These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#3601 - 2013-09-12 13:30:48 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Gazzine TunakTun wrote:
Guys, don't you have impression that DEVs have forgotten this topic long time ago ?

No, I think right now they're just a little bit sad, maybe even depressed.

They had this really cool and new Idea and for sub caps it was really unique and it would've given the marauder a totally new role, apart from it's previous occupation.

But all they received was 180 pages of nerd rage, whining and hate...

So I guess they'll be drunk and depressed for another week or so before they (hopefully) recover and get back to some marauder iteration that is closer to what they wanted to do before lots of guys clogged this thread with their "I wanna have a web bonus! Marauders are now crap because I can't use them in incursions anymore! I refuse any change at all!" whine threads.

Seriously, crying about a ship rebalance (repurpose?) just because it wouldn't have been top notch in incursions or solo roaming afterwards, or just because it had one single situational weakness after the rebalance... That's ridiculous.


The initial proposal was like, "cool!"

Then they changed it and the answer has been like "oh sh*t" in most posts since.

Is there a message?

I think yes.

Message 1: no, the new proposal is not liked by players.
Message 2: yes, the initial proposal was liked better.
Message 3: why did someone suggest the devs that they should make proposal 2 instead of 1? Who was? Not someone who posted here to defend proposal 2... maybe was the CSM " "representatives" "?

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#3602 - 2013-09-12 13:33:41 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When my Redeemer starts looking like a viable comparison to my Paladin for most applications in Eve, then the proposed changes to the Marauder are beyond awful.


No offence, bight now I'm looking for a polite synonym for the word idiotic... Straight

The Redeemer is a good ship, even for pve, unlike for example the widow. But, it's in no way comparable to a paladin or the golem, and with CCP's first marauder rebalance iteration the redeemer wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to the various marauder ships.

And don't you dare start with that incursion rubbish again. Incursions are not the only thing in high sec.


The only thing in high sec? Of course not.
But a large chunk of it, damn right.

Have a look at any day's online population.
On any given day, there is between 3% and 7% of the entire online population in the Incursion constellation.
The percentage of all the high sec players, obviously higher.

I would love to know how many null sec players depend on incursions to build up their wallets to support their null sec lifestyle.
(One of the low sec bloggers posted how a hundred test players rolled through his system enroute to running incursions).

So yeah, you call it rubbish. I call it fact.

CCP has made it clear that not only is it "PvP first" when designing a ship, it is "PvP ONLY".
CCP wants explosions?
CCP wants people (outside of the null sec cartels, who are drowning in cash) able to afford the shiny ships and supercaps?

Then they have to let people keep the tools that allow them to PvE.
Right now, that is clearly not the direction that CCP is looking.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3603 - 2013-09-12 13:35:47 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Ms. Ambraelle has some interesting proposals, but I wonder: just how much of that stuff is codeable within current EVE engine without requiring massive code rewriting that can presumably take years.


The two major departures from know features are the 50/100km MJD and the hitpoint buffer of the beachhead version of the bastion mode. A third possible issue is the turret signature resolution reduction as I'm not sure that is a bonusable statistic currently.

To be honest, I'd be happy with the base hull and just the CWS version of bastion. The beachhead version of bastion might be better served as its own ship class. I just didn't want to leave the brawling or short range weapon users out in the cold for the Marauder class.



all easily changeable bar the MJD which will need supporting UI code in order to access the function of altering range, by far the best solution to date, however i would suggest swapping the 50% self rep bonus for remote rep, for the reason that if the idea is to act as a 'door breaching charge' you're not going to be able to tank yourself, may as well give reason to fit RR in high slots.

