These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3301 - 2013-09-09 14:22:24 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Edit



that's all marauders have always been, pirate battleships are t 1.5 marauders, when people use them as such - anything apirate battleship can do a marauder in the current iteration (on TQ) can match or better, and the things it can't match it makes up for by doing somethign else through utility slots, like remote repair or capacitor warfare the pirate battleships can't carry, they're very good ships when the pilots using em use em for what they're good at :)

Anyone got that graph handy?


would be convenient wouldn't it? :D get on the horn to fox four and assign him a few fit warriors with someone versed in fleet command, you'll have your graphs sir..oh yes YOU SHALL HAVE YOUR SHINY PICTURES! XD

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3302 - 2013-09-09 14:27:22 UTC
I'm reasonably sure thers a dev blog that explains the thought process around moving away from the old tiers.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3303 - 2013-09-09 14:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Edit


Anyone got that graph handy?


would be convenient wouldn't it? :D get on the horn to fox four and assign him a few fit warriors with someone versed in fleet command, you'll have your graphs sir..oh yes YOU SHALL HAVE YOUR SHINY PICTURES! XD

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg



yup, that's about right, though t3 are specialised not generalised, they just have more parts to chose from upon their construction that give them the ability to appear more general, faction ships sit in the center - beign t1, and t2 steer towards one specific idea, the idea of the marauders...is versatility, cuz..you can specialise at being versatile yea? :)

so while your pirate BS do a little more direct damage, a marauder will say instead of that damage, we'll take RR and or cap modules instead, so we can adapt better to a change of circumstance, or perform better under fire, increasing our combat effectiveness over all compared to the faction equivalent :)

that picture, while being very simple, does the job - though it may take a more detailed breakdown for most people to notice i think ;)
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#3304 - 2013-09-09 14:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Wedgetail wrote:


yup, that's about right, though t3 are specialised not generalised, they just have more parts to chose from upon their construction that give them the ability to appear more general, faction ships sit in the center - beign t1, and t2 steer towards one specific idea, the idea of the marauders...is versatility, cuz..you can specialise at being versatile yea? :)



Not really, t3s are generally far more "generalized" compared to t2. They often combine much stronger hulls compared to hacs (with 3 rigs) while also combining it with some form of ewar advantage.

Furthermore, t3 are far far far better than pirate faction ships atm, expect a swift kick in the nuts to the whole lot of them.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3305 - 2013-09-09 14:31:54 UTC

Just read the dev blog and calm down

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3306 - 2013-09-09 14:38:12 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:


yup, that's about right, though t3 are specialised not generalised, they just have more parts to chose from upon their construction that give them the ability to appear more general, faction ships sit in the center - beign t1, and t2 steer towards one specific idea, the idea of the marauders...is versatility, cuz..you can specialise at being versatile yea? :)



Not really, t3s are generally far more "generalized" compared to t2. They often combine much stronger hulls compared to hacs (with 3 rigs) while also combining it with some form of ewar advantage.

Furthermore, t3 are far far far better than pirate faction ships atm, expect a swift kick in the nuts to the whole lot of them.


the subsystems for t3 are modelled off of the HAC and force recon equivelents, t3's are "general" cuz they can pick an choose between which ones they want, yes this creates a general purpose hull, but the base components are specialised - hence my interpretation that t3's are specialised hulls that can become generalised by choosing to do so - equally a t3 can become very specialised by picking only the subsystems that aid a single task, it's all down to what you build it to do and how you fly it, it is..what you make of it X)
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#3307 - 2013-09-09 14:41:23 UTC
Pi Selina wrote:
Striscio wrote:

Some additional fins and antennas, probably things like that, doesn't look like they really need a complete different hull to "transform" (We don't even know how the animation is intended, they might simply open some sort of flap while spreading outside the hardpoints)


"Removal" of some "bitz" would also be nice,.. The "Forecastle" on the Golem,.. yeah I'm talkin' about you, you ugly little verticle mess of hull aesthetics destruction,.. begone,..

I can't find a decent pic of it that isn't huge,.. but you know the one I'm talkin' about,.. the thing is absolutely fugly,.. and in no way compliements the "lines" of the hull in any way.


This one before the re-work Golem or did you mean after the V3 shader model.

Either way both ugly as sin...hoping for some KK (Kaalakiota Corporation) paint-job love like the Widow got...that looks sweet. Or even the black hull with the yellow flashes...

