These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hanna Cyrus
Spessart Rebellen
#4261 - 2013-09-28 09:02:14 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
i would like to see the stasis webbifier bonus mitigated to the bastion mod. and with the idea of Scripts for the bastion mod i would do this.

for the damage script i would add the strength bonus to webs and for the range scirpt i would add range to webbs.

i would call one script the "close range script" and the other the "long range script"

bonus for close range script:
10% bonus to large turret damage and rate of fire
10% bonus to cruise/torp/rapid missile launcher damage/rate of fire
37.5% bonus to stasis webifier strength


then for the long range one:
Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 25%
Increases all large missile max velocity by 25%
250% increase in range of stasis webs.

then without scripts:
5% bonus to large turret damage and rate of fire
5% bonus to cruise/torp/rapid missile launcher damage/rate of fire
18.75% bonus to stasis webifier strength
Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 12.5%
Increases all large missile max velocity by 12.5%
125% increase in range of stasis webs.

i would also bring back the 30% bonus to resists but only for hull.

if ccp did this along with adding the role bonus to target spectrum breakers i think the ships would be in a really good place.


I like the Idea, but stick the bonus that counts on the hull on the ship for tank/dps in the Marauder skill - so skilling it to 5 for nearly 2 months, has to be a must have, if you want to fly one.
Lady Joan
Solum Perimit
#4262 - 2013-09-28 09:28:37 UTC
hi to all

I didn't read all the pages on this threat, but y want to give my opinion on the changes to marauders.

so y can fly all of them, but y don't do it because the navy versions of them at the moment are better for PvE and y don't do PvP, the pirate ships are a lot better. so this is a ship that requires a loot of training, isn't cheap and doesn't deliver performance.
they do less damage and after the changes they will do even less damage because the are losing drone bay and bandwidth.

you can argue that the tank better y have a navy scorpion whit more than 1k of tank per MIN, cap stable, around 800 DPS on light drones + t1 missiles
after the patch a torpedo golem does less than 1000 DPS and loses a loot of range, can tank a loot more by himself yes, but if you have a logistic ship whit you the scorpion tanks more.

the golem takes longer to get the skills and costs around 50% more ISK.

the only one that is more or less OK at the moment is the paladin.

the new bastion module isn't going to be use in incursions y think, cannot be remote assisted in any way is a no in incursions, and if some how you could tank by your self a incursions room in a marauder, why do it in group then.

so what y propose to make the marauders a ship to use in PvP and PvE

changes to bastion module
Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 10% per skill level (high energy physics)
Increases all large missile max velocity by 10% per skill level (high energy physics)
increases all large missile and large turret damage by 10% per skill level (high energy physics)
and extend the activation cycle to 5 minutes to make the pilot more committed to the task.

on the marauders remove the 100% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams, with the use of noctis and the new deployable structure that get all the recks in one place it makes no sense to me, and put a bonus to salvager.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#4263 - 2013-09-28 11:13:34 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
i would like to see the stasis webbifier bonus mitigated to the bastion mod. and with the idea of Scripts for the bastion mod i would do this.


How about no, since for most cases when the web bonus really is important the bastion module is absolute useless(point in case WH gangs, dualboxing L4 or Incs).

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4264 - 2013-09-28 11:15:00 UTC
How about an update? I think Rubicon has thrown a wrench into some of the roll bonuses...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Deliram
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4265 - 2013-09-28 11:21:01 UTC
I agree with the vision that this type of modification is pretty much throwing away the marauder from the PvE scenario.
I can speak for gallente ships, a Kronos don't add that much in the equation when you do Anomalies, Missions or wathever.
Later, since they do the same DPS with the guns, but will have no drones i think they will become totally useless, giving the fact that to use them properly you have to undergo a long training and spend a LOT of skillpoints in skills that maybe will give you nothing else.
On the other hand to get and fly a normal dominix you require less skills, and pretty much the same amount of DPS(give or take 100dps). That's all PVE is about, DPS is the miningyield of the combat pilots.

