These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Crysantos Callahan
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2801 - 2013-09-06 07:38:34 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/


Could you at least answer the essential question people have been asking here for... 140 pages? What role do you want the marauder to fulfill? And where do you see its most pressing weaknesses or attributes you want to boost compared to other ships that can fulfill that role, respectively other BS hulls?
Cade Windstalker
#2802 - 2013-09-06 07:40:00 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
On the other hand, if it does less damage than a T1 BS, why PvE with it? I still think that only providing a tanking increase for the PvE T2 BS would be a mistake, since T1 / faction BS (or T3 cruisers) don't really have tanking problems for solo PvE content to begin with. T3 cruisers (the Tengu in particular) already offer absurd combinations of range, tank, and DPS for solo PvE.


Because one of the biggest problems in PvE is damage application. You want to bring tanky ships with lots of damage, which means Battleships most of the time but missions, Incursions, and exploration sites all have frigates and cruisers (and fast battleships in some cases) that you can't apply full DPS to. Against these enemies Webs, Target Painters, and Tracking Computers are very important. Tanking bonuses allow you both tank high damage PvE encounters and potentially fit more damage boosting or damage application modules like Heat Sinks, Gyrostabilizers, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Webs, and Target Painters.

Case and point, one of the most popular T1 incursion battleships is the Rokh because it can fit more utility-mids due to its resists bonus and has a range bonus which helps with sniping in Assaults and HQs with Railguns and puts Blasters at optimal ranges against frigates and cruisers in Vanguards.

Ganthrithor wrote:
I'm sure something could be worked out so that the ships wouldn't be unusable for incursions.


I certainly hope so but I'd rather it not be a hard requirement.

Plus if given a choice I'd rather see a Mordu's Legion line of ships using Hybrids. The Rokh looks awesome with Mordu's colorsBig smile

Ganthrithor wrote:
My point is that it's a good example of specialization for PvP-- the hulls have a niche role or two in which they excel, and are pretty awful at anything else. I just think the T2 battleships should be similarly-specialized.


I certainly agree with you here, I'd just like to keep the Bastion as an option though but something more similar to the relationship Carriers have with Triage. It's great and gives them nice bonuses but isn't mandatory like the Dreadnaught's Siege module is (Veldnaught not withstanding Lol).

Ganthrithor wrote:
I'm not as offended by his proposal when considered as a dedicated PvE idea (I still don't think it offers enough improvement for PvE to justify its pricetag, but that could be worked around easily). It's the balance teams' idea that the same ship can be useful for PvP that I find mind-boggling. There needs to be a separate PvP ship.


I disagree, enough so to the point that I'm working on my own version of a full proposal. If everyone and their corp-mate is doing one I might as well work up a full concept too. Ugh

Ganthrithor wrote:
Being myself, I don't really care that much what they call it, but it does seem to me like there should be separate categories for a non-covert, DPS ship and a covert-cloaking support ship. I guess you could argue that either way, though-- HACs and recons are in different groups (one's a DPS ship, one's a support) but Combat Recons and Force Recons are in the same group (covert vs non-covert, both support ships). Either way, as long as there's a Marauder that Marauds, I'll be pleased.


I think that a tanky ship with good damage application would fit the current definition of "Marauder" perfectly. Large tank and cargo-bay for sustained combat. Good damage application for dealing with small annoying threats as well as support ships (which tend to sit away from the battle and/or be hard to apply damage to).

The mobility is not strictly necessary for something to be a "Marauder" and the actual literal definition of "maraud" is simply "To roam in search of things to steal or people to attack." This was probably selected as the name for a set of mission ships as a joke on the money-focused nature of many High Sec mission runners and because it sounded cool.

As for the cloaky ship, I would be rather surprised given the current Black-Ops bonus set if they didn't focus the Black Ops revamp on mobility and agility over raw gank power, with probably half the line having a little focus on something like E-War support since the Widow and Panther seem to be the most popular of the current hulls (E-war and Speed respectively).
Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#2803 - 2013-09-06 07:45:45 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:


I think that's by design. The only T2 "general combat" ships in the game are HACs, and for some reason CCP decided to give them a free pass for historical reasons rather than specializing them.


