These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kane Fenris
NWP
#3661 - 2013-09-13 13:15:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


8 days wo a blue

just give us a notice what you are brainstorming about.
maybe theres some constructive feedback in the storm of feedback youll get.
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3662 - 2013-09-13 13:27:54 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


8 days wo a blue

just give us a notice what you are brainstorming about.
maybe theres some constructive feedback in the storm of feedback youll get.


Yeah, a further notice of acknowledgement would be kinda cool.

Also, please open a new thread if you make another iteration. This threadnaught is kinda huge allready.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#3663 - 2013-09-13 13:53:06 UTC
All hail mini-dreadnought thread-nought!!

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Wolfgang Achari
Morior Invictus.
#3664 - 2013-09-13 15:48:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolfgang Achari
Just thought of an idea (assuming it hasn't already been mentioned) for the rep/web bonus that might placate au naturel marauder pilots and the Bastion supporters. Let the marauders keep the 7.5% rep/level bonus, when Bastion module is turned on it gets replaced with a 20% rep/level bonus. Give the bastion module the web (range?) bonus. Current PvE pilots lose nothing this way, with some other tweaking actually end up with an improved PvE ship. Likewise, Bastion pilots get their mini-dreads that require a bit more of a SP investment to be able to fully utilize.

*Edit*
Also, for those curious, I'm going to try and get started on my little challenge tonight. I'm currently looking at around 2100-2200 EDT/0100-0200 Eve, assuming I make it all the way home.
Yverlyn Outamon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3665 - 2013-09-13 15:51:48 UTC
If these boneheaded bastion stuff go through may we who trained Marauders to 5 for its original PvE purposes get their sp back? I mean I could use it for more useful purposes like getting cloaking to 5 or TSM to 5. Or maybe train Cit torps. I mean they´ll be useful before Marauders if this go through.What?
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#3666 - 2013-09-13 18:49:30 UTC
Yverlyn Outamon wrote:
If these boneheaded bastion stuff go through may we who trained Marauders to 5 for its original PvE purposes get their sp back? I mean I could use it for more useful purposes like getting cloaking to 5 or TSM to 5. Or maybe train Cit torps. I mean they´ll be useful before Marauders if this go through.What?



hahahahahaaha

MATE
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3667 - 2013-09-13 19:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Wolfgang Achari wrote:


*Edit*
Also, for those curious, I'm going to try and get started on my little challenge tonight. I'm currently looking at around 2100-2200 EDT/0100-0200 Eve, assuming I make it all the way home.

Ill be comprehensively sh**faced by that time so ill be relying on YouTube for this, any notion which one your Gona start with?

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Temuken Radzu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3668 - 2013-09-13 20:27:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Temuken Radzu
I too would like to see 2 different transformation modules.

One is the Bastion: maximum defence, maximum damage aplication, low mobility
First version i liked best but maybe a speed reduction would be better so it isnt a completely stationary target.
Speed reduction of 50% instead of 100%, Afterburners, micowarpdrives and microjumpdrives still can't be activated

The second should be completely different: Maximum attack, maximum speed. Decreased agility and damage resistence.

I present: The Juggernought module: When activated gives a 300% rate of fire for turrets and missles for 40 sec in addition to a 50% increase in speed and -50% decrease in agility. Cap recharge rate is also increased by 50% and the maurauder is immune for cap warfare. Armor and shield resistence module effectivenes is decreased by 75%.
After the activation the module gets in a cooldown of 3 min.
MBizon Osis
Doomheim
#3669 - 2013-09-14 02:04:43 UTC
Good luck all I hope you all get what you want. I lost interest in this and wont fly a paladin that is less than what it is now. So I sold it yesterday.
Again good luck and fly safe
MB
Job Valador
Professional Amateurs
#3670 - 2013-09-14 02:20:10 UTC
MBizon Osis wrote:
Good luck all I hope you all get what you want. I lost interest in this and wont fly a paladin that is less than what it is now. So I sold it yesterday.
Again good luck and fly safe
MB




I have to admit i was a bit excited about this bastion mod tanking bad ass they first thought of. now removing the tanking bonuses? No thank you now. Ill just skill for something else that is actually usefull

"The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement."
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#3671 - 2013-09-14 09:38:40 UTC
Job Valador wrote:
MBizon Osis wrote:
Good luck all I hope you all get what you want. I lost interest in this and wont fly a paladin that is less than what it is now. So I sold it yesterday.
Again good luck and fly safe
MB




I have to admit i was a bit excited about this bastion mod tanking bad ass they first thought of. now removing the tanking bonuses? No thank you now. Ill just skill for something else that is actually usefull


I seriosuly hope CCP Ytterbium & al still are working on this, because the second proposal is a trainwreck and would kill marauders. Nobody has said it's OK, even the more positive reviews ask for further bonuses. And most feedback is quite bad.