So you can give the marauders all the utility that you want, but if it can't surpass the Dps of other ships you will never seen them in pve that much. Why to fly a expensive Ship(isk and Sp wise), that usually requires a expensive fit, if you can get more or less the same in ALL racial ambit with other less expensive ships?
I don't see the fact that you can salvage meanwhile worth. I mean, you can have the same ship with better bonus on the weapon system, so you get more or less the same DPS, AND you can use the salvaging drones instead of the tractor/salvager.
I think it's a cheaper, more effective way.
So maybe give them the ability to use drones, don't take out that and nerf some other aspect that really make this ship a jack of all trade and master of none.

For pvp i don't know much, on paper they can make a fearsome fleet given the proper doctrine.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4266 - 2013-09-28 11:26:50 UTC
I made this suggestion in another thread, but I'll post it here as well. To address the concerns with the MJD, cause it to default to a jump distance of 50km (instead of 100km) on abort only.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#4267 - 2013-09-28 11:53:48 UTC
STush T wrote:
I fly a Paladin so will only comment on it,
and it still has the web bonus which is useless for pve, but hey, pvpers have fun.

I keep seeing this all the way through and I can only assume it is a symptom of people who don't know anything beyond 'whack-a-mole' PVE (i.e. level 4 missions) Straight

The whole point of this is the game is moving away from this stove-piping of activities into 'PVE' vs. 'PVP' - good riddance to it too, I hope to see more changes to make PVE more 'PVP-like' in the future.

For high-end PVE (Incursions e.t.c) web bonuses are worth their weight in gold, and for PVP, nothing has really changed since they were taken off all ships back in 2008.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Deliram
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4268 - 2013-09-28 12:11:49 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
STush T wrote:
I fly a Paladin so will only comment on it,
and it still has the web bonus which is useless for pve, but hey, pvpers have fun.

I keep seeing this all the way through and I can only assume it is a symptom of people who don't know anything beyond 'whack-a-mole' PVE (i.e. level 4 missions) Straight

The whole point of this is the game is moving away from this stove-piping of activities into 'PVE' vs. 'PVP' - good riddance to it too, I hope to see more changes to make PVE more 'PVP-like' in the future.

For high-end PVE (Incursions e.t.c) web bonuses are worth their weight in gold, and for PVP, nothing has really changed since they were taken off all ships back in 2008.


Well, PVE = Mission, Incursion, 0.0 anomalies, Ratting ecc..
I don't get what you say maybe...Incursions are more pvp likely, then this modifications on marauders work in them, but not in missions/anomalies/ratting?
I never went to a incursion, but i can tell you in almost every other pve activity having a webifier is useless unless i think if you use missiles. All you need to do is going 100-150 km away and shoot in optimal range to red dots that pop every 3-5secs.
So yes, i agree saying that at least kronos + web + watheverotherstuffcando - Drone Dps = less isk/hour

Then, you blame me and him because the game contenent is done in this way? Then propose they change lvl 4 missions/ratting/anomalies, in another topic. As it stand now higher dps is almost always translater in better isk/h, and that's what PVE is.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#4269 - 2013-09-28 13:17:43 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
Deliram wrote:

I never went to a incursion, but i can tell you in almost every other pve activity having a webifier is useless unless i think if you use missiles. All you need to do is going 100-150 km away and shoot in optimal range to red dots that pop every 3-5secs.
So yes, i agree saying that at least kronos + web + watheverotherstuffcando - Drone Dps = less isk/hour


A 90% web is very useful for dualboxing L4(I used a Kronos + navy apoc) since you don't use small drones(100% sentry dps uptime), you want to get in a range where you can max dps(what isn't 100km away) and if a frig spawns to close or gets to close, you web it down while shooting other stuff and one hit it with a close range turret fitted ship(navy Apoc in my case). That is a lot faster than relaying on light drone and miles quicker than what you could expect with a MJD fitting, since it gives you full turret and full sentry dps over the full mission, instead of gimping your dps by range and making you unable to project sentry dps.

