These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shinzhi Xadi
Doomheim
#4401 - 2013-09-30 16:00:19 UTC
Anybody notice how CCP put up the original new marauder plan, got 219 pages of feedback, and completely ignored ALL OF IT.

They just said the original plan is going on sisi. WTF do they even ask us for feedback for??

Mac Pro dual 6-core Xeon 3.06ghz, 24gig ecc ram, EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition, Intel SSD, OS X Yosemite and Windows 8.1 Pro.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4402 - 2013-09-30 16:08:54 UTC
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Anybody notice how CCP put up the original new marauder plan, got 219 pages of feedback, and completely ignored ALL OF IT.

They just said the original plan is going on sisi. WTF do they even ask us for feedback for??

Marauders were split between a 3 way croud.
The PvP croud wanted a hardcore PvP BS.
The Incursion croud wanted them to be better fleet based.
And the classic mission running and complex running croud, for the most part, liked the first iteration.

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

Vivi Udan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4403 - 2013-09-30 16:10:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vivi Udan
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Anybody notice how CCP put up the original new marauder plan, got 219 pages of feedback, and completely ignored ALL OF IT.

They just said the original plan is going on sisi. WTF do they even ask us for feedback for??



CCP's job isn't to make us happy (because that's impossible).
Their job is to tick us off as little as possible... just like every other business out there.
But yes, it is aggravating.

The Mittani of House GoonWaffe, First of His name, King of the Goons and VFK, Master of griefing, Lord of the CFC, Warden of the West, and Protector of Deklein.

Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#4404 - 2013-09-30 16:11:32 UTC
i like it..
but
you have it as having normal t2 resists of the 2nd iteration, but the 30% in bastion mode.

do we get original marauder resistances or the regular t2 resistances?

thank you for dropping the web bonus.
it was gay in combination with sniper mode. (gay meaning weird)...
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4405 - 2013-09-30 16:18:13 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Mole Guy wrote:
i like it..
but
you have it as having normal t2 resists of the 2nd iteration, but the 30% in bastion mode.

do we get original marauder resistances or the regular t2 resistances?

thank you for dropping the web bonus.
it was gay in combination with sniper mode. (gay meaning weird)...


honestly i wish we kept the T2 resists (or even a scaled back version like field command ships used to have) but when in bastion mode we got the 30% increase to hull resistance. as 78% resists on hull would be epic to get me threw an AAR or ASB reload.

example would be the kronos:

its shield bonus would be going from

kin: 55 to 77.5 (regular tech II is 85)

thermal: 30 to 50 (regular tech II is 60)

its armor going from:

kin: 51.25 to 75.62 (regular tech II is 83.75)

Thermal: 43.125 to 59.37 (regular tech II is 67.5)



this would also allow us to keep the repair bonus on the ship hull... as the modified tech II resists would not be op with them.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#4406 - 2013-09-30 16:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
MeBiatch wrote:
Mole Guy wrote:
i like it..
but
you have it as having normal t2 resists of the 2nd iteration, but the 30% in bastion mode.

do we get original marauder resistances or the regular t2 resistances?

thank you for dropping the web bonus.
it was gay in combination with sniper mode. (gay meaning weird)...


honestly i wish we kept the T2 resists (or even a scaled back version like field command ships used to have) but when in bastion mode we got the 30% increase to hull resistance. as 78% resists on hull would be epic to get me threw an AAR or ASB reload.

agreed. it would REALLY tank!
bring on the pirates. i will take em down..=)

72% btw..=)
Wizzard117
Wizzard117 Corporation
#4407 - 2013-09-30 16:28:05 UTC
ok, I'm done posting any feedback cuz CCP just made everyone look stupid
- first revision happened, got feedback
- based on this we got 2nd revision
- and a feedback for that 2nd revision
- based on this we have reverted to first one
- and we're going to put this on SiSi asap
- to get some feedback on 1st revision
- again
220+ pages (most active ship rebalance topic for quite some time) seemed to be completely ignored
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#4408 - 2013-09-30 16:28:42 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
webs need a strength nerf and web bonuses on all pirate ships need a nerf down to 5%..
Gal and minnie recons need a range nerf on webs and points too

why ?