Also, I personally still wonder who (CSM?) told the devs that the web bonus was desirable. Because whoever he was, he hasn't come here to share the "reasoning" behind his "enlightened" opinion.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
SevenOfSix
Doomheim
#3672 - 2013-09-14 10:11:05 UTC
If we are trying to make them more PVP friendly, maybe Bastion mode should add range, resists, ewar immunity, reduced mobility, increase armor shield structure, and NO local rep (only remote reps when in Bastion). Keep the 7.5 repair on the hull for missions.

I don't know

The first iteration looks better than the second, why would I want a web if I'm going to be jumping 100k away?
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#3673 - 2013-09-14 10:29:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Job Valador wrote:
MBizon Osis wrote:
Good luck all I hope you all get what you want. I lost interest in this and wont fly a paladin that is less than what it is now. So I sold it yesterday.
Again good luck and fly safe
MB




I have to admit i was a bit excited about this bastion mod tanking bad ass they first thought of. now removing the tanking bonuses? No thank you now. Ill just skill for something else that is actually usefull


I seriosuly hope CCP Ytterbium & al still are working on this, because the second proposal is a trainwreck and would kill marauders. Nobody has said it's OK, even the more positive reviews ask for further bonuses. And most feedback is quite bad.

Also, I personally still wonder who (CSM?) told the devs that the web bonus was desirable. Because whoever he was, he hasn't come here to share the "reasoning" behind his "enlightened" opinion.
Speak for yourself - there's a lot of people who actually make use of the 90% web bonus, the first proposal that 'binned' them without explanation rightly got a lot of stick.

Granted that is 2 out of 4 ships, but you really are stretching things with your claim.

Edit: Blanket bonus across all four ships was probably not the best move, but then neither was stripping off the existing two.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#3674 - 2013-09-14 10:33:56 UTC
SevenOfSix wrote:
If we are trying to make them more PVP friendly, maybe Bastion mode should add range, resists, ewar immunity, reduced mobility, increase armor shield structure, and NO local rep (only remote reps when in Bastion). Keep the 7.5 repair on the hull for missions.

I don't know

The first iteration looks better than the second, why would I want a web if I'm going to be jumping 100k away?


I got the strong feelings this great web-bonus and great-bastion mode (within borders ofc) are intended to mostly cancel each other out. Saw that new *thing* already with the deimos and the vagabond, both receiving local-tank boni though both are more regularly flown with buffertanks (twin LSEs for the vaga and plate or LSE+invuln being the most used for those two). Nonetheless, the ships are great, even having only 3 instead of 4 bonus'ed attributes in comparison to the other tech-II hulls

Looking at marauders (golem for example),
you could go for a shortrangefit using torps with insane dps and thanks to 80%web+50%painter quite the great addition to both your own and your gang's damage application, leaving out the bastiontransformerthingyTM and go with 2 smartbombs, 2 neuts to add some heavy utility (to your gang) while profiting strongly by higher effective remote reps thanks to tech-II-resist-profile. Anyways, you'd in this config end up with a battleship covering multiple niches (antidrone bombing, heavy neuting of kiting cruisers, webbing/painting of primaries, great damageoutput) that only lacks a good deal of base hitpoints in comparison to other battleships. You'd obviously use this with basis or RR-tengus.
or you could instead fit up a golem for longrange engagements, fitting MJD/capbooster/local tank and the bastionthingy, rounding up with cruises and fit 3 small neuts to push down scramblefrigs' cap. You'd MJD every 60 seconds, could apply damage (though delayed) anywhere within 250km and go for your high volleydamage but only using the TP out to the first 100ish km out. You'd obviously fly this together with a ververyvery small skirmish-roundup including recon support. Falconlogi you'd say.

Both approaches would yield a totally different ship, but imo promising for pvp-scenarios atleast. WIth how strongly the higher efficiency of midslot eccm favors armortanking pvp-marauders, I'm at least confident seeing that artificial roadblock being either removed or it's resilence to atleast EC-300s brought up to any reasonable level. Looking at that enyo with his one EC-300, permajamming <.<
Flatout saying that bonused webs are bad mkay isn't cutting it imo. They are absolutely great for what you get leaving out the bastionthingy from start!
Cade Windstalker
#3675 - 2013-09-14 10:34:58 UTC
Wolfgang Achari wrote:
Good question. If someone has a database of completion times that we can use as a standard, that would be swell. Otherwise I'll see what I can do to get some quick averages. I will probably do a few trial runs to get an idea of how much time I'm going to need as I'm going to try and do the missions back to back. I will be skipping courier missions.