I however would agree that the lack of sentry's will make the Kronos(and other marauders) a inferior choice for effective PVE in general with the current iteration of the changes, compared to the faction/pirate BS.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4270 - 2013-09-28 13:58:31 UTC
ok... So here's the model I feel that they should follow on the basis of these ships.

1) Design the hull to be a functional ship hull. There is no reason why the hull should be nerfed for the sake of forcing bastion and MJD.
Return all nerfs to the ships, and increase sensor strength a bit...

2) Design the hull to also be strong in a fleet, but it would still have the weakness of a lower than average sensor strength.

3) Get rid of the web bonus, as this is a special ability, and instead give them a bonus to drone tracking... not damage, just tracking.

4) Balance drone bays up more than they are now. Bw doesn't matter too much as long as they can field at least a flight of smalls.

5) Bastion can remain a module designed for solo use.

6) Since they're designed to long trips, give them a reduction in probe launcher fitting.. No bonus to probes, as that is a special of other ships.

7) Exchange tractor bonus for a salvager bonus, and ensure they can carry some of these tractor structures.

8) Return the 30% omni resists to bastion.. This could be balanced off t2 resists if necessary.

9) I'm still a fan of being able to dial in the range of the MJD with a range bonus to MJD.

10) Give bastion cap warfare immunity... If you can't receive it, then you shouldn't be able to lose it.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4271 - 2013-09-28 15:05:27 UTC
My issue with the current iteration is that it restricts playstyle choice over the version on TQ. The TQ version is flexible enough that a pilot can choose short or long range weapons. You can snipe from afar, sit and brawl, or as I like to do simply slowboat to the next gate as I clear the room. This is possible because the current set of bonuses are agnostic in how they apply to these playstyles (web bonuses not withstanding).

Iteration 2 fails to maintain this flexibility by reducing the base hull's capabilities through reduced speed, base EHP, and local repair potential. You do get T2 resists. However this only benefits some of the hulls and not all of them. The bastion attempts to return some of these abilities such as local repair potential. However the drawbacks of the module preclude it's use in the slowboat playstyle. The MJD role bonus is very nice for pilots who enjoy sniping their way through a mission. However, since the MJD range is not yet adjustable it is of little use to slowboaters or brawlers. The web bonus might be useful to slowboats and brawlers but does very little to improve the snipers gameplay.

Taking the sum total of bonuses on the hull and the proposed bastion module you might think they are quite powerful. However the hull and bastion bonuses don't cooperate to create a cohesive piloting experience. I'm all for T2 specialization as a general balancing concept. However, the selection available at the battleship level is quite limited. You have Marauders and Black Ops and that's it. Blops covers several realms of play and roles (and should probably be split up at some point). Marauders currently fill the direct combat T2 role but are purposely made less desirable in PvP due to abnormal sensor strength.

I would wholeheartedly get behind the idea of making Marauders the king of sniper warfare and adjust the bonuses to make that role even stronger, but only if the other types of direct combat were represented by additional hull classes. As it stands now, no one style of gameplay will able to utilize the full spectrum of hull and bastion bonuses. This doesn't seem to be the best choice for moving the Marauder hull class forward into the future.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#4272 - 2013-09-28 15:48:53 UTC
haven't been here for a while. and golem is still piece of sh*t. kinda sadCry

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4273 - 2013-09-28 15:54:32 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
haven't been here for a while. and golem is still piece of sh*t. kinda sadCry


the funny thing is that you could argue the Golem is the best due to missiles.
However, due to the fact that CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to make the Golem be the slowest, biggest, worst tank, and worst drone capabilities; This has managed to make the Golem just as bad as the rest...

So, the Golem can't fly in Caldari space, due to jams, can't fly in Minmatar space due to heavy damage and TPs, can't fly in Gallente space due to damps.
However, if you can kill targets fast enough for them not to cap you out, then you might do ok in Amarr space.. Unfortunately, you'll have to stack your resist holes in order to do so...
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4274 - 2013-09-28 16:22:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
My issue with the current iteration is that it restricts playstyle choice over the version on TQ. The TQ version is flexible enough that a pilot can choose short or long range weapons. You can snipe from afar, sit and brawl, or as I like to do simply slowboat to the next gate as I clear the room. This is possible because the current set of bonuses are agnostic in how they apply to these playstyles (web bonuses not withstanding).

