These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
STush T
House of Tuachair
#4281 - 2013-09-28 18:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: STush T
Granted I have never ran anything other then missions, but to me it seems very clear that due to the short range on webs, they more often then not are a wasted mid slot. Even flying with pulses and a mwd it isnt used very much as most frigates get popped before their orbit range, and the ones that do get to orbit, its a waste to shift your dps to them when light drones can mop up the small threat.

This new setup is very much favoring the idea of jump far away, and snipe, making the web bonus even more ridicules because now you have that much more time to lock and pop the frigates. So you have a web fitted, taking up a mid slot that could be used for another tracking computer, and you only end up using once or twice in 10 missions because you stopped paying attention.

Maybe one day missions will be more like PvP, but your still dealing with if the opponent is close enough to use your web, you've made a huge mistake. Further more, a snipe fit doesnt need to tank as much since they are out of range, so why give us a ship that jumps way away, sits down and turns into a turtle? No increase in dps, just sitting out there, peering out from under a shell, pew pewing at the ships that are to far away to do anything anyway (pve). Unless i suppose if you were suicidal with your isk heavy ship and the tactic was to mjd INTO the opposing fleet, turtle up in the midst of them, and just keep shooting until your ship goes pop. I suppose in that situation the web might be useful, and the range might give pulses enough reach to get the whole fleet. Course for a minute your stuck, so it would be suicidal. How about a boost to buffer then? A boost big enough that it might make this tactic viable. Course there still isnt a dps increase so how much damage can one ship do in a pvp situation? Pve that tactic might work, but a mwd would work better then a mjd.

I guess if we could get a dev to tell us how exactly they think this ship should work. . .maybe they dont intend for us to use all the bonuses at once. Maybe we should just view the new changes as options, and not a set way to fly. So for me, i would ignore the MJD, ignore the web bonus, and just use the bastion mode because now i cant tank without it. Awesome.

And I agree with Wedgetail's solution, dont give us a joke just because you've come this far with it. Dont give us a funky tool with no purpose, and hope that we can find something to do with it.

Im sure in the end, something will be hashed out, I have confidence in CCP's ability to recognize they've made a mistake sooner or later, so IF marauders are screwed up, sooner or later they will be fixed.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4282 - 2013-09-28 18:44:59 UTC
Vorseger wrote:

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?!?


In a way, you're right and you're wrong.

The way Most players use Marauders in PVE, is a a stationary weapons platforms.
Mobility actually hurts all but the Golem due to tracking issues, and doesn't provide any type of bonus, as your sig is so large that you still take hard hits that don't get mitigated by mobility.

Now, in pvp mobility is a good thing, but again, the marauders suffer here as well.


Bastion is doing nothing but supporting this stationary platform use, but doing so at the cost of any mobility they did have.


This is why I continue to say.

1) leave the base hull as it is on live, but with smaller sig, and better sensor strength and scan res.

2) Give resist bonus back to bastion.

This literally allows 4 different options.
Snip with mobility
Brawl with mobility
Snip with bastion
Brawl with bastion

Each of these possible combos has its own niche situations, but also allows the ship to either solo or fleet relatively well.
They wouldn't be the best pvp ships in either form, but would perform quite well in all forms of pve, which is their primary focus, and should remain so.
michaelthered
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4283 - 2013-09-28 18:51:45 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
[quote=Ristlin Wakefield].

Yeah, but this is working as designed, because the null sec cartels hate incursions, and anything they can do to wreck income in them, they will.



exactly^^^
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4284 - 2013-09-28 18:52:31 UTC
STush T wrote:
Further more, a snipe fit doesnt need to tank as much since they are out of range, so why give us a ship that jumps way away, sits down and turns into a turtle? No increase in dps, just sitting out there, peering out from under a shell, pew pewing at the ships that are to far away to do anything anyway (pve).


Well, I can't say i agree that it doesn't make sense.
This forms yet another niche role that the marauder can fill..