The T2 cruisers have defined roles, and as such can themselves into damn near any fleet.

I also think they dicked the dog pretty well with the HACs in general.

I can't see where they are going, other than a ship that PvPs worse than the ENTIRE T1 line up, and PvEs worse that most of the T1s and 3/4 of the pirate ships with the fourth being debatable......all of which are comparable in price.

Without making a second module that doesn't make the ship an immobile brick using it and just a slow brick without it I don't know how they are going to resolve mauraders into anything desirable.
Sturmwolke
#2804 - 2013-09-06 07:49:24 UTC
I'll just throw this in here :

~148 days max (no implant) - to fully skill (L5) the marauder hull, sans gunnery/support skills.
~80 days max (no implant) - to fully skill (L5) a typical pirate BS hull, sans gunnery/support skills.

The marauder skill is a rank 10, the last level will take approx 30+days to finish with max implants.
It becomes almost like a holy grail at L5 ... long train, little reason.

Please keep the above in mind when doing the marauder iteration.
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2805 - 2013-09-06 07:49:45 UTC  |  Edited by: The Spod
BLINK MARAUDERS:
blink mode:

------------------------------------/
• t2 resist
• MJD blinky blinky
• target spectrum breaker
------------------------------------/

Bonus:
Bastion and hybrid ancillary/buffer tank.
Cade Windstalker
#2806 - 2013-09-06 07:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Sturmwolke wrote:
I'll just throw this in here :

~148 days max (no implant) - to fully skill (L5) the marauder hull, sans gunnery/support skills.
~80 days max (no implant) - to fully skill (L5) a typical pirate BS hull, sans gunnery/support skills.

The marauder skill is a rank 10, the last level will take approx 30+days to finish with max implants.
It becomes almost like a holy grail at L5 ... long train, little reason.

Please keep the above in mind when doing the marauder iteration.


On the flip side though, you only have to train Marauders once and can get all four race's. Also I'm assuming those train times don't factor in a focused remap or implants (which cut Marauders to 5 down to about 36 days) also most of the prerequisites for Marauders are good skills to have period like Energy Grid Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades.

If you do factor in a high level of support skills then the Marauders are only a few days worse than a Pirate Battleship and you don't have to re-train that to get another Marauder, you just need another Battleship skill to 5.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2807 - 2013-09-06 08:07:15 UTC
Onictus wrote:


I also think they dicked the dog pretty well with the HACs in general.

I can't see where they are going, other than a ship that PvPs worse than the ENTIRE T1 line up, and PvEs worse that most of the T1s and 3/4 of the pirate ships with the fourth being debatable......all of which are comparable in price.


My cerb v your caracal, let's do this

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2808 - 2013-09-06 08:11:05 UTC  |  Edited by: CanI haveyourstuff
Malcanis wrote:
Onictus wrote:


I also think they dicked the dog pretty well with the HACs in general.

I can't see where they are going, other than a ship that PvPs worse than the ENTIRE T1 line up, and PvEs worse that most of the T1s and 3/4 of the pirate ships with the fourth being debatable......all of which are comparable in price.


My cerb v your caracal, let's do this


provide real numbers and reasons how and why is your cerb so good and why would you win... and if you lose to caracal that has buddy warping in @ you then how much you lose. vs. going to pick up another caracal

if it's new to you also then real eve pvp is not alliance tournament.

and now replace that caracal and cerb with mega and kronos... see what happens.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#2809 - 2013-09-06 08:15:59 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.


i cant understand this removeing web bonus was a good thing imho cause you realy dont need it on those ships...
you dont need it in pve esp with the mjd

and you certrainly do not need it in fleets i guess nobody would fly one of theese solo anyway...

plz remove it and give them something they realy can make use of like warpcore str!
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2810 - 2013-09-06 08:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Because one of the biggest problems in PvE is damage application. You want to bring tanky ships with lots of damage, which means Battleships most of the time but missions, Incursions, and exploration sites all have frigates and cruisers (and fast battleships in some cases) that you can't apply full DPS to. Against these enemies Webs, Target Painters, and Tracking Computers are very important. Tanking bonuses allow you both tank high damage PvE encounters and potentially fit more damage boosting or damage application modules like Heat Sinks, Gyrostabilizers, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Webs, and Target Painters.

