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:


Here, I've made an infographic to help demonstrate what I mean:

http://i.imgur.com/02VPuei.jpg


I don't mean to hop onto my "Whinosaur" but that "infographic" had better skew a few more bars to the right for the Marauder Class. I get what you're sayin',.. but your basically askin' for Pirate BSs to be the "Cat's Meow".Question
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#2731 - 2013-09-06 00:41:02 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


Translation: Oh sh*t! The can's open and there are f*cking worms everywhere!

Blink

This is meant kindly. I think the dev team have the best of intentions, but creating a super-awesome-pve-but-not-too-op-at-pvp ship is going to be very difficult.

I think it's going to be a lot easier if the team focusses on just making marauders good at pve, and leave pvp to the pirate ships.

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".

CAS3Y
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2732 - 2013-09-06 00:44:18 UTC
Paladin should have the 5 percent capacitor bonus rolled into the base hull and get a tracking bonus instead like the Apoc
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#2733 - 2013-09-06 00:45:42 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Here's a hint for your departmental dialogue: do what I suggested like 50 pages ago. Redo the whole T2 battleship selection with a PvE-specialized BS; an actual PvP / direct combat-focused Marauder; and a revised, more stealthy / support-oriented blackops battleship. It fits your design philosophy (T2 ships specialized for one role) and actually has a hope of making the various crowds that have been posting in this thread happy. Whatever you do, DO NOT try and make a combination PvP/PvE ship and DO NOT end up making a "HAC" version of battleships that would make a viable fleet PvP ship.

E: I guess it was more like 70 pages ago. Here's a link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3559765#post3559765


PvP/Direct Combat focused -> Pirate Battleships

Defensive/PvE focused -> Marauders

Speed/Stealth -> Black-Ops Battleships

It makes very little sense to throw a PvP focused ship into a PvE focused ship-line. Even less to make a T2 ship that's flat better than Pirate Faction.


If this is a critique of my old post, then perhaps you should read it again. The idea is to have a PvE-focused T2 BS (using the current "transformer" hulls that CCP's art team devised) that would cater strictly to PvE (this is not my area of expertise, but I imagine them as having superior active tanking numbers through a rep-amount bonus while having normal resists and smaller buffers than regular BS to prevent them from excelling at fleet combat), an actual "marauder" that trades tank and damage output over a T1 / faction BS in order to gain significant mobility and sustainability advantages, and a revised blackops class that would take up covert cloaks and focus on providing logistical (read: moving things around-- not, "space-priest") support to marauder / recon / bomber / covert t3 gangs. The blackops would trade tank and even more damage output (relative to T1) than the marauder in exchange for being able to fill this cloaky support role.

Here, I've made an infographic to help demonstrate what I mean:

http://i.imgur.com/02VPuei.jpg

Note that the categories in the graphic are deliberately simplified: things like "tank" and "utility" can (and should) mean different things depending on the focus of the ship... for example, if you wanted to get really detailed you would break "tank" out into multiple categories like buffer, resists, active repping, etc. For example, a PvE-specialized ship with a maxed-out "tank" bar should mean something that has normal resists, a small HP pool, and a large active repping bonus. T1 and faction tanks should be similar to T1 in resist profiles, but with bigger hitpoint pools (to give them greater EHP without making them any more proficient at receiving remote reps), while T2 combat BS could focus on achieving moderate EHPs through small buffers with a resist bonus, making them powerful in small-gang scenarios regardless of chosen tanking method (buffer or active) while rendering them useless to fleet work due to inherent vulnerabilities to alpha / bombs.

This a concept I could support, it is like everyone wins here. But without the power creep.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Cade Windstalker
#2734 - 2013-09-06 00:51:57 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
If this is a critique of my old post, then perhaps you should read it again. The idea is to have a PvE-focused T2 BS (using the current "transformer" hulls that CCP's art team devised) that would cater strictly to PvE (this is not my area of expertise, but I imagine them as having superior active tanking numbers through a rep-amount bonus while having normal resists and smaller buffers than regular BS to prevent them from excelling at fleet combat), an actual "marauder" that trades tank and damage output over a T1 / faction BS in order to gain significant mobility and sustainability advantages, and a revised blackops class that would take up covert cloaks and focus on providing logistical (read: moving things around-- not, "space-priest") support to marauder / recon / bomber / covert t3 gangs. The blackops would trade tank and even more damage output (relative to T1) than the marauder in exchange for being able to fill this cloaky support role.