That is, that they could be the counter sniper to tier 3 bc's.

Due to the mobility and range of tier 3 bc's, there isn't a lot you can do against them because by the time you can get a brawler/frig in there to lock them down, they've already moved on.
However, with a heavy tanked sniper boat, you could actually put pressure on them, or even destroy them.
And they funny thing is that the counter to these counter snipers are the very ships (brawler/frigs) that continue to have problems reaching these teir 3 bcs.
Lair Osen
#4285 - 2013-09-28 19:01:49 UTC
Vorseger wrote:
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:
-Snip-


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.


You both seem to be looking at this from a fleet doctrine view. It seems very clear these ships are not meant to be used in fleets and I really don't know why anyone would since they're so expensive for little dps benefit over t1 (and dps is the only thing that really matters in a fleet).
However, the MJD is Very useful in PvE, especially since, with the PG buffs, its a lot easier to fit long range weapons, and many PvEers will be perfectly happy and able to sit still at 100km with double tank and more range for only a minute. Especially since the MJD means that if some scram rats get under its guns It can just MJD away when the rest of the minute is up.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4286 - 2013-09-28 19:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Lair Osen wrote:


You both seem to be looking at this from a fleet doctrine view. It seems very clear these ships are not meant to be used in fleets and I really don't know why anyone would since they're so expensive for little dps benefit over t1 (and dps is the only thing that really matters in a fleet).
However, the MJD is Very useful in PvE, especially since, with the PG buffs, its a lot easier to fit long range weapons, and many PvEers will be perfectly happy and able to sit still at 100km with double tank and more range for only a minute. Especially since the MJD means that if some scram rats get under its guns It can just MJD away when the rest of the minute is up.



every ship used by a player in space in eve revolves around a fitting doctrine, the fitting can be focused on fleet or solo combat, or a specific fighting style.

all fleet doctrine fittings that exist have a solo equivalent.

all solo fitting doctrines have a fleet equivalent.

all PVE fitting doctrines have a PVP equivalent.

all PVP doctrines have a PVE equivalent.


"i can take a ship fit for one environment and use it just as effectively in another given the right circumstances, just as much as i can use a PVE fit battleship to kill rats i can kill a player with one, just as much as i can kill players with a PVP fit i can kill rats, it's only ever a question of the tactics i have to use in order to make it happen."

the focus is on the fitting styles at the most fundamental level, the posts do not reflect the environment, only the style and focus of ship fighting style you fit them for.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4287 - 2013-09-28 19:34:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
-mis clicked, bad post- XD
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4288 - 2013-09-28 20:24:09 UTC
Lair Osen wrote:
You both seem to be looking at this from a fleet doctrine view. It seems very clear these ships are not meant to be used in fleets and I really don't know why anyone would since they're so expensive for little dps benefit over t1 (and dps is the only thing that really matters in a fleet).
However, the MJD is Very useful in PvE, especially since, with the PG buffs, its a lot easier to fit long range weapons, and many PvEers will be perfectly happy and able to sit still at 100km with double tank and more range for only a minute. Especially since the MJD means that if some scram rats get under its guns It can just MJD away when the rest of the minute is up.

You are correct in that the MJD works for that very specific form of gameplay. However, it does so at the expense of all others. Although this follows the T2 specialization theme some what, again the problem is that there are no other T2 options available currently besides Blops.

You are taking a hull that is already in place and used by a group of pilots in many different ways and relegating it to a single usage scenario. That is bound to **** a good portion of those pilots off especially given the ISK and SP investment getting into one of these bad boys in the first place. Direct combat brawling or shoot as you go playstyles would no longer have a T2 representation at the Battleship level.

