These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3621 - 2013-09-12 17:37:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I support the idea of two separate bastion modules, rather than scripting. Make the pilot commit before undocking.

Or just remove the reload function.

I'd be ok with the commitment
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3622 - 2013-09-12 18:23:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Javius Rong wrote:
The golem bonuses don't make any sense. Get rid of the TP bonus...WTF
A target painter bonus, not useful on a missile ship? what are you smoking?
Damian Gene
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#3623 - 2013-09-12 18:39:05 UTC
So, perhaps I'm one of few who would be thinking about this slightly differently, but...

How effective would this be for taking out POS's and POS mods?

A. Highsec Towers?
B. Cyno Jammers?

When I first read this "mini dread" idea, I thought that perhaps that is some, most, or all, of the new defined role?

How long would it take to remove a highsec offline tower with 10 (a full squad) of these?
How long would it take to remove a cyno jammer with 10 (a full squad) of these?

I do feel though, that perhaps you are giving it too many roles. Could you perhaps turn them into a two ship per race ship class, like command ships, ASFs, HAC,s, Transport ships, etc?
I mean, unless the art department were involved... I hear they are kinda overwhelmed with work.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#3624 - 2013-09-12 18:42:57 UTC
Kara Corvinus wrote:
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?


Mission runners can use any subcap in the game to do their thing. Marauders can be used in hisec. Where did you get the idea that they won't be able to use marauders anymore?

Quote:
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....


Well the whole premise of hisec is that it's not a sandbox. You can't do what you want and have restrictions at the same time, high security is all about restrictions. Which also makes it boring. No idea how sandox relates to marauders, but your fluffy strawman distracted me there for a moment.

Quote:
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.


This is partly correct. I've come to the conclusion that the biggest issue of null is that it's the only place hibears have ever heard of, and where they migrate when they get old. Wormholes and low get the talent, and nullseccers have to settle for ex-L4 runners. Luckily the guys are experienced dealing with the future nullbears, and will place them in renter alliances to produce rat ISK and fodder for F1 blobs.

Quote:
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.


Silly amounts of SP, ISK, Failfitclinic.com and detailed walk-through guides can substitute for player skill in simple tasks such as L4s, true.

Quote:
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.


Well this amusing. I mean even more amusing than the rest of your rant, which as a whole is very amusing. Did you know that Sleeper/Sansha AI is especially designed to promote team work, and there's a ton of guys enjoying it all the time?

The best thing about a thriving sandbox is that there's people shifting sand all the time. Those who fail to adapt, get buried under it.



.

Javius Rong
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3625 - 2013-09-12 18:47:18 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Javius Rong wrote:
The golem bonuses don't make any sense. Get rid of the TP bonus...WTF
A target painter bonus, not useful on a missile ship? what are you smoking?



TP bonuses have been historically only been available on Minmatar ships. While the TP bonus is nice, to utilize it a module must be fitted.. So as it stands to take advantage of all the ships bonuses three mid-slots must be utilized, web, TP, MJD. This do not include any normal propulsion mod. This bonus should be an explosive radius bonus directly to missile to match the other ships and tied to a module.
Neevor Airuta
Grey Horizon
#3626 - 2013-09-12 18:54:46 UTC
So to recap:
First you give maruders PG revamp so they can fit long range turrets easier
Then you give them bonus to MJD so they can escape to sniping range easier
Then you give them module that boosts range directly.
And then you swap tank bonus for Web bonus that is useful by default only at 10km range?

What's the point? What's intended usefulness outside pvp? Frigate shooting? With newly fitted long range guns? That's what drones are for!

Either give marauders tank bonus back, or if you really need to nerf that, swap it for drone bonus, or painter / ecm / damp.

Does it seem schisophrenic or am I missing something?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3627 - 2013-09-12 19:07:41 UTC
Damian Gene wrote:
So, perhaps I'm one of few who would be thinking about this slightly differently, but...

How effective would this be for taking out POS's and POS mods?

A. Highsec Towers?
B. Cyno Jammers?

When I first read this "mini dread" idea, I thought that perhaps that is some, most, or all, of the new defined role?

How long would it take to remove a highsec offline tower with 10 (a full squad) of these?
How long would it take to remove a cyno jammer with 10 (a full squad) of these?