logic being aggressive fits will then fit 1-2 RR mods and 1 vampire/nuet, where long range ships will tend to sport out right RR mods
(local reps in PVP (particularly on battleship scale) are a waste of space in most cases - so the preference is to rely on remote aid regardless of the fight you're in)

if you're gonna design an RR battleship hull may aswell make it a focus for both modes - and the close range mode will need it far more than long range, so if you want to lock out RR for one, swap the two and make the long range doctrine RR immune (they're already out of dps range as it is, no reason to make them harder to kill, and the close range ships will have neuts to worry about)

assuming you are still vulnerable to targeted ECM etc in close range mode, sensor dampeners will decimate this ships functionality in close quarters, as will tracking disruptors (though to a lesser degree) - as was pointed out to me by vendetta a few days ago, be careful limiting targeting range because that 25 k 'max range' will drop to less than 10 very quickly, making the ship all but worthless - it's ok to have them vulnerable to ewar just be cautious. cruisers and frigates carry lots of those mods and you don't want to shift from 'has a weakness to' to 'is completely screwed against' just cuz one frigate happened to carry a sensor damp - you'll need a bit of room on either side.

finally: do not script this, have two distinct modules - so before you leave dock you must pick one or the other and cannot swap between both on the fly - this will ensure that you're locked into one style of strengths and weaknesses for the duration of the flight
while changing between doctrines is great with the strengths you propose being able to alter between them with only a minute or two's notice without leaving the field (or using a carrier/etc) is a bit much.

again, well compiled collection of the better suggestions here
Horatio Astrates
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
#3604 - 2013-09-12 13:49:36 UTC
CCP Ytterbium, please send the analysis team back to drawing board!

Why everything you suggests ends up in a Missionrunner Paladin nerv?

Your Suggestions for Paladin Resists
Armor resists: 50% EM / 80% EX / 62.5% KIN / 35% THERM
Current Resists
Armor resists: 50% EM / 40% EX / 34.375 % KIN / 35% THERM
Blood Raiders do EM and Thermal Damage, with my Paladin I fly against Blood Raiders. I will just loose the Repair Bonus. For Angels I would choose another hull.

I do not need the "7.5% bonus to Large Energy Turret optimal range" bonus. I am flying with Tachyons. If I have to fight on 70km plus I just switch the lenses; most NPCs will not do damage in this range anyway.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#3605 - 2013-09-12 13:52:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


The initial proposal was like, "cool!"

Then they changed it and the answer has been like "oh sh*t" in most posts since.

Is there a message?

I think yes.

Message 1: no, the new proposal is not liked by players.
Message 2: yes, the initial proposal was liked better.
Message 3: why did someone suggest the devs that they should make proposal 2 instead of 1? Who was? Not someone who posted here to defend proposal 2... maybe was the CSM " "representatives" "?


Luckily CCP understands that game balancing involving spaceships/character classes is not so much about what players "like" as it is about creating a functional game that is enjoyable as a whole.

Let's imagine chessonline as an example. Chess developers would be faced with the challenge of the King underperforming, and being less used than the Queen. They post their initial ideas to forums.chessonline.com, and OUTRAEGGG111!!! follows! These people want the King to have movable arms and blinking eyes, castling with any other piece and unlimited movement. Turns out that the players giving the most vocal feedback avoid all human contact and prefer to play against AI on Training-level difficulty, and equally interested in dressing up their Kings with Ken clothes and playing with it, rather than actually trying to defeat their human opponents on the chessboard.

.

stoicfaux
#3606 - 2013-09-12 13:54:57 UTC
Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Mia Restolo
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3607 - 2013-09-12 13:59:57 UTC
Gazzine TunakTun wrote:
Guys, don't you have impression that DEVs have forgotten this topic long time ago ?
When was last response ?

Up to now story is like:
1. far from beeing perfect changes proposal
2. fix to changes makeing things even worse
3. silence ...

The third one is what worries me most.
I wonder if there will be anyone brave enough and patient to go through almost 200 pages of posts and make summary.

BR,


Considering the last dev response said they were going to take some time to read up on our suggestions and get back to us with a new proposal, not hearing back for a week isn't very long.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3608 - 2013-09-12 14:00:01 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.



That's basically the gist of my proposal as well. Have a base hull that is usable "as is" for most purposes and use the bastion module to apply bonuses and drawbacks to perform a specialized role. Unless I misunderstand post.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3609 - 2013-09-12 14:08:23 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.