This toon has 100m+ SP, not all related skills are at V but a good chunk of them are.

I am going to make it a bit more challenging and limit the fits to T1/T2/Meta modules. Faction charges, implants, nanite repair paste, rigs, and combat boosters* are fair game. I won't be using off-grid boosts, fleet window will be visible as proof.

I'll also be using out of game tools to appropriately prepare for and run the missions just as anyone else can. No mission will be blitzed and I'll make a reasonable effort to obtain keys for bonus rooms. I have no idea what my standings are, but I'm going to try to run the missions in the appropriate faction space for the ship.

Since warping out will count as a failure for the ship, I will not be warping out.

I'm interpreting "Most of the ships" as any amount greater than 60%. So to complete the challenge, I will need to successfully run 10 missions without warping out a single time in at least eight of the twelve T1 hulls. Once I have a metric for reasonable completion times, I will be able to compare those as well to determine if I successfully completed that portion of the challenge.

Did I miss anything?

With some luck I won't be kicked from my corp for doing this. Big smile

*I can use combat boosters at any time. If I have not yet requested the first mission out of the ten, I can consume boosters until I get favorable results. If I wait for a combat booster to expire after requesting the first mission, the wait time will be added to the mission time clock. This applies as well if I can't do the missions back to back. For example, if I stop after the fourth mission, I can't consume boosters until I get favorable results before requesting/starting the fifth.

*Edit*
Alliance/Corp ops will take precedence over this challenge. So if a ping goes out and I need to abandon a mission, I will restart the mission after DT has passed.

*Edit 2*
Added rigs as fair game as well since I forgot about them while making the post originally.



Woops, I take a few days off from the thread and fun stuff happens. Sorry, real life called and I can't exactly take a break from that.

I would like to add one request, that you not use the Micro Jump Drive for this since the objective is to see if these battleships can tank these missions and while I'm quite a proponent of "range tanking" I don't think that qualifies for these purposes.

If you can please do upload the videos to Youtube and make them public if you can. Should be an educational experience for everyone.

Also to clarify, I'm happy to be proven wrong here, I'm just speaking from my own experiences. Worst case we have a new T1 Battleship missioning how-to now. Blink
Cade Windstalker
#3676 - 2013-09-14 10:37:24 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Some day I would like to be the 201st dude just for fun, but now I'm more interested in their WH Anomaly application.

Just noticed CCP want's to further nerf +4% resist bonus. Because it's to strong. Which ships have those bonuses? Amarr and Caldari. Are they that good at PvP?

Also CCP want's to buff local repair. Which ships have those bonuses? Gallente and Minamatar. Are they bad in PvP?

So it's basicaly a nerf to Amarr and Caldari ships which are not that great at PvP and buff to Gallente and Minamatar which are dominant reces in PvP.

In AT 13 it was allready all-Gallente... are CCP staff secretly Gallentians?


Actually a ton of people still do incursions and the community seems to keep growing.

As to this supposed nerf I haven't found any reference or hint toward it beyond the standard boilerplate of "we'll be keeping an eye on this change to see what develops and determine if further tweaks are necessary"

The probably with the old 5% resists is that they were pretty much flat better than the repair bonus, providing almost the same benefit to local repair but with a wider application that extends to fleet PvP supported by logistics. They could have buffed the repair bonuses but that likely would have thrown off small scale engagements. Besides the ships sporting said resist bonuses were already hugely popular, so the resist bonuses got toned down just a little.

Again though, not seeing anything about nerfing these again, if someone has a link that says "yeah we're nerfing these" then please post it.

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Actually, we are on the 2nd pass.
And with HAC's, if I remember correctly, there were only 2 passes before they showed up on Sisi.
Same with command ships.


Both passes had quite a few tweaks and even a few re-works of a given hull within a thread though, so this hardly qualifies as "the second pass". As such I wouldn't expect these on the Test Server that quickly.

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.

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.


Not this many people do Incursions though...

Um, source on those stats please? They don't check out.