Iteration 2 fails to maintain this flexibility by reducing the base hull's capabilities through reduced speed, base EHP, and local repair potential. You do get T2 resists. However this only benefits some of the hulls and not all of them. The bastion attempts to return some of these abilities such as local repair potential. However the drawbacks of the module preclude it's use in the slowboat playstyle. The MJD role bonus is very nice for pilots who enjoy sniping their way through a mission. However, since the MJD range is not yet adjustable it is of little use to slowboaters or brawlers. The web bonus might be useful to slowboats and brawlers but does very little to improve the snipers gameplay.

Taking the sum total of bonuses on the hull and the proposed bastion module you might think they are quite powerful. However the hull and bastion bonuses don't cooperate to create a cohesive piloting experience. I'm all for T2 specialization as a general balancing concept. However, the selection available at the battleship level is quite limited. You have Marauders and Black Ops and that's it. Blops covers several realms of play and roles (and should probably be split up at some point). Marauders currently fill the direct combat T2 role but are purposely made less desirable in PvP due to abnormal sensor strength.

I would wholeheartedly get behind the idea of making Marauders the king of sniper warfare and adjust the bonuses to make that role even stronger, but only if the other types of direct combat were represented by additional hull classes. As it stands now, no one style of gameplay will able to utilize the full spectrum of hull and bastion bonuses. This doesn't seem to be the best choice for moving the Marauder hull class forward into the future.



agreed here, as they are the marauders fill the gap nicely but post bastion they won't fit into much of anything because many of the changes do not sit fluently within the same doctrine, they actually impede many of them,

range bonuses to snipers doesn't matter - the weapons already have range and can get the range with a TC or two, primary means of preserving snipers is to warp on and off grid to many points when things get dangerous, not being able to move destroys the primary means of defending these doctrines, and so bastion will be ignored.

range on close range ships is best used with higher mobility: being still or slow defeats the purpose of range bonused brawlers, you need to be able to maintain distance over your opposition in order to utilize the advantage of greater range, without this speed you are caught and quickly die, as the primary defense of this doctrine is damage mitigation through range control - you have a better fire position relative to your target and can keep it that way.

MJD focus is irrelevant, If i carry long range doctrines i do not need to move to kill you, if i do need to move or am opposed by snipers a MJD does not cause those locking me to lose targeting lock or aquisition, i will be in just as much danger after i have moved than i was before, if i aim to run to 'safe distance' i am better off simply warping away, or to another bookmark in a different position - this will cause target acquisition breaks and re-locks, as well as forcing my opponent to re-position which is much more beneficial to me.

and if i am using close range weapons i need to be able to move over a far more varied distance, the MWD becomes far more useful for the cost of a mid slot as i need to move between point ranges far more often than i need to jump 100km, i'm better off utilizing fleet scouts and blink warps while carrying a MWD than i am trying to depend on a MJD.

local repair bonuses aid one vs many smaller ships fights, active tanks have always failed in group vs group scenarios - one ship cannot defend against many of equal strength for long enough, this is why using more than one logi in tourney teams is illegal but local reps are not, and so the idea of trying to repair yourself under fire from many people when you have the alternative of relying on logistics instead is..well..moronic.

stasis web bonus doesn't matter to snipers or kites, you never want to be inside web range EVER - if you are it means you've died

it also doesn't matter to brawlers with nerfed speed, as they cannot close to engagement range of targets that must be webbed, the marauder is better off relying on its higher tracking speed and range than it is relying on powerful tackle and so i'm best fitting tracking computers or tank over a web, bonus or not.

there is nothing useful about the structure of bonuses being given to these ships for the cost, nothing that gives them a powerful application, because every strength they have is destroyed by an even greater weakness for the doctrine they choose to employ.

again, I am depressed by the shortsightedness of the development team here, for a group that was formed on the basis of their pvp and ship fitting experience they are doing a terrible job at actually applying any of it, or listening to the feedback their players are giving them.
(yes i repeat this alot, but i'm getting kinda desperate for this part to get heard, the more i see these guys doing the wrong thing the greater my determination to set them right again becomes.)
Lair Osen
#4275 - 2013-09-28 16:41:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lair Osen
Joe Risalo wrote:
So, the Golem can't fly in Caldari space, due to jams, can't fly in Minmatar space due to heavy damage and TPs, can't fly in Gallente space due to damps.


