These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3241 - 2013-09-09 04:09:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
I didn't really understand why the version 1 numbers were so amazing that they needed to be gutted until I started working the numbers for the shield tanked marauders. I'll post the same type of numbers for the Vargur after I finish them, but needless to say the shield numbers get quite rediculous. Shield tanking is why armor tanking can't have nice things.


Actually you could get some pretty silly numbers out of Armor Marauders too, if you really tried.

The first gen numbers weren't bad, but people wanted full T2 resists for PvP and the resist bonus on Bastion would have been OP all by itself if combine with T2 resists so the resist bonus had to go if we wanted T2 resists.

The thing is, they were only supposed to be for niche PVP situations and small gang or solo at that, the T2 resists were added because fleet whiners.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3242 - 2013-09-09 04:20:31 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The thing is, they were only supposed to be for niche PVP situations and small gang or solo at that, the T2 resists were added because fleet whiners.

If only EVE had enough bruteforce ships for fleet work...

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Cade Windstalker
#3243 - 2013-09-09 04:49:49 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I think a fair compromise is to have T2 Resists, and then have Bastion give a further 20% unstacked bonus.

This simply replicates what many T2 ships have already: A 4% per level resistance bonus. However, this 20% would apply to shields, armor and hull at once.

T2 stays in place for incursions, but the EHP and more omni buff stays in place for Level 4 missions. And without introducing any ridiculous tank EFT-stats. Well, no more ridiculous than we see on current ships, anyway. I do like the idea of this ship being the only one that can get >60% resists in hull though (my proposal would max out hull resists at 68%.)

EDIT: And put back my damned 37.5% Rep boost!


I am more than a little concerned about 500k EHP battleships with various fleet boosts and other fun things included. Though more because of the possible solo and small gang implications than because of the large-fleet use-case. Anything dies to enough alpha in a fleet, but for a 10v10 situation having twice the EHP of the other side can be pretty darn powerful.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The thing is, they were only supposed to be for niche PVP situations and small gang or solo at that, the T2 resists were added because fleet whiners.


I wouldn't even say fleet, I'd just say PvP people in general. Several of the same people who came out of the woodwork after the Command Links were nerfed were pushing for the web bonus to be reinstated and for the ships to get full T2 resists.

Other than that, can't really disagree with you. Ugh

As much as I like the idea of being able to tank half the mission rats in the game with just a large armor repairer and an EANM on my Kronos I don't exactly think that's good PvE balance between ships.... Straight
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3244 - 2013-09-09 05:03:52 UTC
Fearless ballsy idea... I'm going to write the next sentence in all caps so you clowns at CCP get the idea.



THIS IS THE MINDSET YOU SHOULD OF HAD WHEN YOU REBALANCED HACS / COMMANDSHIPS.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#3245 - 2013-09-09 06:01:46 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
I didn't really understand why the version 1 numbers were so amazing that they needed to be gutted until I started working the numbers for the shield tanked marauders. I'll post the same type of numbers for the Vargur after I finish them, but needless to say the shield numbers get quite rediculous. Shield tanking is why armor tanking can't have nice things.


Actually you could get some pretty silly numbers out of Armor Marauders too, if you really tried.

The first gen numbers weren't bad, but people wanted full T2 resists for PvP and the resist bonus on Bastion would have been OP all by itself if combine with T2 resists so the resist bonus had to go if we wanted T2 resists.

The thing is, they were only supposed to be for niche PVP situations and small gang or solo at that, the T2 resists were added because fleet whiners.


Do you find the T2 resists somehow bad for non-fleet whiners?

.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3246 - 2013-09-09 06:23:12 UTC
Roime wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
I didn't really understand why the version 1 numbers were so amazing that they needed to be gutted until I started working the numbers for the shield tanked marauders. I'll post the same type of numbers for the Vargur after I finish them, but needless to say the shield numbers get quite rediculous. Shield tanking is why armor tanking can't have nice things.


Actually you could get some pretty silly numbers out of Armor Marauders too, if you really tried.

The first gen numbers weren't bad, but people wanted full T2 resists for PvP and the resist bonus on Bastion would have been OP all by itself if combine with T2 resists so the resist bonus had to go if we wanted T2 resists.

The thing is, they were only supposed to be for niche PVP situations and small gang or solo at that, the T2 resists were added because fleet whiners.


Do you find the T2 resists somehow bad for non-fleet whiners?

I can't remember the specific wording of it but here goes.
Anything that is beneficial to a solo to small gang become exponentially more powerful with increasing fleet members.

The only exception to this I can think of is local rep bonuses.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#3247 - 2013-09-09 06:41:57 UTC
The problem with the first iteration was that it was too extreme- overpowered in micro engagements without logi, and useless even in small gangs with logi (=solo logi or a pair). I find going for T2 resists expands the viability of marauders a lot.