Case and point, one of the most popular T1 incursion battleships is the Rokh because it can fit more utility-mids due to its resists bonus and has a range bonus which helps with sniping in Assaults and HQs with Railguns and puts Blasters at optimal ranges against frigates and cruisers in Vanguards.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

Plus if given a choice I'd rather see a Mordu's Legion line of ships using Hybrids. The Rokh looks awesome with Mordu's colorsBig smile


Was it you who linked that site originally? That site owns. I totally agree-- a Kalaakiota Rokh would own, and swapping the current Ishukone colorscheme for the Mordu's one across the board for Caldari would be awesome (I always loved the urban-camo look of the pre-V3 Ishukone ships).

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I certainly agree with you here, I'd just like to keep the Bastion as an option though but something more similar to the relationship Carriers have with Triage. It's great and gives them nice bonuses but isn't mandatory like the Dreadnaught's Siege module is (Veldnaught not withstanding Lol).


If they left the Bastion module as a damage application amplifier on the PvE BS, I wouldn't mind. As I said a while back, PvE is not my area of expertise (I've done a fair bit, but mostly in Tengus, which pretty much break all the rules of EVE and tank absurdly well while destroying everything in their path), and I'm way more open to various proposals for PvE features for a PvE-focused BS. Speaking of which...

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I disagree, enough so to the point that I'm working on my own version of a full proposal. If everyone and their corp-mate is doing one I might as well work up a full concept too. Ugh


Your post actually got me thinking about an idea I had for "my Marauders" as a possible role bonus-- leaving them with reduced max dps numbers compared to vanilla BS, but giving them a role bonus that added tracking and decreased the signature size of their brand of battleship guns in order to make their large guns perform more like a midway point between cruiser and BS turrets in terms of damage and application. My initial thought was that this would only be good on a PvP BS (where it would make the weapons more versatile at the cost of DPS), and that ratters wouldn't find it useful since the result would be that the cleartime on trash NPCs would drop, but cleartime for battleship NPCs would go up, largely negating their practicality. Maybe I'm wrong? What do you think?

Regardless, do finish a writeup. I'll be curious to see what you come up with.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I think that a tanky ship with good damage application would fit the current definition of "Marauder" perfectly. Large tank and cargo-bay for sustained combat. Good damage application for dealing with small annoying threats as well as support ships (which tend to sit away from the battle and/or be hard to apply damage to).

The mobility is not strictly necessary for something to be a "Marauder" and the actual literal definition of "maraud" is simply "To roam in search of things to steal or people to attack." This was probably selected as the name for a set of mission ships as a joke on the money-focused nature of many High Sec mission runners and because it sounded cool.


I've spent most of my EVE career doing insurgency stuff in hostile space, and to me a battleship with good damage application and ****-poor mobility sounds totally useless. I've used ships like pulse Apocs (old and new, normal and Navy varieties) to pretty good effect before because they give you a combination of stand-off range, excellent tracking, decent DPS, and pretty OK mobility (for a battleship). If they were bigger and fatter I would not use them at all, regardless of how well they applied damage or tanked. In small-gang PvP mobility is incredibly important and tanking ability is relatively irrelevant-- the vast majority of my ships are very light on tank simply because in most cases it's not how much you can tank that determines whether you live or die, but whether or not you can manage ranges and avoid being tackled. In the case of closerange ships, this means having good speed and agility; in the case of long-range ships like a pulse Apoc, speed is much less important but having a low align time is still very much important.