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

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4409 - 2013-09-30 16:34:23 UTC
Wizzard117 wrote:

220+ pages (most active ship rebalance topic for quite some time) seemed to be completely ignored


to be fair the last time CCP did a version two they started a new op or split the topic to 4 ops... so 220 is average tbh.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Clendestined
Perkone
Caldari State
#4410 - 2013-09-30 16:37:00 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey people,

We've been away from this thread for a while to let things cool down a bit.

With Rubicon coming to Singularity soon, we've decided to revert Marauders to the original design for now, as we want to see how they actually fare in practice within player hands before committing to the version 2 change. We will let you know if and when we move to version 2 again. We’ll most likely open a new thread when they appear on Singularity as this one has become quite convoluted.

That means:


  • Shield, armor and hull resists in Bastion Mode only
  • Keep the 37.5% tank bonus on the Marauders, no web bonus


We are also aware this won't please everyone here - regarding their comparison with Pirate Battleships, especially the Machariel, please remember we have stated many times Pirate hulls were due for a rebalance, with Angel Cartel being on the front line for tuning changes.

Thanks for your time.



Thank you and I love you. Ver. 2.0 sucked balls.

Now to figure out what to swap the tractors for...increased salvage range would be nice :P
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4411 - 2013-09-30 16:37:21 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey people, ... Thanks for your time.

This is excellent news, but please can you comment on the Paladin's 5% capacitor fake bonus? Why is this bonus left on when it's useless and also similar bonuses have been removed from other ships during rebalancing?
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#4412 - 2013-09-30 16:39:37 UTC
Too bad we lost those drones though.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4413 - 2013-09-30 16:41:38 UTC
Oh well. Guess i'll cancel my marauder training when i get home.

It's a shame as i was looking forward to flying battle ships more in PVP but without web or target painter bonuses, these things will be garbage for close range brawling fights.

Finger crossed for a good BLOPS balance. Sad
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4414 - 2013-09-30 16:46:24 UTC
Overall I'm fairly pleased. The base hull will be quite functional without the bastion module fit. The bastion module has a purpose now in both survivability (resists) and repair potential. Those two things added together will offset the loss of RR pretty well in all but medium to large engagement sizes.

I think there's room to leave the T2 resists in place while possibly scaling back the bastion resist bonus to like 20% to help out the incursion runners. I'm still voting for the bastion module to require a turret/launcher hard point with that 8th high converted to a hard point. With the lowered role bonus the hulls will see about a 9% increase in base DPS over TQ. It would give the non-bastion mode a decent gain to balance the loss of tank from not fitting the bastion module.

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

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4415 - 2013-09-30 16:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
ok so with my ideas this is what i would like to see:

BASTION MODULE

Increases shield and armor repair amount by 100%
Boosts all hull resistances by 30%
Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 25%
Increases all large missile max velocity by 25%
Has a cycle time of 60 seconds.
When in bastion mode, Marauder is immune to EW but cannot be remote assisted in any way
When in bastion mode, Marauder speed is set to 0 m/s and cannot warp (mass is unchanged). Also receives a weapons timer that prevents station docking or gate jumping. Weapon time doesn't require the user to drop weapon safeties in high-sec
Only one may be fitted per Marauder, cannot be deactivated before cycle ends
Uses 10 CPU and 100 powergrid to fit
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.
Skill requirements: High Energy Physics 4 and Energy Grid Upgrades 5


KRONOS

Role Bonus: 100% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage, signature resolution bonus for Target spectrum breaker module reduced to 0% , 70% reduction in Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay

Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to large hybrid weapon rate of fire
10% bonus to large Hybrid Turret Falloff per level (instead of 10% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level)

Marauder Skill Bonus:
7.5% bonus to Armor Repair amount per level
7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon tracking per level