.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3248 - 2013-09-09 07:02:40 UTC
Roime wrote:
The problem with the first iteration was that it was too extreme- overpowered in micro engagements without logi, and useless even in small gangs with logi (=solo logi or a pair).

That is what I would call a niche PvP situation.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#3249 - 2013-09-09 07:08:15 UTC
Ships aren't rebalanced to be OP in niche situations.

.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3250 - 2013-09-09 07:11:40 UTC
Roime wrote:
The problem with the first iteration was that it was too extreme- overpowered in micro engagements without logi, and useless even in small gangs with logi (=solo logi or a pair). I find going for T2 resists expands the viability of marauders a lot.

While T2 resists can increase the viability of a ship in an omni tank role, they don't really do much to help marauders as currently proposed. Specifically they don't make them more attractive, even selectively in most scenarios, than really anything else. That means while their viability in a vaccumm seems better, their viability in the game as a whole still remains negligible on top on losing use as they are currently employed due to tank loss against specific damage types.
Cade Windstalker
#3251 - 2013-09-09 07:17:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Roime wrote:
The problem with the first iteration was that it was too extreme- overpowered in micro engagements without logi, and useless even in small gangs with logi (=solo logi or a pair). I find going for T2 resists expands the viability of marauders a lot.


The problem with this is that adding T2 resists while removing the repair bonus on the hulls makes the Paladin and Vargur worse for solo PvE than they are on TQ currently while giving the Kronos and Golem a rather large boost. Unless of course you factor in Bastion but that means you either use the module or you can't mission in them effectively anymore and not everyone is going to want to do that.

Roime wrote:
Ships aren't rebalanced to be OP in niche situations.


No, they're rebalanced to be useful in niche situations (at least T2 ships are), which by definition means "better than other available options in that role".
sabastyian
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#3252 - 2013-09-09 07:53:42 UTC
I feel like the kronos should keep its web bonuses ( maybe nerf a little....maybe ) and it should get the rep bonus back in place of the range. With these changes and the bastion module, my math was showing a paladin able to hit to like 130-135km with scorch...... 700ish dps at 135km?
More Powergrid/Cpu
Keep drone bays ( battleships without them are destroyed )
Replace the range bonus for the old rep bonus
Change the bastion module in some way to make it more useful then getting blapped by the first dreadnought or arty fleet that sees you, and in the current state it will dominate any small gang without logi.
Do not nerf speed, my nidhoggur is faster then half of those marauders.
Keep the sensor strength low ( smartbomb for ecm drones ) and the trade off is high dps, high tank for ability to be jammed when not in bastion ( there you just get lolblapped by the first arty fleet/dread )
The web bonus on the vargur and golem need to go..... those ships are just not designed for close range combat
Web bonus on paladin should be changed to be similar to that of the bhaalgorn ( keeping it in check with the race )
Zoe Israfil
#3253 - 2013-09-09 08:03:27 UTC
I initially supported the version one re-balancing ideas, then I was disgusted by the version two revamp. After taking a step back I still think the overall change is positive and I may have been too quick to judge.

I'd like to start within the current paradigm of marauders. Currently the exists as a lvl 4 high sec missioning platform that mostly tailors to users who like to run a single account (some exceptions of course). They are also very solid misisoning ships and perhaps even people who have alts are drawn to them over faction battleships. They have a very limited function outside of this paradigm. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but they are not often used in PVP, they are not a current / past doctrine ship for any fleet op / alliance, they generally are not used within wormholes, and they are not typically used for exploration. There is a major exception for null/low sec players who may use them to run anoms/and possibly signatures. In short, they excel at solo/small gang "elite" PVE.

Enter the "mini-dread" of the future....

The revamped ships gain in damage projection and local tank. I'm still not sure how I would classify the changes to mobility. They should be able to move around grid relatively effectively, though in missions I have reservations about trips 30-50 k ( I know you can use a triangle pattern but how easy/effective that solution is is for me untested). They gain T2 resists. They TRANSFORM! (I like this feature even if it's a vanity).

The T2 resists will make them more viable for missioning level 4's (not really like you're going to need the tank with bastion but at least you have it). Their increased projection should help with bringing mission completion times down, especially if one gets really good at planning triangles. This alone should be a huge buff in the eyes of the high sec marauder-missioner. The T2 resists combined with bastion's local tank bonus also should make them small gang pvp viable / WH viable / anom-combatsignature viable. I think in retrospect the +30% resists were way too strong, and the current option provides plenty of tank for people to explore coupled with a cool idea (transforming is so cool... why ppl h8ting mini dreads that can go through hi-sec?). Furthermore the stationary/sieged dynamic will be a really neat change to PVP (small scale).