So, it needs EWAR immunity, now how could it get that?.....
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#4276 - 2013-09-28 16:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Joe Risalo wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
haven't been here for a while. and golem is still piece of sh*t. kinda sadCry


the funny thing is that you could argue the Golem is the best due to missiles.
However, due to the fact that CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to make the Golem be the slowest, biggest, worst tank, and worst drone capabilities; This has managed to make the Golem just as bad as the rest...

So, the Golem can't fly in Caldari space, due to jams, can't fly in Minmatar space due to heavy damage and TPs, can't fly in Gallente space due to damps.
However, if you can kill targets fast enough for them not to cap you out, then you might do ok in Amarr space.. Unfortunately, you'll have to stack your resist holes in order to do so...


Given the capabilities of cruises (which are normally superior for pve anyways, thanks to otherworld application in comparison to torps //integrated Flares and Rigors huehue) I can't follow up on your issues. One minute of bastion is surely not an issue, I think you're talking about L4s, which can be tanked with even the most capefficient gist a-type small sheld booster on a golem. (tank on paper against 59% kin, 41% therm: 491 ehp/s on a golem (iteration II), using said SB and one kin, one therm shield hardener)

So concluding:
You jump out of range of neutships immediately and start shooting them from -100-km-off-the-accel-gate- until they are done, I'd expect this shooting to not go significantly faster compared to the bastioncycletime.
You can bastion up and ignore all the ewar.
You got 1.2k m³ cargo space to even realize a dual-large-ASB fit to tank L5-missions in lowsec (given you can do so atm with dual X-large already / and the one minute bastion ain't a problem there in a mission - as dropping probes, combat scanning you, warping to you and jumping through gates to your position isn't doable in less than 60 seconds...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4277 - 2013-09-28 17:21:12 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
haven't been here for a while. and golem is still piece of sh*t. kinda sadCry


the funny thing is that you could argue the Golem is the best due to missiles.
However, due to the fact that CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to make the Golem be the slowest, biggest, worst tank, and worst drone capabilities; This has managed to make the Golem just as bad as the rest...

So, the Golem can't fly in Caldari space, due to jams, can't fly in Minmatar space due to heavy damage and TPs, can't fly in Gallente space due to damps.
However, if you can kill targets fast enough for them not to cap you out, then you might do ok in Amarr space.. Unfortunately, you'll have to stack your resist holes in order to do so...


Given the capabilities of cruises (which are normally superior for pve anyways, thanks to otherworld application in comparison to torps //integrated Flares and Rigors huehue) I can't follow up on your issues. One minute of bastion is surely not an issue, I think you're talking about L4s, which can be tanked with even the most capefficient gist a-type small sheld booster on a golem. (tank on paper against 59% kin, 41% therm: 491 ehp/s on a golem (iteration II), using said SB and one kin, one therm shield hardener)

So concluding:
You jump out of range of neutships immediately and start shooting them from -100-km-off-the-accel-gate- until they are done, I'd expect this shooting to not go significantly faster compared to the bastioncycletime.
You can bastion up and ignore all the ewar.
You got 1.2k m³ cargo space to even realize a dual-large-ASB fit to tank L5-missions in lowsec (given you can do so atm with dual X-large already / and the one minute bastion ain't a problem there in a mission - as dropping probes, combat scanning you, warping to you and jumping through gates to your position isn't doable in less than 60 seconds...