That's basically the gist of my proposal as well. Have a base hull that is usable "as is" for most purposes and use the bastion module to apply bonuses and drawbacks to perform a specialized role. Unless I misunderstand post.


difference in 'one module that you reload a different script' and 'two distinct modules of the same type'

like an interdiction maneuvers link is not a shield harmonizer link, both are command links but do different things, you need to fit one or the other to get the bonuses, you don't load a new script into the one command link to do multiple things at your convenience :D
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#3610 - 2013-09-12 14:13:11 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The only thing in high sec? Of course not.
But a large chunk of it, damn right.

Have a look at any day's online population.
On any given day, there is between 3% and 7% of the entire online population in the Incursion constellation.
The percentage of all the high sec players, obviously higher.




If it were a large chunk... Roll

Your numbers are nice, but how many players of that 3 - 7 % actually run incursions? Can't be that much.

Which makes the incursion "chunk" tiny. Miniscule. More like incursion crumbs.

Face it, your bitching about the marauder changes is pointless moaning, the first iteration they would've made them just plain better.

Even with the second iteration and the pointless web bonus they're still better than before.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#3611 - 2013-09-12 14:22:40 UTC
Roime wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


The initial proposal was like, "cool!"

Then they changed it and the answer has been like "oh sh*t" in most posts since.

Is there a message?

I think yes.

Message 1: no, the new proposal is not liked by players.
Message 2: yes, the initial proposal was liked better.
Message 3: why did someone suggest the devs that they should make proposal 2 instead of 1? Who was? Not someone who posted here to defend proposal 2... maybe was the CSM " "representatives" "?


Luckily CCP understands that game balancing involving spaceships/character classes is not so much about what players "like" as it is about creating a functional game that is enjoyable as a whole.

Let's imagine chessonline as an example. Chess developers would be faced with the challenge of the King underperforming, and being less used than the Queen. They post their initial ideas to forums.chessonline.com, and OUTRAEGGG111!!! follows! These people want the King to have movable arms and blinking eyes, castling with any other piece and unlimited movement. Turns out that the players giving the most vocal feedback avoid all human contact and prefer to play against AI on Training-level difficulty, and equally interested in dressing up their Kings with Ken clothes and playing with it, rather than actually trying to defeat their human opponents on the chessboard.

Oh the irony in this post, you just described how we came to iteration number 2.

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

Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3612 - 2013-09-12 14:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
Wedgetail wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Ms. Ambraelle has some interesting proposals, but I wonder: just how much of that stuff is codeable within current EVE engine without requiring massive code rewriting that can presumably take years.


The two major departures from know features are the 50/100km MJD and the hitpoint buffer of the beachhead version of the bastion mode. A third possible issue is the turret signature resolution reduction as I'm not sure that is a bonusable statistic currently.

To be honest, I'd be happy with the base hull and just the CWS version of bastion. The beachhead version of bastion might be better served as its own ship class. I just didn't want to leave the brawling or short range weapon users out in the cold for the Marauder class.



all easily changeable bar the MJD which will need supporting UI code in order to access the function of altering range, by far the best solution to date, however i would suggest swapping the 50% self rep bonus for remote rep, for the reason that if the idea is to act as a 'door breaching charge' you're not going to be able to tank yourself, may as well give reason to fit RR in high slots.

logic being aggressive fits will then fit 1-2 RR mods and 1 vampire/nuet, where long range ships will tend to sport out right RR mods
(local reps in PVP (particularly on battleship scale) are a waste of space in most cases - so the preference is to rely on remote aid regardless of the fight you're in)

if you're gonna design an RR battleship hull may aswell make it a focus for both modes - and the close range mode will need it far more than long range, so if you want to lock out RR for one, swap the two and make the long range doctrine RR immune (they're already out of dps range as it is, no reason to make them harder to kill, and the close range ships will have neuts to worry about)

assuming you are still vulnerable to targeted ECM etc in close range mode, sensor dampeners will decimate this ships functionality in close quarters, as will tracking disruptors (though to a lesser degree) - as was pointed out to me by vendetta a few days ago, be careful limiting targeting range because that 25 k 'max range' will drop to less than 10 very quickly, making the ship all but worthless - it's ok to have them vulnerable to ewar just be cautious. cruisers and frigates carry lots of those mods and you don't want to shift from 'has a weakness to' to 'is completely screwed against' just cuz one frigate happened to carry a sensor damp - you'll need a bit of room on either side.