I think overall the changes do exactly what CCP was aiming for. Buff the marauder class, while expanding it's potential into other areas of the game (mainly pvp/small gang ops). I think what they have proposed is quite effectively accomplishing this goal. I personally made the mistake of OMG LOSING +30% RESISTS SO THEY MUST SUCK NOW.... After a second look these still look good to me.
Stirlsha
Tranquility Tavern
Pandemic Horde
#3254 - 2013-09-09 08:40:51 UTC
Zoe Israfil wrote:
I initially supported the version one re-balancing ideas, then I was disgusted by the version two revamp. After taking a step back I still think the overall change is positive and I may have been too quick to judge.

I'd like to start within the current paradigm of marauders. Currently the exists as a lvl 4 high sec missioning platform that mostly tailors to users who like to run a single account (some exceptions of course). They are also very solid misisoning ships and perhaps even people who have alts are drawn to them over faction battleships. They have a very limited function outside of this paradigm. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but they are not often used in PVP, they are not a current / past doctrine ship for any fleet op / alliance, they generally are not used within wormholes, and they are not typically used for exploration. There is a major exception for null/low sec players who may use them to run anoms/and possibly signatures. In short, they excel at solo/small gang "elite" PVE.

Enter the "mini-dread" of the future....

The revamped ships gain in damage projection and local tank. I'm still not sure how I would classify the changes to mobility. They should be able to move around grid relatively effectively, though in missions I have reservations about trips 30-50 k ( I know you can use a triangle pattern but how easy/effective that solution is is for me untested). They gain T2 resists. They TRANSFORM! (I like this feature even if it's a vanity).

The T2 resists will make them more viable for missioning level 4's (not really like you're going to need the tank with bastion but at least you have it). Their increased projection should help with bringing mission completion times down, especially if one gets really good at planning triangles. This alone should be a huge buff in the eyes of the high sec marauder-missioner. The T2 resists combined with bastion's local tank bonus also should make them small gang pvp viable / WH viable / anom-combatsignature viable. I think in retrospect the +30% resists were way too strong, and the current option provides plenty of tank for people to explore coupled with a cool idea (transforming is so cool... why ppl h8ting mini dreads that can go through hi-sec?). Furthermore the stationary/sieged dynamic will be a really neat change to PVP (small scale).

I think overall the changes do exactly what CCP was aiming for. Buff the marauder class, while expanding it's potential into other areas of the game (mainly pvp/small gang ops). I think what they have proposed is quite effectively accomplishing this goal. I personally made the mistake of OMG LOSING +30% RESISTS SO THEY MUST SUCK NOW.... After a second look these still look good to me.


Exactly how I feel. Well said.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3255 - 2013-09-09 08:45:32 UTC
Stirlsha wrote:
Zoe Israfil wrote:
I initially supported the version one re-balancing ideas, then I was disgusted by the version two revamp. After taking a step back I still think the overall change is positive and I may have been too quick to judge.

I'd like to start within the current paradigm of marauders. Currently the exists as a lvl 4 high sec missioning platform that mostly tailors to users who like to run a single account (some exceptions of course). They are also very solid misisoning ships and perhaps even people who have alts are drawn to them over faction battleships. They have a very limited function outside of this paradigm. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but they are not often used in PVP, they are not a current / past doctrine ship for any fleet op / alliance, they generally are not used within wormholes, and they are not typically used for exploration. There is a major exception for null/low sec players who may use them to run anoms/and possibly signatures. In short, they excel at solo/small gang "elite" PVE.

Enter the "mini-dread" of the future....

The revamped ships gain in damage projection and local tank. I'm still not sure how I would classify the changes to mobility. They should be able to move around grid relatively effectively, though in missions I have reservations about trips 30-50 k ( I know you can use a triangle pattern but how easy/effective that solution is is for me untested). They gain T2 resists. They TRANSFORM! (I like this feature even if it's a vanity).

The T2 resists will make them more viable for missioning level 4's (not really like you're going to need the tank with bastion but at least you have it). Their increased projection should help with bringing mission completion times down, especially if one gets really good at planning triangles. This alone should be a huge buff in the eyes of the high sec marauder-missioner. The T2 resists combined with bastion's local tank bonus also should make them small gang pvp viable / WH viable / anom-combatsignature viable. I think in retrospect the +30% resists were way too strong, and the current option provides plenty of tank for people to explore coupled with a cool idea (transforming is so cool... why ppl h8ting mini dreads that can go through hi-sec?). Furthermore the stationary/sieged dynamic will be a really neat change to PVP (small scale).

I think overall the changes do exactly what CCP was aiming for. Buff the marauder class, while expanding it's potential into other areas of the game (mainly pvp/small gang ops). I think what they have proposed is quite effectively accomplishing this goal. I personally made the mistake of OMG LOSING +30% RESISTS SO THEY MUST SUCK NOW.... After a second look these still look good to me.