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3308 - 2013-09-09 14:43:58 UTC
so anyone know when version 2.0 is going to be released... we need a new op and a new thread

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3309 - 2013-09-09 14:45:39 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
The other thing that doesn't sit well with me about the T2 resists is that it is really picking winners and losers when it comes to the various racial hulls. Here's the resist numbers for a T2 resist Vargur with a DCU2, 2x Invl 2:

Vargur TQ
EM 66%
TH 68.3%
KN 72.8%
EX 77.4%

Vargur w/ T2
EM 89.1%
TH 82.4%
KN 72.8%
EX 77.4%

With T2 resists the hull practically becomes immune to laser fire. Conflag w/ 4 faction sinks would do a maximum of like 130 effective dps. The increase in Thermal resist provides a whopping 45% reduction to incoming Thermal damage compared to the TQ version. That covers a significant number of NPC profiles, player weapon systems, and selectable ammo types. With the second version of the proposed changes it will boost some marauders for PVE and PVP (limited application here) and make the others not only less effective than their brothers, their TQ versions, but significantly less attractive than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls for missioning purposes.

If you have to enter bastion mode and have to fit faction/deadspace modules to effectively tank the missions and still be efficient in your racial marauder, you might as well fit those modules to a pirate hull because you'll have nearly the same tanking potential and significantly more raw DPS to apply.



Funny now check your paladin.. because it suddenly became almost immune to Explosive as well!!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3310 - 2013-09-09 14:48:52 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:


yup, that's about right, though t3 are specialised not generalised, they just have more parts to chose from upon their construction that give them the ability to appear more general, faction ships sit in the center - beign t1, and t2 steer towards one specific idea, the idea of the marauders...is versatility, cuz..you can specialise at being versatile yea? :)



Not really, t3s are generally far more "generalized" compared to t2. They often combine much stronger hulls compared to hacs (with 3 rigs) while also combining it with some form of ewar advantage.

Furthermore, t3 are far far far better than pirate faction ships atm, expect a swift kick in the nuts to the whole lot of them.


the subsystems for t3 are modelled off of the HAC and force recon equivelents, t3's are "general" cuz they can pick an choose between which ones they want, yes this creates a general purpose hull, but the base components are specialised - hence my interpretation that t3's are specialised hulls that can become generalised by choosing to do so - equally a t3 can become very specialised by picking only the subsystems that aid a single task, it's all down to what you build it to do and how you fly it, it is..what you make of it X)

Love the logic.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3311 - 2013-09-09 15:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:
the subsystems for t3 are modelled off of the HAC and force recon equivelents, t3's are "general" cuz they can pick an choose between which ones they want, yes this creates a general purpose hull, but the base components are specialised - hence my interpretation that t3's are specialised hulls that can become generalised by choosing to do so - equally a t3 can become very specialised by picking only the subsystems that aid a single task, it's all down to what you build it to do and how you fly it, it is..what you make of it X)

Love the logic.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

ffs look at that picture... pirate BS is t1.5 compared to marauders!!!!

Big smile

hell.. dem marauders are so specialized atm that all incursion fleets are full of them, marauding and stuff while hauling expensive salvages into cargohold :D they be doing srs business behind enemy lines and marauding all together and stuff.

except no one wants them in fleet Sad
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3312 - 2013-09-09 15:15:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CanI haveyourstuff wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:
the subsystems for t3 are modelled off of the HAC and force recon equivelents, t3's are "general" cuz they can pick an choose between which ones they want, yes this creates a general purpose hull, but the base components are specialised - hence my interpretation that t3's are specialised hulls that can become generalised by choosing to do so - equally a t3 can become very specialised by picking only the subsystems that aid a single task, it's all down to what you build it to do and how you fly it, it is..what you make of it X)

Love the logic.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

ffs look at that picture... pirate BS is t1.5 compared to marauders!!!!

Big smile

hell.. dem marauders are so specialized atm that all incursion fleets are full of them, marauding and stuff while hauling expensive salvages into cargohold :D they be doing srs business behind enemy lines and marauding all together and stuff.

except no one wants them in fleet Sad

lol

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#3313 - 2013-09-09 15:27:52 UTC
I'm not particularly thrilled with the removal of the rep bonuses from the marauder hulls. The ability to tank heavily in all situations was one of the central marauder capabilities. I'm not fond of the idea that they will have to stop moving now to tank well at all.

Personally, I believe the original marauder proposal was much better than the current one on most points. The main thing I would've done is provided a tracking bonus while in bastion as opposed to a range bonus. I also would've removed the range bonus that was added to the paladin hull and replaced it with a tracking bonus to be on par with the other marauders.
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3314 - 2013-09-09 15:28:46 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
Oh well, that sounds better. Anyway - I think the golem will be able to get away with an EM ward and an Invul + Shield Booster for lv 4's. Dmg output is enough, and ~67 % em should be fine, considered that you will have huge thermal resists - if poop hits the fan, use bastion.