There are, at most, three high-sec incursions active at any given time, with, on average, 3 Vanguard, ~2 assault systems, and 1 HQ system each. Even if we assume there's at least one fleet running in each of these systems and 2 in each Vanguard system that's still only ~500 people across all three incursion systems. Since the average peak Eve population is between about 40,000 and 50,000 this is, at most, 1.2% of the player-base, and it's actually pretty rare that all three incursions are up and all three systems have a fleet in them. Even if we assume we manage this during off hours when the pop is down to about 25,000 that's still only 2% of the player base, and as a long time incursion runner I say for certain that we haven't had numbers like that in quite a while.

7% though? Highly doubt that. That would require that 3,500 people be active in incursions during prime-time or ~40,000 out of all subscribed Eve accounts.

Also from what I understand the null-sec guys close out incursions ASAP because the cyno-jammer effect screws with their logistics, in general they can make better money doing other things. That's probably what that 100 man fleet was doing.
Cade Windstalker
#3677 - 2013-09-14 10:38:05 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
yes it has, my argument is based around close range sets though, so rails do not compare with autos, blasters do - truth in that blasters have been recently fixed, rails not so much (though they are much better i am agreed)

and the danger with the 200dps at 150 km is this: what's going to happen as you try to get closer?

unlike with artillery where my dps is constant and actually drops as you get closer, with autocannons it INCREASES, the more you try to approach, the more painful it gets. (i know a few people that'll laugh at the irony of me saying that XD ) the only reason this is fine now is cuz of ECM vulnerability

and if it looks like you're not going to die as you approach, i have plenty of room to simply pack up and leave - because why will i sit there and die in an 800 mil isk ship when i don't have to? - i'm not using bastion at these ranges (unless forced to by EWAR) i don't need to - so i'm more than free to move, more than free to use logi and RR - i do have incredibly low EHP tank though, so dealing with howitzers and rails will be an instant run reaction from this group - and that's normal for most dps loadouts.

hell if i really wanted, i can carry 1 TC grab a MJD and sit at 110 km and if it looks like i can win simply by jumping right in and blaping people i'll do that instead, i will never need to risk myself needlessly because my minimum performance is high enough to let me fight that way (as you say this is why i'm sitting there as my starting position: so i can leave and not lose my important ships).

it's what ccp is screaming at us to do with the current proposal, and why i said very early that marauders already do this without the shoddy little excuse for a new module, why will i use this new thing and increase risk of death when i already can do what it's supposed to let me do without it?

( side note: blops are also ridiculous for a similar risk ratio but for different reasons)

i don't want mechanics that promote easily being able to run away, or to fight without real risk, i want mechanics that force me to risk something in order to get what i want - if i can sit there at range and loose a few cruisers to kill a few of theirs then leave, i'm going to do it, eve gang PVP is bait lure and trap for hours and then 10 minutes of combat, and the bait and lures now are getting so obvious that most don't even bother if there's so much of a hint of them -.- avoid the dangerous (likely to lose) fight first and do something else is the primary response of the times


My point in this instance is that they don't have to get closer because for the number of ships you're putting on the field the DPS isn't much of a factor, you can counter it with a couple of reps. If you've got a bigger fleet then great, you've got a bigger fleet and would probably have won anyway, but if we assume roughly even numbers and similar composition but with a close-range gate-busting setup on the other side then they're going to tear through your close-range support fleet and then you've either got to run for it or hope you can take their entire fleet with those 5 Vargur plus whatever you've got left out of the rest of the fleet, where as with 5 Arty Maelstroms you'd be risking less, could fight aligned, and would likely be able to alpha small support ships off the field.

Plus your MJD while in Bastion idea makes using the ship less risky and more powerful by removing the main drawback of Bastion, the inability to escape. Can't shut off the MJD without scrams at which point you can escape a bubble camp if you can tank it for about 50 seconds, then just MJD out of the bubble and start spamming align and warp, odds are they won't be able to grab you before you're gone.
Cade Windstalker
#3678 - 2013-09-14 10:42:10 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Firstly (no surprise) your EFT plot demonstrates the exact same thing as my actual testing from the linked page (3 'wrecking hits', 9 'barely scratches' 2 'lightly hits' out of 856 shots) - your plot demonstrates essentially 0 dps at 1 - 1.5km, rising to a staggering 20 dps at 2km. Now in my testing (back then) I threw in every single piece of maneuvering you could pull to minimise transversal (apologies I forgot that in the testing for the second test, the stabber had a web). Granted you can achieve a little more these days with the buff to agility, but nothing to change the overall picture drastically.