I have no idea what you were saying here, but it didn't have too much to do with what I said...
(No offense)


That said, where are you flying these ships?
Look, if you could build the exact same tank on a golem and a Raven, the raven would tank better due to a smaller sig.
The sig of the Golem as it is on live is insane.
However, the rebalance to cruise missiles last year actually did a lot to help the Golem..
It used to be that a cruise Golem was a waist and a torp Golem was the way to go.
That has all changed now, and it's the other way around, which actually helps in PVE at least.

The Golem is probably a lot better now, as you can actually destroy targets with Cruise before they get in range.
However, like I stated, when torp Golem used to be the way to go, you would get HAMMERED by the time you could actually hit your targets.
With this in mind, without bastion at least, a torp Golem in bound to burn in a fire.


I'm fine with damage and projection on either iteration.
it's the tank and nerfs to base hull I have the issues with.


So,
Bring back iteration 1 resists.
If they leave t2 resists, then balance accordingly.
If they bring back rep bonus, the balance bastion rep accordingly.
BUT LEAVE THE BASTION RESISTS IN.

We can't receive cap in bastion, so we should be immune to cap war while bastioned.

Revert the hull nerfs.
This would allow more options of fit, and not being pigeon hole'd into bastion and MJD.
The hull nerfs do nothing to balance bastion or MJD, and were implemented as nothing more than to force their use.
(if you disagree with this, you're wrong)
Even the increased mass doesn't make sense.

Revert drone bay nerfs to some extent.
this again only seems to have been done for the sake of forcing the range bonus of bastion.



This allows the base hull to have the option of brawling or sniping without being hendered by sniping and being much more fleet friendly, while allowing bastion to do the same, but with much more strengths with one major weakness(mobility).

Now you have a fleet ship that can brawl or snip, and a solo ship that can brawl or snip.
Leave it up to the players to decide which combo they want.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#4278 - 2013-09-28 17:26:33 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

the funny thing is that you could argue the Golem is the best due to missiles.
However, due to the fact that CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to make the Golem be the slowest, biggest, worst tank, and worst drone capabilities; This has managed to make the Golem just as bad as the rest...

So, the Golem can't fly in Caldari space, due to jams, can't fly in Minmatar space due to heavy damage and TPs, can't fly in Gallente space due to damps.
However, if you can kill targets fast enough for them not to cap you out, then you might do ok in Amarr space.. Unfortunately, you'll have to stack your resist holes in order to do so...

target painter bonus is legacy sh*t . if some one think it is better then exp vel\rad bonus instead , then just switch tracking bonuses to TP on other ships to be fair
and TP bonus is incompatible with that stupid web one (imho) if it was like reckons range then it was superb, but it is not.
bastion bonuses good only for torps and useless for CM

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Vorseger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4279 - 2013-09-28 17:30:08 UTC
THANK YOU for the proposal for T2 resists.

There is one bit of of information that could use some feedback to benefit the team changing marauders:
"Uses no specific fuel or capacitor - we were discussing the use of Heavy Water as fuel. However, it doesn't really provide any gameplay (as CCP Rise mentioned, capacitor is the main limiting factor in combat with those ships). Plus it adds more consumables to a class that already commonly uses charges for weapons, cap boosters and need to keep cargo for possible salvaging. "

This states that I NEED cargo for POSSIBLE salvaging. I would like to know how many players that currently make significant use of this ship actually use the salvager and tractor beams instead of a Notics. Also, how many players would even consider using them when new deployable structures come about? Maybe new technology such as the Notics and deployable structures are making this role bonus antiquated.


Wedgetail wrote:

agreed here, as they are the marauders fill the gap nicely but post bastion they won't fit into much of anything because many of the changes do not sit fluently within the same doctrine, they actually impede many of them,

range bonuses to snipers doesn't matter - the weapons already have range and can get the range with a TC or two, primary means of preserving snipers is to warp on and off grid to many points when things get dangerous, not being able to move destroys the primary means of defending these doctrines, and so bastion will be ignored.

range on close range ships is best used with higher mobility: being still or slow defeats the purpose of range bonused brawlers, you need to be able to maintain distance over your opposition in order to utilize the advantage of greater range, without this speed you are caught and quickly die, as the primary defense of this doctrine is damage mitigation through range control - you have a better fire position relative to your target and can keep it that way.