However, it won't be enough to switch from my CNR. CNR has enough tank and enough application (+ more damage through sentries), and the CNR has way more buffer..

No reason to use the Golem, unless you want to fly with torps.


That's been exactly what I've been saying. Swapping T2 resists for the old bastion resists and the local rep bonus pretty much makes most of the marauders far less attractive than the faction and pirate BS varieties for both PVE and PVP. The TQ and first proposal versions at least provided a boost to mission efficiency compared to the other hulls.


This is definately true for the turret-marauders. However, the golem isn't just that easy. In my opinion, the golem has nothing to offer at the moment, which makes it a reasonable choice. Both alternatives (CNR and the rattler) are just plain better. Even the normal raven and the SNI are comparable to the golem, as the only benefit the golem has to offer is the tank (which isn't needed anyway).

That's the reason why I support this change - atleast, the golem will offer a choice over the other missile-boats (which is a stronger active-tank through bastion, and Ewar Immunity + high mobility through MJD).

Ofcourse it seems that the bonuses are chaotic, but it makes sense to me and they define a role too (versatility as close range-brawler + mobility and range as sniper - both with very good damage application).

As it stands, I support these changes, and I can't see why any PvE-player would ever complain about the loss of active-tank bonus for plain resists. For level 4's, you simply don't care about the marginal tank-loss you receive while not beeing in bastion. For other forms of PvE (Incursions), the resists are plain better too. And even WH spider-tanking will benefit more from the resists.

Yeah, the loss of mobility in bastion is quite meh (noone likes to be immobile), but the benefits are there, and you can make use of it. The only thing I would question is the web-strength-bonus, which should be a range-bonus in my opinion.



MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3315 - 2013-09-09 15:50:22 UTC
So it looks like the main ship all the marauders are being compared to is the Machariel.

I read over and over again that the mach is much better then the ships.

I have asked people to aviod comparions because the pirate battleships have not been balanced.

but alas this had not been done.

So here is the post balance mach that we will more then likely see.

Quote:
Machariel

•Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire



•Galente Battleship Skill Bonus:
7.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret falloff per level (-2.5%)

•Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage per level



•Slot layout: 8H, 5M, 7L; 7turrets, 0 launchers
•Fittings: 17000 (-950) MW PWG , 600 CPU
•Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 9000(-317) / 9000(-298) / 8000(-260)
•Mobility (max velocity / mass): 150 m/s(-11) / 980,000,000 (+3,320,000)
•Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75(-25) / 100(-25)
•Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km(-2km) / 140-10 / 7
•Sensor strength: 26 LADAR
•Signature radius: 360(-+20)



There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3316 - 2013-09-09 15:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
The other thing that doesn't sit well with me about the T2 resists is that it is really picking winners and losers when it comes to the various racial hulls. Here's the resist numbers for a T2 resist Vargur with a DCU2, 2x Invl 2:

Vargur TQ
EM 66%
TH 68.3%
KN 72.8%
EX 77.4%

Vargur w/ T2
EM 89.1%
TH 82.4%
KN 72.8%
EX 77.4%

With T2 resists the hull practically becomes immune to laser fire. Conflag w/ 4 faction sinks would do a maximum of like 130 effective dps. The increase in Thermal resist provides a whopping 45% reduction to incoming Thermal damage compared to the TQ version. That covers a significant number of NPC profiles, player weapon systems, and selectable ammo types. With the second version of the proposed changes it will boost some marauders for PVE and PVP (limited application here) and make the others not only less effective than their brothers, their TQ versions, but significantly less attractive than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls for missioning purposes.

If you have to enter bastion mode and have to fit faction/deadspace modules to effectively tank the missions and still be efficient in your racial marauder, you might as well fit those modules to a pirate hull because you'll have nearly the same tanking potential and significantly more raw DPS to apply.



Funny now check your paladin.. because it suddenly became almost immune to Explosive as well!!


The version 2 Paladin comes out to:
EM 77.4%
TH 70.7%
KN 68.1%
EX 83%

So for the ammo types that include Explosive damage here's the damage breakdown:
EMP 16.7% explosive
Fusion 83% explosive
Barrage 54.5% explosive
Tremor 62.5% explosive
Hail 78.5% explosive

This only affects some of the ammo selections available to missiles and projectiles with options that become much more effective. The Vargur resists align with lasers perfectly and they can chose their ammo types to be more effective unlike lasers.