Slot layout: 8H(+1), 4M, 7L; 4 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 14000 PWG (+2000), 580 CPU (+30)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6600(-200) / 7200(-100) / 8600(+400)
Shield resists: 0% EM / 50% EX / 77.5% (+22.5) KIN / 50% (+20) THERM
Armor resists: 50% EM / 10% EX / 75.62% (+24.37) KIN / 59.37% (+16.245) THERM

Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 6900(+1275) / 1150s (+226.1s) / 6 cap/s
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 92 m/s(-28) / .114(-0.0038) / 113160000(+11360000) / 17.8s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 50(-75)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+3km) / 120(+39) / 10
Sensor strength: 13 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 420(-80)

edit:

so that means with a DCU II the bastion mod two true sansha energy adaptive membrains and an explosive tech II hardner you get:

shield:
em: 12.5% therm: 56.2% kin: 80.3% ex: 56.2%

armor:
em: 76.9% therm: 81.2% kin: 88.7% ex: 78.2%

hull:
all resists 78%

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Shantetha
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4416 - 2013-09-30 16:50:58 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey people,

We've been away from this thread for a while to let things cool down a bit.

With Rubicon coming to Singularity soon, we've decided to revert Marauders to the original design for now, as we want to see how they actually fare in practice within player hands before committing to the version 2 change. We will let you know if and when we move to version 2 again. We’ll most likely open a new thread when they appear on Singularity as this one has become quite convoluted.

That means:


  • Shield, armor and hull resists in Bastion Mode only
  • Keep the 37.5% tank bonus on the Marauders, no web bonus


We are also aware this won't please everyone here - regarding their comparison with Pirate Battleships, especially the Machariel, please remember we have stated many times Pirate hulls were due for a rebalance, with Angel Cartel being on the front line for tuning changes.

Thanks for your time.


does this mean as they are on TQ right now, or the changes listed in the first post. just to make sure it's clear.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#4417 - 2013-09-30 16:57:49 UTC
CCP thanks for coming back on this thread finally but seriously bad decision just saying to everyone who has given feedback that u dont really care what they say.

Cant see why your choosing the route of 30% on bastion, while it will give a good tank while in bastion, noone will want to enter it because your too vulnerable while you cannot receive RR.

It needs to be just T2 resists everything else was fine in the OP - though tractor beams & slot layout need looking into because of the new deployables
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4418 - 2013-09-30 17:01:25 UTC
People should not be complaining about these, except to complain that they're too strong. 30% unstacking global resists on top of partial T2 resists and a tank bonus is absurd. Dual XLASB Vargur/Golem are not reasonably killable without involving capital ships.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4419 - 2013-09-30 17:11:15 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
CCP thanks for coming back on this thread finally but seriously bad decision just saying to everyone who has given feedback that u dont really care what they say.

Cant see why your choosing the route of 30% on bastion, while it will give a good tank while in bastion, noone will want to enter it because your too vulnerable while you cannot receive RR.

It needs to be just T2 resists everything else was fine in the OP - though tractor beams & slot layout need looking into because of the new deployables


If you go back through the thread, the overwhelming consensus was that the first iteration was preferred over the second. That being said, I agree with you that there's still a need for something outside of bastion use to make these hulls attractive in and of themselves. There have been several very good suggestions along this line.

Xequecal wrote:
People should not be complaining about these, except to complain that they're too strong. 30% unstacking global resists on top of partial T2 resists and a tank bonus is absurd. Dual XLASB Vargur/Golem are not reasonably killable without involving capital ships.


They just need to fix the dual (any size) ASB setups. It's a problem regardless of hull class. The repair bonus on Marauders just make it a glaring issue. A simple 1 per hull rule like the AARs have would clear that right up.

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

zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#4420 - 2013-09-30 17:16:56 UTC
and still no comments on TP golem bonus from CCP. i'm gettin' nervous
why we must spend slot to fit dps application module while others get tracking for free

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