I do feel though, that perhaps you are giving it too many roles. Could you perhaps turn them into a two ship per race ship class, like command ships, ASFs, HAC,s, Transport ships, etc?
I mean, unless the art department were involved... I hear they are kinda overwhelmed with work.


These were actually some of the first things that people were concerned about from iteration 1.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#3628 - 2013-09-12 19:26:25 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, I get it, the players actually using the damned thing shouldn't feel entitled to be able to enjoy or use it after it's been "iterated"... Roll

The whole art of chessonline is to let the knights dictate how should a tower play, for the sake of the game, of course.

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

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#3629 - 2013-09-12 21:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
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, I get it, the players actually using the damned thing shouldn't feel entitled to be able to enjoy or use it after it's been "iterated"... Roll

The whole art of chessonline is to let the knights dictate how should a tower play, for the sake of the game, of course.

I suppose if there had been no objections to the original proposal it would have gone through. But Incursion runners in particular weren't happy so plan B was trotted out for inspection.

It will be interesting to see if they go back to plan A, or if they have a plan C and D waiting in the wings (or more likely being iterated on based on all of our feed back).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3630 - 2013-09-12 21:21:29 UTC
It wasn't just incursion runners. Anyone who could do maths could see the golem and vargur becoming idiotically powerful loltank baitships. And I don't mean in a good way. In a 40,000dps tank way!

There was no way it was going to fly, and rightly so.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#3631 - 2013-09-12 21:38:24 UTC
Javius Rong wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Javius Rong wrote:
The golem bonuses don't make any sense. Get rid of the TP bonus...WTF
A target painter bonus, not useful on a missile ship? what are you smoking?



TP bonuses have been historically only been available on Minmatar ships. While the TP bonus is nice, to utilize it a module must be fitted.. So as it stands to take advantage of all the ships bonuses three mid-slots must be utilized, web, TP, MJD. This do not include any normal propulsion mod. This bonus should be an explosive radius bonus directly to missile to match the other ships and tied to a module.



Or just take away the web bonus, which is what should happen. The Golem has always had the TP bonus.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3632 - 2013-09-12 22:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
It wasn't just incursion runners. Anyone who could do maths could see the golem and vargur becoming idiotically powerful loltank baitships. And I don't mean in a good way. In a 40,000dps tank way!

There was no way it was going to fly, and rightly so.

Pretty much this. I didn't understand either until I started running the numbers for myself. I thought my spreadsheet was broken lol. Thus my signature.

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

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#3633 - 2013-09-12 22:30:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Iome Ambraelle wrote:

Pretty much this. I didn't understand either until I started running the numbers for myself. I thought my spreadsheet was broken lol. Thus my signature.


They don't have the capacitor or EHP to back it up tho - relatively easy to neut that tank off and unless it has approaching capital levels of EHP that 40K dps tank isn't (always) very useful in situations where your actually taking a good percentage of that dps. Granted it does mean you need a half decently setup fleet to take them down.
DSpite Culhach
#3634 - 2013-09-12 22:32:45 UTC
Due to a number of factors, I've pumped 186 hours into Borderlands 2 in the last 2 weeks. It's a game I can play when extremely exhausted, and game death, unlike in EvE, is a lot less punishing.

Anyway, as far as PvE, my brain has been comparing combats between EVE and BL2, and what comes out is that, regardless of how interesting you make the Marauder hulls, PvE will still be mind numbingly dull. I know, I used to run L4's in a badly fitted and skilled Drake, often taking hours in missions like Pirate Scarlet or Angels Extravaganza, barely breaking tank on the named battleships, only possible at all because of advanced knowledge of missions, from running them over and over.

The PvE missions - ALL missions - are too rigidly scripted. For most, It's no different then sitting on a rooftop sniping at people coming out of houses, or if you're in close, having enough DPS to just shotgun them in the face as they open the door. There is quite a number of really cool ones, but I only get those rarely, and again, it wears off after the 10th time.

Unless the PvE enviroment is made more dynamic, and starts acting more in a Borderland 2 way with Badasses and Loot Midgets - well, NOT that, I think you know what I mean, our current equivalent would be special ships unexpectedly popping in, or unexpected reinforcements appearing, or rail ships popping up far away instead of a close by spawn, etc etc - things like Bastion will be, well, dull anyway.