I personally don't really enjoy the sit at 100K style of play though I employ it at times depending on the mission specifics. It's about player choice and providing options. As I've said before, I would be perfectly happy to allow Marauders to become the kings of the battleship sniper role, as long as there are equivalent options available for the other playstyles as well.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#4289 - 2013-09-28 20:35:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Desert Ice78
Question: Do people really believe that alliances are going to field whole fleets (50 plus) of billion ISK ships? If they do believe this, then why have we not seen it done before?

Personally I think this concept is a none-starter.

Quick edit: The webbing bonus is a skirmishing tool only. These ships will never be used for skirmishing.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4290 - 2013-09-28 20:51:44 UTC
There are two viable options available to rectify the confused nature of the current iteration that myself and many others have been proposing since this thread started:

Pseudo T3

  • Transition hull and role bonuses to be more commonly usable regardless of playstyle
  • Provide specialization through the use of scripting of the bastion module or a set of unique bastion module flavors

This approach has many benefits. The base hull remains usable in most aspects of EVE while still working towards the general goals of T2 specialization. The drawback of this approach is that it is a little too similar to the T3 concept of using subsystems to designate roles.

Separate roles into additional hulls or classes

  • Move Marauders into sniper role
  • Create brawling T2 BS hull class
  • Abandon bastion module or significantly modify its bonuses

This approach would produce the most normalized T2 Battleship experience based on other T2 ship lines. It would also not be possible to do for the winter expansion.

To be honest, I'd be happy with the results of either approach as it would provide the necessary set of options to pilots wishing to employ their preferred playstyles. That said, I believe only the first option would be remotely possible to implement for the winter release.

I provided a very detailed post outlining one possible incarnation of the first option many pages back that attempted to satisfy most of the requests or comments presented in this thread. Many others have provided similar or different but just as acceptable solutions to the current situation. I'm pretty pleased with the level and quality of feedback we, as a community, have proved the dev team. If they only half listen to that feedback, we'll see the Marauder class shine.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Zazz Dimaloun
The Lighthouse Effect
#4291 - 2013-09-28 22:44:51 UTC
Why a web bonus for the Golem????????? am I the only one who doesn't understand this change??
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4292 - 2013-09-28 23:10:52 UTC
Zazz Dimaloun wrote:
Why a web bonus for the Golem????????? am I the only one who doesn't understand this change??


Nope, there are some ungodly amount of pages on this thread where at least one person says the same thing, if not the entire page...
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#4293 - 2013-09-28 23:25:00 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Zazz Dimaloun wrote:
Why a web bonus for the Golem????????? am I the only one who doesn't understand this change??


Nope, there are some ungodly amount of pages on this thread where at least one person says the same thing, if not the entire page...


What if the web velocity bonus was instead a web range bonus, the purpose of which was to stop the enemy from getting to you before you mjd away? Would that make better sense?

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4294 - 2013-09-28 23:34:45 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Zazz Dimaloun wrote:
Why a web bonus for the Golem????????? am I the only one who doesn't understand this change??


Nope, there are some ungodly amount of pages on this thread where at least one person says the same thing, if not the entire page...


What if the web velocity bonus was instead a web range bonus, the purpose of which was to stop the enemy from getting to you before you mjd away? Would that make better sense?



Not really.. I mean, webs can be fairly useful in certain situations, but in the case of the Golem, it's just a bunch of crap we can't fit.

Look,
We need at least 2 TPs to be considered effective against frigs.
lets say 2 resists and a shield booster.
Then a cap booster.
Then some kind of propulsion module.

That is 7... We only have 7 slots...
Where the hell are we going to put that web?
Hell, even if they gave us an 8th mid (which i strongly advise they do), we still probably wouldn't use it for a web.

No one in their right mind would be caught at close range in a Marauder while flying solo PVP.
So, we don't need webs or scrams in pvp.
The intent with bastion was to make marauders snipers, but even if that weren't the case, a TP is going to help us more than a web in PVE, specifically because a web won't make our missiles hit any harder... Sure, it's more likely that the exp vel will catch them better, but i'd rather just shoot them on the approach or kill them with drones.