Exactly how I feel. Well said.

Neither of Ye are paladin pilots are Ye?

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Cade Windstalker
#3256 - 2013-09-09 08:45:44 UTC
sabastyian wrote:
I feel like the kronos should keep its web bonuses ( maybe nerf a little....maybe ) and it should get the rep bonus back in place of the range. With these changes and the bastion module, my math was showing a paladin able to hit to like 130-135km with scorch...... 700ish dps at 135km?
More Powergrid/Cpu
Keep drone bays ( battleships without them are destroyed )
Replace the range bonus for the old rep bonus
Change the bastion module in some way to make it more useful then getting blapped by the first dreadnought or arty fleet that sees you, and in the current state it will dominate any small gang without logi.
Do not nerf speed, my nidhoggur is faster then half of those marauders.
Keep the sensor strength low ( smartbomb for ecm drones ) and the trade off is high dps, high tank for ability to be jammed when not in bastion ( there you just get lolblapped by the first arty fleet/dread )
The web bonus on the vargur and golem need to go..... those ships are just not designed for close range combat
Web bonus on paladin should be changed to be similar to that of the bhaalgorn ( keeping it in check with the race )


The falloff bonus is more useful in more situations, especially PvE, than the web bonus and less over-powered.

Beyond that you don't provide a very good argument for most of your proposals beyond "this is what I want". Don't nerf speed? These are tanky battleships, there are already plenty of battleships out there slower than your Nidhoggur. Also not everyone fights Dreadnaughts and pretty much anything is susceptible to blapping/alpha no matter what. Balancing against this is not productive.

These are also not supposed to be top-tier DPS ships.

Overall it looks like what you're asking for is Battleship sized HACs with more drone-bay. How is that even remotely balanced?

Zoe Israfil wrote:

The T2 resists will make them more viable for missioning level 4's (not really like you're going to need the tank with bastion but at least you have it). Their increased projection should help with bringing mission completion times down, especially if one gets really good at planning triangles. This alone should be a huge buff in the eyes of the high sec marauder-missioner. The T2 resists combined with bastion's local tank bonus also should make them small gang pvp viable / WH viable / anom-combatsignature viable. I think in retrospect the +30% resists were way too strong, and the current option provides plenty of tank for people to explore coupled with a cool idea (transforming is so cool... why ppl h8ting mini dreads that can go through hi-sec?). Furthermore the stationary/sieged dynamic will be a really neat change to PVP (small scale).


Except that T2 tank and no local-rep bonus on the hull mean that if you don't want to use Bastion you're getting an overall mission-tanking nerf on the Vargur and Paladin but a major buff on the Kronos and Golem due to how damage in missions is distributed.

For a small dissertation on this issue see my previous post way back here.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#3257 - 2013-09-09 09:05:56 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
THESE STILL SUCK.

T2 resists = terrific. MJD = awesome.
Other than that, everything else is still a mixed bag of snakes.


true

get rid of the web bonus its the most horrible thing that happened since start of this rebalance
Isinero
Perkone
Caldari State
#3258 - 2013-09-09 09:18:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Isinero
if I will get at least this :

Armor
Therm: 35%
Kin: 62.5%
Exp: 80%
EM: 50%

it will be pretty OK and I can live without bonus repair amount because it will be even few percent better in my setup than original state. (aproximaltely 10 - 13% based on set up)

But I am really not sure that T2 ressist means that I will get ressists of heavy assault ships :-) (who know what they mean by saying T2 resists). Can someone confirm me this?

The another thing is bonus to webifier (its really nice) but I have only 4 medium slots so it will be really hard to fit it on Paladin.
1 MJD, at least 1 ENG CAP (something) ..... 2 slots left and so many options :-).

I would rather prefer different bonus or at least get the "great bonus" to range of webifier too and not only velocity bonus.

I can easily fit it on Golem and have a afterburner / MJD / webifier / cap stable and better tank than paladin :-) / same amount of damage increasing modules...

But to be honest I think that main reason for this is that ACTIVE SHIELD TANK is much much much better than ACTIVE ARMOR TANK...

I really think that they should start with balancing here.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3259 - 2013-09-09 09:42:49 UTC
Isinero wrote:
But I am really not sure that T2 ressist means that I will get ressists of heavy assault ships :-) (who know what they mean by saying T2 resists). Can someone confirm me this?

There are precise numbers in the OP. Basically, yours are correct.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3260 - 2013-09-09 10:11:53 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The thing is, they were only supposed to be for niche PVP situations and small gang or solo at that, the T2 resists were added because fleet whiners.

If only EVE had enough bruteforce ships for fleet work...



Although we do lack somethign to bridge the gap (that is HUGE) between Battleships and Capital ships.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"