Secondly in the frigate example, you've missed off another key point - why is the Battleship not webbed? ( AB frigate: 3 mids, web/scram/AB). For the dual web scenario (again, the Kronos only has four mid slots - losing one for a second web compromises you in other areas i.e. capacitor) move away from a 1 v 1 scenario to 2 v 1 and it's simple to fight a big blaster boat in web range, even with 90% webs. Vindicator? Well, true you can fit dual webs, but why on earth would you be trying to solo something like that in a Frigate? And if you aren't solo, why are you not tackling at long point range?

In general terms though, the whole point back then (and today with the two remaining 90% platforms) was that if you were alone, you kited the big blaster boat outside of web range, which was simple as they are ultimately still a slow moving Battleship hull, and if there was more than one of you in a frigate it was (and is) simple to de-fang the thing...

'Niche' PvP application


Okay, so now I'm back with some more numbers.

First off it takes a Megathron only 6.7 seconds to lock up a Stabber with the MWD running and 12 seconds without. This basically means that if you start locking him the moment he starts burning toward you MWD hot then you shouldn't have much problem in most situations grabbing him before he can get to within 1km of your ship. If he does manage to get within 1km then you were either really slow on the lock or entirely too close when the engagement started which probably means either a gate or station, in which case you should still be able to disengage and dock/jump since we're talking about a 1v1 vs a cruiser.

On that note we're discussing a 1v1 between a Battleship and a Cruiser. Larger ships are supposed to be somewhat vulnerable to smaller ones in exchange for having a ton more HP and a decent bit more DPS.

With 90% webs neither party has any real chance of escaping or evading at which point the fight turns into a flat contest of who has a higher DPS/EHP ratio when the webs turn on. This point was made in the original dev blog on the rebalance. With only one side having these super-webs you can still maneuver but your enemy is screwed unless he's got a better DPS/EHP ratio. Yes, DPS/EHP simplifies out things a little and ignores active tank, but the point I'm trying to make is that it removes a lot of the active portion of the fight and turns it into a button pressing contest and is essentially an "I win" button against smaller ships.

Which, as you pointed out, they have a solution for with kiting, which makes me wonder why you're so worried about the 90% webs anyway...

And lastly, you could in-fact fit 2 webs with 4 midslots, but you'd have to give up something. Assuming your normal setup is a prop-mod, scram/point, web, and cap-booster you have to trade in something for that extra webbing power. Which, as we've already established, may actually be worth it in some fights, which is great because Eve is based around trade-offs.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#3679 - 2013-09-14 10:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
'Niche PvP application'

You go for large blasters on a Battleship for very small scale, mostly solo reasons - you provide limited/no use in fleet scenarios, you are still very slow and therefore vulnerable to being caught by a gang, you have crummy lock time and are vulnerable to being kited.

This was the balance before, the paragraph in the old dev blog you linked never took into account these considerations (because the real focus was ludicrous kiting speeds causing issues). However roll forward to 2009 and what did CCP do to make Serpentis ships into 'proper' blaster boats? - gave them back 90% webs...

That's all I'm going to say on this - look forward to seeing how the proposed changes evolve.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Cade Windstalker
#3680 - 2013-09-14 11:02:29 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
'Niche PvP application'

You go for large blasters on a Battleship for very small scale, mostly solo reasons - you provide limited/no use in fleet scenarios, you are still very slow and therefore vulnerable to being caught by a gang, you have crummy lock time and are vulnerable to being kited.

This was the balance before, the paragraph in the old dev blog you linked never took into account these considerations (because the real focus was ludicrous kiting speeds causing issues). However roll forward to 2009 and what did CCP do to make Serpentis ships into 'proper' blaster boats? - gave them back 90% webs...

That's all I'm going to say on this - look forward to seeing how the proposed changes evolve.


"little to no use in fleets" hardly applies these days, and with or without webs you find a ton of blaster battleships in various gate camps and small fleet ops.

The only reason you don't find them in large scale fleet PvP is the same reason you rarely find any sort of short-range weapons system in large scale fleet PvP, and that's because if someone bubbles you and then drops a sniping fleet on you you're dead, where as dropping a close-range fleet on top of your snipers is a lot harder to pull off. It can still work, but it's not exactly common.

Also you're still referencing a set of balance decisions that are over 4 years old at this point to justify your point. Said balance decisions are next on the chopping block after T2 Battleships and have been cited as a major issue for balance problems and ships "stepping on each other's toes" at pretty much every level, Frigate, Cruiser, and Battleship. Never-mind that internally within those balance decisions themselves you still have a significant case of "haves vs have-nots".

Also you completely failed to refute any of my points...