If DEEP space was actually teeming with weird arsed PvE situations, then jumping into "a ship designed for deep deployment in hostile space" would make perfect sense, but what we are doing is shooting chickens in a shed, we are running a predictable, scripted event using optimal resources in order to maximize an income we use for EVE core gameplay, ie, PvP.

Marauders needs to be looked at AFTER PvE improvements and THEN changed AGAIN every time the PvE environment is improved. Right now it will be just changes "cause everything else is also being changed".

Just my opinion, of course.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3635 - 2013-09-12 22:33:07 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
It wasn't just incursion runners. Anyone who could do maths could see the golem and vargur becoming idiotically powerful loltank baitships. And I don't mean in a good way. In a 40,000dps tank way!

There was no way it was going to fly, and rightly so.
yeah that's pretty much why I liked is, nealy wet myself when those numbers showd up.

massive **** tease
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3636 - 2013-09-12 23:07:59 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:

Pretty much this. I didn't understand either until I started running the numbers for myself. I thought my spreadsheet was broken lol. Thus my signature.


They don't have the capacitor or EHP to back it up tho - relatively easy to neut that tank off and unless it has approaching capital levels of EHP that 40K dps tank isn't (always) very useful in situations where your actually taking a good percentage of that dps. Granted it does mean you need a half decently setup fleet to take them down.


"it's relatively easy to take down this one ship with a half decently set up fleet..." means one thing and one thing alone - this one ship is a game-breaking abomination that will ultimately cause players to flee in droves.

The players getting pwned by this one ship will get bored of never winning, and for the pilot of the ship, pvp will become as mind-numbingly dull as PVE - at which point, unless he himself is mind-numbingly dull, he will leave the game for something better.

This is why version 1 marauders could not be allowed to happen, and why the bastion module is going to be extremely difficult for CCP to balance.

For local tankers, there is a very fine line between 'can survive for more than a few seconds when faced with multiple enemies' and 'horribly, game-breakingly overpowered'.

This problem will never go away because of the way that local damage mitigation [does not] scale with the number of enemies.

As for the capacitor issue - you just don't need cap. A dual XL-ASB is all you need. You can even fit cargohold rigs and mods to create an irritatingly large supply of cap boosters to feed them.

This of course does not affect the armour ships, since they have to trade cargohold for both rep amount and resitances.

If CCP want marauders to work, step 1 is *very simple*:

* Limit ASBs to 1 per ship

This actually solves more problems than just marauders.

I cannot fathom why they have not done this. It's just so obvious.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3637 - 2013-09-12 23:11:29 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
It wasn't just incursion runners. Anyone who could do maths could see the golem and vargur becoming idiotically powerful loltank baitships. And I don't mean in a good way. In a 40,000dps tank way!

There was no way it was going to fly, and rightly so.

Try doing that with a T2 setup. You can't balance ships around deadspace/faction/officer mods.

The ASB problem adds to this as well.

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

Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3638 - 2013-09-12 23:50:31 UTC
By the end of all this "NUMBERS!one!one!!!one" talk, and all this whining, they are just going to nerf it into oblivion to satisfy all the parties.
Darkwolf
#3639 - 2013-09-12 23:53:03 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
If CCP want marauders to work, step 1 is *very simple*:

* Limit ASBs to 1 per ship

This actually solves more problems than just marauders.

I cannot fathom why they have not done this. It's just so obvious.


^ This. Those damn things seem to change so many setups from "pretty decent" to "totally overpowered". The module itself is OK, when there's only one of them. More than one and they become a serious problem.

Limiting them to one per ship would be a good step.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#3640 - 2013-09-13 00:34:24 UTC
Darkwolf wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
If CCP want marauders to work, step 1 is *very simple*:

* Limit ASBs to 1 per ship

This actually solves more problems than just marauders.

I cannot fathom why they have not done this. It's just so obvious.


^ This. Those damn things seem to change so many setups from "pretty decent" to "totally overpowered". The module itself is OK, when there's only one of them. More than one and they become a serious problem.

Limiting them to one per ship would be a good step.


AMEN

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."