For PvP scenarios that don't require mobility, the existing pirate, navy, and T1 BS seem to do the job just fine. The new Hyperion in particular is an absolute monster for things like crashing (crushing?) gatecamps. The Hyp has active tanking on lockdown, while things like Abaddons can fit pretty monstrous brick-tanks.
CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2811 - 2013-09-06 08:19:26 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
i cant understand this removeing web bonus was a good thing imho cause you realy dont need it on those ships...
you dont need it in pve esp with the mjd

and you certrainly do not need it in fleets i guess nobody would fly one of theese solo anyway...

plz remove it and give them something they realy can make use of like warpcore str!


webs are good @ incursions, they help aloooot

all marauder's need is dps buff to justify their training and cost, and maybe MJD that can be used even when scrammed

BANG and you'd have null full of fun pvp again and small bs gangs.
Deliram
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2812 - 2013-09-06 08:21:39 UTC
Sturmwolke wrote:
I'll just throw this in here :

~148 days max (no implant) - to fully skill (L5) the marauder hull, sans gunnery/support skills.
~80 days max (no implant) - to fully skill (L5) a typical pirate BS hull, sans gunnery/support skills.

The marauder skill is a rank 10, the last level will take approx 30+days to finish with max implants.
It becomes almost like a holy grail at L5 ... long train, little reason.

Please keep the above in mind when doing the marauder iteration.

This. With marauder skill at level 5 then you can fly all maraduers. If you train a pirate BS at lvl 5 you get all the T1 BS of 2 race to use too.
Elzon1
Shadow Boys Corp
#2813 - 2013-09-06 08:22:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Elzon1
Well, I liked the first iteration better than the second.

I would say keep some of the t2 resists, but include some of the omni resists from the bastion module. The web bonus seems counter-intuitive considering the MJD bonus. The marauders must keep their standard rep bonuses to stay above battleship level.

I too believe the marauders should be a little more differentiated in terms of race (both t2 resist layout and weapon systems).

Now as for role:

Quote:
Geared toward versatility and prolonged deployment in hostile environments, Marauders represent the cutting edge in today's warship technology.


Well, it's not now but perhaps it will be in the future.

Quote:
While especially effective at support suppression and wreckage salvaging, they possess comparatively weak sensor strength and may find themselves at increased risk of sensor jamming.


Support suppression.... maybe with the first design plan...

Sensor strength will and should be improved.

Quote:
Nevertheless, these thick-skinned, hard-hitting monsters are the perfect ships to take on long trips behind enemy lines.


Behind enemy lines... no... no ship is capable of doing that considering you will be outnumbered. There is a way to make it work though.

Add a bonus to marauders in bastion mode:

Target spectrum breakers don't effect host ship when bastion module is active. With that a marauder can have a massive tank without getting alphaed.

But really the only thing that will get marauders on the battlefield more often would be a buff to insurance payouts for said ships.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#2814 - 2013-09-06 08:25:11 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Crimminy still with the "waah waah Marauders will suck at level 4's with Bastion and MJD".

Here's the thing: MJD + Bastion might not suit your style of doing level 4's as you do them now (slowly motor to out gate while blam-blam) and you may need to adjust your play style to utilise them propelry...but how is that 'ruining' the ship class for its supposed 'intended role'?

The idea with designing a ship class should be to give it capabilities and let it loose and see where it ends up. People thought the Tengu was so-so for level 4's, and then they discovered the 100MN fits, and the price of CNR's dipped because you could get equal performance and way too much tank from a Tengu. This shows that what you may think a ship is intended for gets warped and twisted around by the players who find novel and unique ways to use them.

I thought the MJD was a fairly pointless module. Suddenly, there's people mumbling the 3 minute cooldown timer hurts them because they have to jump away from Level 4 mission rats twice which takes them 6 minutes to get back to gate.

Oh, hey, you can do it in 1/3rd the time with a Marauder with the Bastion mode! zomg!

The problem with the line of thinking that marauders are intended for PVE in level 4s (or as now, warped by Incursion bear whining) is that this leads to revisions and rebalances that further force the ship into what "the community' sees as an intended role.