Again my point is that with T2 resists the Vargur gains a big advantage over the other 3 racial marauders in that they are easily omni tanked and can produce equivalent resist numbers with one less tanking module. As it stands now there will be a definite pecking order of marauders based on resist profile, repair potential, DPS and application, and efficiency. Here's how I view it


  1. Vargur - Great resist profile. Can fit a 3 slot tank. Good up close damage, high alpha damage from range. Can fit 4 damage mods easily
  2. Kronos - Pretty flexible resist profile. Great up close damage and good alpha/damage from range.
  3. Golem - Lack of 3rd rig slot hurts damage application versus faction/pirate hulls. Fully selectable damage. Great resist profile versus most pirate faction NPCs.
  4. Paladin - Poor resist profiles for faction rats. Subpar resists compared to other three options. Non selectable damage. Great capacitor and very flexible damage range through fast ammo switching


The middle two hulls really are a toss up on which one is better. If the Golem had a third rig slot it would easily beat the Kronos simply because it's shield tanked and has silly tanking options through ASB fittings.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3317 - 2013-09-09 16:03:27 UTC
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
That's been exactly what I've been saying. Swapping T2 resists for the old bastion resists and the local rep bonus pretty much makes most of the marauders far less attractive than the faction and pirate BS varieties for both PVE and PVP. The TQ and first proposal versions at least provided a boost to mission efficiency compared to the other hulls.


This is definately true for the turret-marauders. However, the golem isn't just that easy. In my opinion, the golem has nothing to offer at the moment, which makes it a reasonable choice. Both alternatives (CNR and the rattler) are just plain better. Even the normal raven and the SNI are comparable to the golem, as the only benefit the golem has to offer is the tank (which isn't needed anyway).

That's the reason why I support this change - atleast, the golem will offer a choice over the other missile-boats (which is a stronger active-tank through bastion, and Ewar Immunity + high mobility through MJD).

Ofcourse it seems that the bonuses are chaotic, but it makes sense to me and they define a role too (versatility as close range-brawler + mobility and range as sniper - both with very good damage application).

As it stands, I support these changes, and I can't see why any PvE-player would ever complain about the loss of active-tank bonus for plain resists. For level 4's, you simply don't care about the marginal tank-loss you receive while not beeing in bastion. For other forms of PvE (Incursions), the resists are plain better too. And even WH spider-tanking will benefit more from the resists.

Yeah, the loss of mobility in bastion is quite meh (noone likes to be immobile), but the benefits are there, and you can make use of it. The only thing I would question is the web-strength-bonus, which should be a range-bonus in my opinion.



The change to T2 resists only benefit some of the hulls versus their factions rats compared to the active tanking bonuses. The Paladin has received a net loss in tanking potential with the changes. The Amarr T2 profile doesn't enhance EM or Thermal resistances which is what the primary targets of a laser boat are shooting. So the Paladin lost 37.5% repair against their primary targets and gained absolutely nothing outside of bastion. The Paladin only sees an increase in tanking potential against those same NPCs over what they are capable of on TQ with bastion active and they must STAND STILL to get it. The other hulls received enough additional resistances against their primary factions to counteract the lost of local repair boost so they get a net positive both without bastion or with bastion active.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Isinero
Perkone
Caldari State
#3318 - 2013-09-09 16:38:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Isinero
I rechecked bonuses ... (after change)

and 37,5% repair amount = T2 resists

Result is really nearly the same. (maybe something like +5 - 10 EHP regen per sec for T2 ressits.)

Not sure how it will be for active shield tank. For passive shield tank this can be really big advantage :-D
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3319 - 2013-09-09 17:03:25 UTC
Loving how someone always takes up the batton and explains this for each timezone.

Well said sir

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3320 - 2013-09-09 17:13:04 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
The change to T2 resists only benefit some of the hulls versus their factions rats compared to the active tanking bonuses. The Paladin has received a net loss in tanking potential with the changes. The Amarr T2 profile doesn't enhance EM or Thermal resistances which is what the primary targets of a laser boat are shooting. So the Paladin lost 37.5% repair against their primary targets and gained absolutely nothing outside of bastion. The Paladin only sees an increase in tanking potential against those same NPCs over what they are capable of on TQ with bastion active and they must STAND STILL to get it. The other hulls received enough additional resistances against their primary factions to counteract the lost of local repair boost so they get a net positive both without bastion or with bastion active.


Designing marauders for PvE is what ruined them in the first place. They need to be balanced for PvP because mission runners are just going to pick the ship that runs missions the quickest anyway.