MJD focus is irrelevant, If i carry long range doctrines i do not need to move to kill you, if i do need to move or am opposed by snipers a MJD does not cause those locking me to lose targeting lock or aquisition, i will be in just as much danger after i have moved than i was before, if i aim to run to 'safe distance' i am better off simply warping away, or to another bookmark in a different position - this will cause target acquisition breaks and re-locks, as well as forcing my opponent to re-position which is much more beneficial to me.

and if i am using close range weapons i need to be able to move over a far more varied distance, the MWD becomes far more useful for the cost of a mid slot as i need to move between point ranges far more often than i need to jump 100km, i'm better off utilizing fleet scouts and blink warps while carrying a MWD than i am trying to depend on a MJD.

local repair bonuses aid one vs many smaller ships fights, active tanks have always failed in group vs group scenarios - one ship cannot defend against many of equal strength for long enough, this is why using more than one logi in tourney teams is illegal but local reps are not, and so the idea of trying to repair yourself under fire from many people when you have the alternative of relying on logistics instead is..well..moronic.

stasis web bonus doesn't matter to snipers or kites, you never want to be inside web range EVER - if you are it means you've died

it also doesn't matter to brawlers with nerfed speed, as they cannot close to engagement range of targets that must be webbed, the marauder is better off relying on its higher tracking speed and range than it is relying on powerful tackle and so i'm best fitting tracking computers or tank over a web, bonus or not.

there is nothing useful about the structure of bonuses being given to these ships for the cost, nothing that gives them a powerful application, because every strength they have is destroyed by an even greater weakness for the doctrine they choose to employ.

again, I am depressed by the shortsightedness of the development team here, for a group that was formed on the basis of their pvp and ship fitting experience they are doing a terrible job at actually applying any of it, or listening to the feedback their players are giving them.
(yes i repeat this alot, but i'm getting kinda desperate for this part to get heard, the more i see these guys doing the wrong thing the greater my determination to set them right again becomes.)


I cannot agree more with Wedgetail.

I have no use for a MJD. I will not fit one over options of other modules (navigation or not).
I will not use a web. How can I track (which this expansion/change wants me to make more use of my primary weapon system?) anything but a battleship sufficiently when it is in web range?

If focus is meant to be placed on primary weapon system, make it appealing to all types of high slot fittings (close range/long range and each weapon type), and make sure someone with elite fitting skills can still fit big guns (ex: 4 arty....without having to have a module or implant to boost power output). If you want me to sacrifice some drone damage output, please make up for it by giving some form of damage boost to the primary weapon system.

As far as Bastion Mode: Who wants to be a stationary target?! The bonus to shield/armor repair does/doesn't outweigh the damage increase caused by being STATIONARY and the INCREASE in mass?!?

I admire trying something new to add to the game. This comes with great risk. Feedback now tends to have minimal impact. YOUR EXPANSION IS <2 MONTHS AWAY. You are not going to overhaul an ENTIRE feature/change, (gimmick?) even if you now realize it is a horrible idea. Your pride, hard work, time you put into this, AND your coming deadline will make changes to these proposals more or less tweaks.

Good luck mates.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4280 - 2013-09-28 17:49:43 UTC
Vorseger wrote:


I admire trying something new to add to the game. This comes with great risk. Feedback now tends to have minimal impact. YOUR EXPANSION IS <2 MONTHS AWAY. You are not going to overhaul an ENTIRE feature/change, (gimmick?) even if you now realize it is a horrible idea. Your pride, hard work, time you put into this, AND your coming deadline will make changes to these proposals more or less tweaks.

Good luck mates.


the solution is quite simple:

if it is not good enough, if it does not work, if it doesn't look to solve the problem - don't do it, don't use it, don't even think about deploying it until you've got another solution that fixes the problem - put the change aside, put it off for another 6 months, go back and rethink the entire system - do not break things that can conceivably work as they are just because you can't come up with something better.

we will tolerate waiting for things to change, we do not tolerate poorly thought and seemingly intentional 'failures'.