Sure, this may be true of HICs and Dictors and Logi of all kinds, as these are very specialised ships. However, all other T2 combat ships have ship bonuses which give them special abilities and people automagically come up with interesting uses. Sentry ishtar ratting? Check. Blops running 8/10's? Check. Stealth bombers doing level 4 FW missions? Check. Soloing level 4's in Retributions? Check. Oh. My. God. CCP better buff these ships so they are more effective at their intended role of missioning!

Sarcasm in case you missed it.

The iteration 1 marauder changes gave us a niche PVP ship which would solo small POSs (yeah baby), Dickstars (hahaha), totally ruin the lamest "PVP" in EVE (being docking games), allow donut punching of lowsec gate camps (huehuehue). The problem? You can't run incursions. But you CAN destroy Level 4's. Well, shucks.

iteration 2 is a compromise which barely reduces the Marauder's use in PVE, assuming you can figure out MJD missioning style and aren't prone to ridiculously overtanking your ships for missions because you want your AFK Rattler back. It really only increases their use back to slightly worse than pirate BS for incursions. not that anyone uses them in incursions now, nor will they afterwards.

What it does do is destroys its use in PVP in any conceivable fashion. Docking games are back on because if you are going to undock a marauder, you may as well undock a Vindicator. Yay, thumbs up!

Lowsec gate camps won't have to worry about these things permatanking them while their gangmates destroy the pirates. Your sniper mode Marauder is gone, the 80% web being about as useful as bulls with DD boobs.

Whereas before i was looking forward to dropping one into harms way, assured that if I calculated right I'd have a good 10-15 minutes of fun and get a few kills baiting people, now its just a more expensive and less useful navy Faction BS equivalent with a "kill me now" module and no utility.

Be brave, CCP Ytterbium. Maybe fiddle the Bastion resist bonus to being a free DCU, or 5% across the board non-penalised. Keep the active rep bonus so you can actually tank outside Bastion mode (while, eg, hoofing it to gate), and tank in the 2-3K range while in it. You will then have a small gang or even solo boat able to punch hard, tank stronk and be a PITA.

Structure the other bonuses to actually work together to make a formidable long range platform which can protect itself from numpty ceptor pilots, idiots who blow their sig and can't tank 1000-1200 DPS and can't rid themselves of tackle. Leave the web bonus out, it will then be the achilles heel and force marauder pilots to work hard on their fits to counter the inevitable hero tackle Incursus of doom.

Iteration 1 Marauders, piloted by smart people with good gangs who pick their fights were going to be a handful. Well, guess what, an 850 DPS 280K EHP rail Proteus is a handful right now and you don't have any "kill me now" module on T3's like you do with iteration 2.


pretty much this tbh.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#2815 - 2013-09-06 08:25:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Onictus wrote:


I also think they dicked the dog pretty well with the HACs in general.

I can't see where they are going, other than a ship that PvPs worse than the ENTIRE T1 line up, and PvEs worse that most of the T1s and 3/4 of the pirate ships with the fourth being debatable......all of which are comparable in price.


My cerb v your caracal, let's do this


Pass.
Cade Windstalker
#2816 - 2013-09-06 08:41:14 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Was it you who linked that site originally? That site owns. I totally agree-- a Kalaakiota Rokh would own, and swapping the current Ishukone colorscheme for the Mordu's one across the board for Caldari would be awesome (I always loved the urban-camo look of the pre-V3 Ishukone ships).


Yup, I can't take credit for the site though, just linking to it rather excessively =P (to the point that typing Rokh into my browser bar comes up with six different links to that site).

I'm actually rather fond of the current Ishukone paint job. I REALLY want a Mordu's line of ships using Hybrids though. It annoys me no end that I can fly every other Hybrids bonused ship in the game EXCEPT the Serpentis ones and for those I have to train Minmattar while I have zero projectile skills... -_-

Ganthrithor wrote:
If they left the Bastion module as a damage application amplifier on the PvE BS, I wouldn't mind. As I said a while back, PvE is not my area of expertise (I've done a fair bit, but mostly in Tengus, which pretty much break all the rules of EVE and tank absurdly well while destroying everything in their path), and I'm way more open to various proposals for PvE features for a PvE-focused BS. Speaking of which...