Here, I've made an infographic to help demonstrate what I mean:

http://i.imgur.com/02VPuei.jpg

Note that the categories in the graphic are deliberately simplified: things like "tank" and "utility" can (and should) mean different things depending on the focus of the ship... for example, if you wanted to get really detailed you would break "tank" out into multiple categories like buffer, resists, active repping, etc. For example, a PvE-specialized ship with a maxed-out "tank" bar should mean something that has normal resists, a small HP pool, and a large active repping bonus. T1 and faction tanks should be similar to T1 in resist profiles, but with bigger hitpoint pools (to give them greater EHP without making them any more proficient at receiving remote reps), while T2 combat BS could focus on achieving moderate EHPs through small buffers with a resist bonus, making them powerful in small-gang scenarios regardless of chosen tanking method (buffer or active) while rendering them useless to fleet work due to inherent vulnerabilities to alpha / bombs.


My biggest problem with this stands, you're trying to make the Marauders something they've never been simply based on the name of the ship class.

These have never been terribly mobile, nor have they been high on utility. They tank well which is why they're mission ships.

On the other hand the Black Ops already have mobility based bonuses, it synergizes well with their stealthy nature, and CCP have already stated intent to split the class into Bridging and combat roles. Plus we already have one of them with an EWar focus in the Widow.

If you want to propose an entirely new T2 ship class then fine, but do it after CCP have rebalanced the rest of the Battleships and then make a case for why it doesn't step on anything else. As things stand though I feel you're trying to shoe-horn a new ship into a class that isn't really related to your concept and will likely make the Battleship roles rather crowded.
Gazzine TunakTun
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2735 - 2013-09-06 00:59:32 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • In deployed mode (we call it bastion), their hulls transform (they will have fancy visible animations like the Rorqual does when deploying) and they become fixed weapon placement with a bonus to resistances, tanking, damage projection and receiving EW immunity. However, like Dreadnoughts, they cannot be remote assisted or even move when that happens. They also cannot use Micro Jump Drives in that mode.


  • Hi,

    Here is what worries me: speed is much bigger part of tank in shield method than in armor method.

    If you build a shield tanking ship you do that at a price: bigger tank, bigger signature. This is balanced somehow by mobility.
    Armor tanked ships build their tank at a price of speed keeping signature size.
    If you stop both these ships armor tanked has huge advantage. It loses not so big speed so not much difference if that ship moves 50 or stops. At the same situation shield tanked ship looses crucial part of it's tank (all speed).

    My questions are:
    - did you considered that difference ?
    - how do you compensate it ? Unfortunately I didn't noticed that.
    One more question is:
    - Caldari has two paths to go - hybrids and missiles. At the moment turret path ends on Rokh.
    Why not give two weapon types bonuses to Golem ? This will let Caldari pilots who spent time to skill hybrids
    natural path to advance. Up to now, they are abandoned somewhere and fastest way for them to progress is
    to crosstrain Galente or Minmatar. Three other races don't have that problem.

    I think correct way to go is:
    - consider differences between t1/t2/t3 hulls ships should have (define resists values, armor and shield sizes)
    - consider different tanking methods (define number of slots ship must have to carry that tank)
    - consider different weaponry ship is carrying (ranges, dps, alpha, application)
    - consider difference between t1 battleship and t2 battleship (define bonuses for tank, weaponry, other).
    - look if what you get here is good. If yes it's time to add some fancy stuff like turning marauders into minidreads.
    - look at the ship price, if there is a ship capable to replace marauder in his role for less than half of the price
    start over.

    I like that idea but it needs a lot of work to get good result.

    Good luck,
    Gazz
    Incindir Mauser
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2736 - 2013-09-06 01:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Incindir Mauser
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Hey guys

    Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

    We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

    In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


    Naturally.