finally: do not script this, have two distinct modules - so before you leave dock you must pick one or the other and cannot swap between both on the fly - this will ensure that you're locked into one style of strengths and weaknesses for the duration of the flight
while changing between doctrines is great with the strengths you propose being able to alter between them with only a minute or two's notice without leaving the field (or using a carrier/etc) is a bit much.

again, well compiled collection of the better suggestions here

Great feedback here. I'll try to describe the roles for each bastion module and how I can see them being used. If there's a better or more balanced way to get there I'm all about it.

CWS (long range)
I want a CWS fit Marauder to be "better" than a T1, faction, or pirate hull when deployed at range in a few aspects:

  • Faster locking times
  • Better range
  • Better damage projection and through projection increased application
  • Situationally better mobility through MJD use
  • Less disruption from EWAR

The drawbacks to this increased performance over T1, faction, and pirate hulls should center around:

  • Immobility during enhancement
  • More susceptible to getting caught by close range opponents

The loss of incoming RR would make them far weaker than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls deployed at the same distances. I'm not sure the better application on somewhat equivalent raw damage would overcome this drawback.

Beachhead
I really like your suggestion of swapping the self-rep bonus on the beachhead version for a bonus to RR amount. However, I'm not sure it would make sense for a ship to be able to disrupt others RR in an area while having a bonus to their own outgoing RR. It would make it much more useful in the role of "landing pad" though. Beachhead Marauder posts up in the enemy's line disrupting their RR chains while his buddies land. He would then be able to provide short range RR to them as they engage. The limited range on those RR modules would balance it out pretty well. Here's what I'd like them to do in their roles:

  • Create a small pocket of space that is undesirable for the enemy to remain within. This does not have to mean it's the Marauder being deadly but provides a disadvantage for remaining
  • Have enough temporary staying power to enable holding on till help arrives but not be invincible in small group engagements
  • This is really geared towards "owning" a piece of land for a short period of time for a strategic purpose

It's a fine line between commanding a location strategically and just being over powered. I didn't want the Marauder's raw damage to go up in this situation but be able to better apply it to any that might be within a limited range. I'm kind of OK with the weakness to damps and an already restricted range. There needs to be some kind of counter strategy available that doesn't require "bring more ships" :)

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

stoicfaux
#3613 - 2013-09-12 14:30:12 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.



That's basically the gist of my proposal as well. Have a base hull that is usable "as is" for most purposes and use the bastion module to apply bonuses and drawbacks to perform a specialized role. Unless I misunderstand post.


difference in 'one module that you reload a different script' and 'two distinct modules of the same type'

like an interdiction maneuvers link is not a shield harmonizer link, both are command links but do different things, you need to fit one or the other to get the bonuses, you don't load a new script into the one command link to do multiple things at your convenience :D

Scripts, different modules, T3 subsystems, rigs, it's the same idea. Instead of being locked into a hull that is dedicated to a particular role or play style (e.g. PVE, PVP,) just give the players more customization options. Trying to make a hull's bonuses, which are set in stone, support multiple roles/play styles, or even going so far as to change the original use of the hull, tends to make things complicated[1] as we've seen with the proposed web bonus and T2 resists.

[1] i.e. balance, power creep, torches and pitchforks...

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
Drifters.
#3614 - 2013-09-12 14:35:34 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Gazzine TunakTun wrote:
Guys, don't you have impression that DEVs have forgotten this topic long time ago ?

No, I think right now they're just a little bit sad, maybe even depressed.

They had this really cool and new Idea and for sub caps it was really unique and it would've given the marauder a totally new role, apart from it's previous occupation.

But all they received was 180 pages of nerd rage, whining and hate...