Alternately, I also like using a smart bomb for close range frigs if possible.(shhh)

If a BS or cruiser gets withing web range it really wouldn't make much of a difference in pve, and in PVP you're screwed unless you have a fleet.


All that said, I would still rather have 8 mids over 8 highs any day in both pvp and pve
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#4295 - 2013-09-29 04:15:17 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Question: Do people really believe that alliances are going to field whole fleets (50 plus) of billion ISK ships? If they do believe this, then why have we not seen it done before?



What, enver heard of Hot Dropping? Nullsec is full of **** where you have fifty billion isk ships suddenly appear and pwn your ass.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#4296 - 2013-09-29 04:19:33 UTC
ok marauder are fixed now lets get going, next step rebalancing of mining frigs they are clearly broken now.
Vorseger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4297 - 2013-09-29 05:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vorseger
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
You are correct in that the MJD works for that very specific form of gameplay. However, it does so at the expense of all others. Although this follows the T2 specialization theme some what, again the problem is that there are no other T2 options available currently besides Blops.

You are taking a hull that is already in place and used by a group of pilots in many different ways and relegating it to a single usage scenario. That is bound to **** a good portion of those pilots off especially given the ISK and SP investment getting into one of these bad boys in the first place. Direct combat brawling or shoot as you go playstyles would no longer have a T2 representation at the Battleship level.

I personally don't really enjoy the sit at 100K style of play though I employ it at times depending on the mission specifics. It's about player choice and providing options. As I've said before, I would be perfectly happy to allow Marauders to become the kings of the battleship sniper role, as long as there are equivalent options available for the other playstyles as well.


^^
This. I am one of the pilots that invested the ISK and SP to get into one. The changes forcing lack of options of playstyle would force me to go for a faction battleship and be rid of my marauder.

There are 3 Minmatar battleships. Two out of the three have some form of T2 variant. If the same for the other four races, is it Eve Developers intent to make a third T2 battleship that is focused on combat brawling and/or shoot as you go?

As Iome Ambraelle stated, in the battleship class, the current T2 ships give very limited options for flying/playing styles.

Why do T2 battleships have to be so much different from how T2 cruisers and T2 frigates vary from their respective T1 hulls?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4298 - 2013-09-29 06:11:07 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Zazz Dimaloun wrote:
Why a web bonus for the Golem????????? am I the only one who doesn't understand this change??


Nope, there are some ungodly amount of pages on this thread where at least one person says the same thing, if not the entire page...


What if the web velocity bonus was instead a web range bonus, the purpose of which was to stop the enemy from getting to you before you mjd away? Would that make better sense?


I wouldn't want webs even on a blaster kronos. The problem is that when deployed you cannot move which is a big problem for close range weapons like webs. If I want a mega hull with a web bonus I would fly the faster and harder to jam vindi.

It made a lot more sense to have the repping bonus.
Thieving Monkey
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Goonswarm Federation
#4299 - 2013-09-29 06:34:23 UTC
Marauders need more EHP. This base HP reduction makes no sense. That should be reverted and Bastion mode should get a resistance increase or it'll be far too easy to dps through someone between repcycles while they're completely stationary.
Also, doubling the rep amount on active ships with stupidly low HP results in frequent over-repping, such as the vagabond now suffers from when using deadspace+crystals+shieldlinks.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4300 - 2013-09-29 06:40:37 UTC
Thieving Monkey wrote:
Marauders need more EHP. This base HP reduction makes no sense. That should be reverted and Bastion mode should get a resistance increase or it'll be far too easy to dps through someone between repcycles while they're completely stationary.
Also, doubling the rep amount on active ships with stupidly low HP results in frequent over-repping, such as the vagabond now suffers from when using deadspace+crystals+shieldlinks.


It made sense with the first idea. A monster active tank but vulnerable to high alpha gangs.