    I frankly don't see why it wouldn't make sense just to make a T2 battleship class that does what you want with your Bastion idea.

    And it is a good idea. A mini-dread would be a great addition to the T2 line of battleships, just trying to crowbar a new gadget onto a ship that is extremely niche at the moment probably isn't going to end well for the ship class.

    If you guys at CCP are insistent on making a buttersheep out of Marauders, I'd basically refit the four racial ship types to play to the racial weapon types that they use.

    Webs make sense on shorter range turret based ships, but not medium to long range weapon platforms. Webs on the Kronos, Vargur, and Paladin makes sense. On the Golem, not so much, as with your PvP idea with the MJD/Bastion kiting setup, if something is that close to you, you are likely going to die anyway.

    I personally would make a new line of T2 battleships based off the Abbadon, Rohk, Typhoon, and Hyperion models. Give them base T2 resists, the bonus to MJD use, Bastion module with stated EWAR immunity, optimal range + 5% RoF (or a 25-30% bonus to overheating modules), 8 highs 7 turrets, mids and lows that fit racial profiles, and 10% damage per level of Marauders skill to turrets with a local rep bonus coupled that makes sense probably in the 5-7.5% per level.

    Or if you really want to get creative, give them all 6 capital turrets with RoF bonuses (NO CITADEL MISSILES! **** last thing we need is another travesty like the Phoenix.).

    And there you go, your space seige tank in a nutshell.
    Ludi Burek
    The Player Haters Corp
    #2737 - 2013-09-06 01:04:10 UTC
    I didn't mind the first version at all, from a pve point of view. The pve in question was low sec plexing (5/10 & 6/10). MJD tactics are awesome for these and bonus to cycle time is SUPERB. Bastion mode would allow very light tank etc...

    Terrible players will cry about being unable to move but seriously with local & d-scan and the fact that you're 100km from warp in, one truly has to be a massive derp to get caught in a plex. And if you can't get around low sec safely, in a ship of this size, it is not the ship's fault. It is YOU.

    At least this second version keeps the MJD bonus.



    My actual suggestion is to stop listening to pve exclusive points of view. Bastion+MJD is a GREAT idea to build upon but you need to stop trying to please everyone. Rethink the actual bonuses for these ships purely from a PVP perspective.

    Before people get all upset about the above statement, please admit that PVE is easy and people adopt any ship to their bearing needs anyway. Why castrate something that could be so great by listening to incursion or mission opinions.

    If the marauders get redesigned with a complete PVP focus, people will work out if they can be used in PVE effectively and either use them or not. If you redesign them with the mindset of pleasing incursion runners or whatever other player of limited perspective, they will just continue to be unused in PVP or used only by bored pilots for laughs.
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #2738 - 2013-09-06 01:14:46 UTC
    Arrendis wrote:
    And I think it's pretty clear from the removal of the tractor beam bonuses that you guys understand that, and understand that the Noctis pretty much obsoletes the tractor bonuses on everything short of an Orca.
    They didn't remove the tractor bonuses. Or am i reading this wrong?
    Arrendis
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #2739 - 2013-09-06 01:16:39 UTC
    Rowells wrote:
    Arrendis wrote:
    And I think it's pretty clear from the removal of the tractor beam bonuses that you guys understand that, and understand that the Noctis pretty much obsoletes the tractor bonuses on everything short of an Orca.
    They didn't remove the tractor bonuses. Or am i reading this wrong?


    No, that was me misreading, thanks for catching it.
    Melek D'Ivri
    Illuminated Overwatch Group
    #2740 - 2013-09-06 01:20:49 UTC
    I will do my best to lower my blood pressure before typing much more, but basically:

    Marauders have a long standing tradition of being a tank bonused ship, and yes this new bastion mod is, kinda nice looking, but the 100% bonus to boost/rep is because it's going to have a 0 transversal and be stuck in place. And considering I don't see it replaced with an innate marauder bonus to rep, I'll assume my ships should be sold before prices take a nose dive, while I can still make ISK or break even.

    Please for the love of God don't get rid of the tanking bonus. Either that or turn the bastion mod into a 200% bonus to boost/rep.