So I guess they'll be drunk and depressed for another week or so before they (hopefully) recover and get back to some marauder iteration that is closer to what they wanted to do before lots of guys clogged this thread with their "I wanna have a web bonus! Marauders are now crap because I can't use them in incursions anymore! I refuse any change at all!" whine threads.

Seriously, crying about a ship rebalance (repurpose?) just because it wouldn't have been top notch in incursions or solo roaming afterwards, or just because it had one single situational weakness after the rebalance... That's ridiculous.

damn..i hope they dont EMORAGEQUIT over nerd bashing...
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3615 - 2013-09-12 14:42:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
stoicfaux wrote:
Wedgetail wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.



That's basically the gist of my proposal as well. Have a base hull that is usable "as is" for most purposes and use the bastion module to apply bonuses and drawbacks to perform a specialized role. Unless I misunderstand post.


difference in 'one module that you reload a different script' and 'two distinct modules of the same type'

like an interdiction maneuvers link is not a shield harmonizer link, both are command links but do different things, you need to fit one or the other to get the bonuses, you don't load a new script into the one command link to do multiple things at your convenience :D

Scripts, different modules, T3 subsystems, rigs, it's the same idea. Instead of being locked into a hull that is dedicated to a particular role or play style (e.g. PVE, PVP,) just give the players more customization options. Trying to make a hull's bonuses, which are set in stone, support multiple roles/play styles, or even going so far as to change the original use of the hull, tends to make things complicated[1] as we've seen with the proposed web bonus and T2 resists.

[1] i.e. balance, power creep, torches and pitchforks...


If they made a T2 battleship line that was designed for CQ engagements, I'd drop the beachhead module in a heartbeat and start a new training plan. You really only have BLOPS and Marauders as T2 battleship options. BLOPS have a nice, defined role to them. The more combat oriented roles are left to the Marauder class as it stands. Break out range and CQ roles into separate classes and I'm right behind you.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3616 - 2013-09-12 14:48:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Iome Ambraelle wrote:

Great feedback here. I'll try to describe the roles for each bastion module and how I can see them being used. If there's a better or more balanced way to get there I'm all about it.

CWS (long range)
I want a CWS fit Marauder to be "better" than a T1, faction, or pirate hull when deployed at range in a few aspects:

  • Faster locking times
  • Better range
  • Better damage projection and through projection increased application
  • Situationally better mobility through MJD use
  • Less disruption from EWAR

The drawbacks to this increased performance over T1, faction, and pirate hulls should center around:

  • Immobility during enhancement
  • More susceptible to getting caught by close range opponents

The loss of incoming RR would make them far weaker than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls deployed at the same distances. I'm not sure the better application on somewhat equivalent raw damage would overcome this drawback.

Beachhead
I really like your suggestion of swapping the self-rep bonus on the beachhead version for a bonus to RR amount. However, I'm not sure it would make sense for a ship to be able to disrupt others RR in an area while having a bonus to their own outgoing RR. It would make it much more useful in the role of "landing pad" though. Beachhead Marauder posts up in the enemy's line disrupting their RR chains while his buddies land. He would then be able to provide short range RR to them as they engage. The limited range on those RR modules would balance it out pretty well. Here's what I'd like them to do in their roles:

  • Create a small pocket of space that is undesirable for the enemy to remain within. This does not have to mean it's the Marauder being deadly but provides a disadvantage for remaining
  • Have enough temporary staying power to enable holding on till help arrives but not be invincible in small group engagements
  • This is really geared towards "owning" a piece of land for a short period of time for a strategic purpose

It's a fine line between commanding a location strategically and just being over powered. I didn't want the Marauder's raw damage to go up in this situation but be able to better apply it to any that might be within a limited range. I'm kind of OK with the weakness to damps and an already restricted range. There needs to be some kind of counter strategy available that doesn't require "bring more ships" :)



aye nothing against 'increase ours while decreasing theirs (see energy vampires :D )

and the advantage to being at long range is the enemy can't hit you - and there are two primary ways to deal with this:

the first is to hit at the same range with heavy guns, (alpha fleet doctrine) - RR "cannot stop" alpha strikes anyway, and i'm already EWAR immune so it's not like they can jam me out or anything to mitigate my dps long enough to get a warp in for the second option, which is to crash tackle them with a blink warp (the original inspiration behind the MJD) - my defense is my range and insane damage application.