Ganthrithor wrote:
Your post actually got me thinking about an idea I had for "my Marauders" as a possible role bonus-- leaving them with reduced max dps numbers compared to vanilla BS, but giving them a role bonus that added tracking and decreased the signature size of their brand of battleship guns in order to make their large guns perform more like a midway point between cruiser and BS turrets in terms of damage and application. My initial thought was that this would only be good on a PvP BS (where it would make the weapons more versatile at the cost of DPS), and that ratters wouldn't find it useful since the result would be that the cleartime on trash NPCs would drop, but cleartime for battleship NPCs would go up, largely negating their practicality. Maybe I'm wrong? What do you think?

Regardless, do finish a writeup. I'll be curious to see what you come up with.


This is more or less my thinking, have Bastion provide nothing to tank but extend the range of the guns and maybe even lower sig-res like you're suggesting, though in practical terms it ends up working just like a non-stacking penalized tracking bonus except it's not multiplied by other tracking computers/enhancers... which may actually be a good thing >.> I will have to take a look at the numbers on this one.

Something for the weekend I think! :)

Regarding clear times, I would say I spend about half my time in most missions clearing frigates and cruisers despite the overall lower HP values because you have to let low DPS drones deal with them most of the time unless you can land solid hits on them either by engaging at range or webbing them down to nothing.

In Vanguard class incursions the vast majority of targets are frigate and cruiser sized with only one of the three sites containing a Battleship and the largest rat after that being a Battlecruiser that MWDs in and then orbits around just outside 20km (bonused Fed-Navy webs reach to just under 19km). The two most effective fleet doctrines for these 10-11 man sites revolve around either Vindicator webs or using Machariels to alpha-strike things in 2 out of the three sites when they spawn out at 60km and are MWDing in (they avoid the third site where things spawn in close).

For larger sites there is a very large focus on damage projection with a large number of people serving a "sniper" role, which requires damage to be applied out between 120 and 150km from the mass of the fleet. The better your damage projection at these ranges the higher damage ammo that can be used and the faster the site completes. Shorter range ships aren't used as much in these sites.

Ganthrithor wrote:
I've spent most of my EVE career doing insurgency stuff in hostile space, and to me a battleship with good damage application and ****-poor mobility sounds totally useless. I've used ships like pulse Apocs (old and new, normal and Navy varieties) to pretty good effect before because they give you a combination of stand-off range, excellent tracking, decent DPS, and pretty OK mobility (for a battleship). If they were bigger and fatter I would not use them at all, regardless of how well they applied damage or tanked. In small-gang PvP mobility is incredibly important and tanking ability is relatively irrelevant-- the vast majority of my ships are very light on tank simply because in most cases it's not how much you can tank that determines whether you live or die, but whether or not you can manage ranges and avoid being tackled. In the case of closerange ships, this means having good speed and agility; in the case of long-range ships like a pulse Apoc, speed is much less important but having a low align time is still very much important.

For PvP scenarios that don't require mobility, the existing pirate, navy, and T1 BS seem to do the job just fine. The new Hyperion in particular is an absolute monster for things like crashing (crushing?) gatecamps. The Hyp has active tanking on lockdown, while things like Abaddons can fit pretty monstrous brick-tanks.


I'm definitely more of a "where's my logi support?" sort of PvP player, otherwise I go for low-sec roams in fairly cheap ships. I definitely understand the sort of situation you're talking about but I don't think the Marauders are going to fit that style of play and still be viable for PvE where "mobility" is reaching the next gate before clearing the pocket.

It sounds like what you really want is some variant on the current Black-Ops battleships that aren't only usable when dropping on someone while having a massive numbers advantage.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#2817 - 2013-09-06 08:43:35 UTC
CanI haveyourstuff wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
i cant understand this removeing web bonus was a good thing imho cause you realy dont need it on those ships...
you dont need it in pve esp with the mjd

and you certrainly do not need it in fleets i guess nobody would fly one of theese solo anyway...

plz remove it and give them something they realy can make use of like warpcore str!


webs are good @ incursions, they help aloooot

all marauder's need is dps buff to justify their training and cost, and maybe MJD that can be used even when scrammed

BANG and you'd have null full of fun pvp again and small bs gangs.