as for the close range setup:

- vulnerable to enemy energy warfare,
-vulnerable to enemy ECM
-vulnerable to enemy TD and damps
-vulnerable to being bumped by fast/heavy tackle

-under an intense amount of enemy firepower (fighting at close range means everything on the field can hit you)

my comment regarding the damps was that if i get damped i loose RR, i loose my ability to counter attack and all i can then do is sit there and die, there's a great deal of pressure sources coming at me at those ranges and i have to compete with all of them, doesn't take many damps to knock 100km range down to 20 - and at less than 10 i can't use RR anymore to even maintain my defense let alone my offense - very vulnerable from outside this control zone, and so reducing weapon range significantly should be enough.

part of what makes an area of space undesirable to be in is that my side is more powerful than yours within this area, and nearly as powerful when you're not (as you've demonstrated an understanding of)

but there is a very very large tonnage of bricks falling down on my head from inside and beyond this area that i have to be able to endure to make this idea effective - which is why i suggested allowing the marauders an RR bonus to help alleviate some of the strain in order to remain viable - part of being a close range combatant is that you have to be able to cope with every option the enemy has on the field, as you're right in the face of all of them at the same time.


[edit]

the primary thought being is i have very limited supply of incoming capacitor to fuel RR modules, it's not much of an ask to see a few t1 battleships charge in (tempests are a very good example, the curse is another) with a few neuts and kick my tank out from under me)

so added to the fact that i have to deal with these aswell as the multitudes of ECM it starts to get to be a bit too much pressure for my limited range combat effectiveness.

[/edit]
Javius Rong
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#3617 - 2013-09-12 15:00:38 UTC
I still don't think CCP has gotten this rebalance correct on either version. There are still a number of glaring issues IMO. The web bonus sucks for the PvE crowd across a number so ships lines. It is great for the Kronos. The velocity and maneuverability nerd is large. The golem bonuses don't make any sense. Get rid of the TP bonus...WTF. Overall the new bonus are nerd to some ships and buffs to others. The whole non-bastions mode balance needs to be rethought.

The abilities of the ship in and out of Bastion mode are hard to balance together. Fix the balance outside of Bastion mode first. Make the ships have value in both PvE and PvP. The Bastion modes can then be designed to enhance a specific performance area for situational usage. Right now it seems like the ships are being balance around solely they Bastion mode which is a situational usage mode.
Coolmer
Kanizsa triangle
#3618 - 2013-09-12 15:21:14 UTC
What u think about

7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level

change to

37,5% bonus to the range factor of stasis webifiers per level

so u get proper web range on bs sized ships.

Another question how cruise sized ships after rebalanced have 125m3 bandwidth and so huge drone-bays and bs in comparison just sucks, also is same question with size of cargo-bays, combat ships need separate ammo bays.
Kara Corvinus
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3619 - 2013-09-12 16:59:40 UTC
im not a high sec'er, but this is stupid, CCP you gave miners the orca and rorq, i thought the entire point of the marauder was to give mission runners something, and now your taking it away from them?

This is why EvE is not a sandbox, CCP should change it statement to

EVE ONLINE : You can do what ever you want / but unless your in 0.0 we don't give a F' and your games going to be mega boring....


And as for all these "don't listen to the care bears" bs posts, 90% of people in 0.0 are care bears. we all know this.

As it stands mission running is a boring repetitive cruncher running the same damn missions over & over, requiring a silly amount of SP to complete l4's properly, with such a bad isk per hour model its a joke.

you already ruined PVE team work by changing the AI so fleet composition of tanks / healers / dps is now pointless. , now your just going to place the final nail in the coffin.


Screw 0.0 , FIX EVE. make it a damn sandbox again.



Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#3620 - 2013-09-12 17:19:59 UTC
I support the idea of two separate bastion modules, rather than scripting. Make the pilot commit before undocking.