1.)
in incursions you have dedicated web (lokis)

2.) you are horribly wrong
MJD cant be used SCRAMED only when disrupted.

so id like to make my case for +2 warp strengh:

it would make the ship harder to catch which is of use in pvp and pve and it will make the effort to catch it be more in line with the ship cost.
you either need 3 str faction scram or 2x scrams which is by no means uncommon or imnpossible.

so lets look at the gain
you would be able to move arround more freely in low (and partly null)
it helps with the ability to run lvl5
it even may be of use in incursions
the use in pvp is obvious too (and id rather have the tr than a bonused web cause even with bonused web chances are you cant kill or cant kill fast enough that damn interceptor and by all means it shouldnt be so easy to hold a ship with that price tag.)
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#2818 - 2013-09-06 08:48:29 UTC
Chimpface Holocaust wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
They also keep the resistances they have right now instead of gaining full Tech2 resists, otherwise the combination with the bastion module would be quite over the top.

They also are receiving full Tech2 resists.


Am I the only one that noticed this?

Sad that it took 2793 posts (140 pages) for someone to notice. My guess is the error got lost in translation.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Update here.
Giving a new deployed mode is not enough however, as some modifications need to be made on the hulls themselves. First, we wanted to encourage Marauders to use Micro Jump Drives to move around, and as such have reduced mobility next to their Tech1 counterparts (bit higher mass and lower max velocity). We are also reducing their drone bays as they are primarily meant to deliver damage through their main weapon system. They also keep the resistances they have right now instead of gaining full Tech2 resists, otherwise the combination with the bastion module would be quite over the top.

However, we realize Marauder hulls have a certain number of issues; as such we are significantly increasing their fittings so that they can fit Large Micro Jump Drives plus Heavy Capacitor Boosters with more ease (the Vargur especially needed more fitting options). We also are increasing their high slots to 8 to compensate for the slot allocation of the bastion mode. We also are increasing their maximum targeting range and scan resolution a bit to make use of the increased damage projection, while decreasing their signature radius. They also are receiving full Tech2 resists.
Normally, I would chalk this up to poor editing/oversight. The proximity of both statements "full Tech2 resists" in the original document to each other makes me think something else is afoot.

Did someone cross-post this in the industry forum by mistake? So much crying going on here. CCP, you guys need to buck-up and resist caving. Sensible changes will keep (and maybe even increase) the player-base. Think about Eve like your little baby... spoiling them makes your future fraught with frustration. Raise your baby how you want. Start saying no.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2819 - 2013-09-06 08:49:20 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
1.)
in incursions you have dedicated web (lokis)

I just wanted to note that "dedicated webbers" like Lokis and Bhaals don't have much DPS to contribute. In reality it's Vindicators who are dedicated webbers in many cases. Oh and they provide more DPS than marauders anyways.
Although I'm not sure whether it holds with command links nerfs that reduced the range of Vindi webs quite significantly.
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2820 - 2013-09-06 08:59:13 UTC
The four utility high slots are too much. Three to four neutralizers for station games, four slot spider tank... Those alone with the t2 resists are worth the isk and sp requirements.

If bastion is introduced the resist bonus should go there. Otherwise dump the ewar immunity for something more geared towards the marauder roles of t2 resist. Or, get rid of the MJD bonus and make them slow bricks.

T2 = specialized
Now, marauder is "specialized for seven intense roles" I.e. Generalized:
• brick t2 resist
• good damage
• MJD blink
• EWAR immunity
• 4 utility highs
• salvaging on go
• target painting (golem)

Pick 2-3 and work on it.
EWAR immunity and t2 resist
Good damage, MJD blink
Good damage and t2 resist

Those are enough to build three different t2 battleships. Do not throw it all in one generalized mess basket.