These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#4781 - 2013-10-04 22:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Battle Cube
im still at a loss for words....of how even to describe....this new version of the ship. I cant comprehend their reasoning.

Why would i want to sit still? In order for that to increase my effectiveness, i would need a really good bonus..... but range isnt a bonus, it only negates my immobility. Ok, mjd bonus so i can move around, but at 100k, i am negating my range bonus because i will be out of optimal. Ok i have ewar immunity, well thats only there so that being still isnt as terrible.

Everything on this ship is just to negate the horrible effects of something else on this ship, it seems designed by committee... No coherence.

and 'encouraging' mjd via nerfing the ship so normal speed, abs, and mwds are WAY WAY worse, is just Insulting. The only reason there could be for these nerfs is that using an MJD on this ship is SO OP that everyone is assumed to be doing it - therefore we have to nerf it (even for those who wont use an mjd) But thats not the case here.

Exactly the same reason for all the non-bastion mode nerfs, it will be useless without the useless module.

CCP: what is the purpose of the marauder? What is it supposed to do? What will it excel in that make its massive sp, isk costs and stupid drawbacks and nerfs, worth it such that it is better than other ships in said scenario?

edit: Maybe there are some very niche uses in pvp where you want to spend billions on a ridiculous ship and setup that is only good because its strange. Please dont balance the entire game for alliance tournaments. Thanks.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4782 - 2013-10-04 22:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
Joe Risalo wrote:
Aglais wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Aglais wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Amazes me how balancing the marauders nad finding a role for them woudl be to make them stay parket in hangars because there will be no place in eve where they are the best choice for the job.


The fact that they're only going to ever be parked in hangars implies that their role has been removed though does it not?


I don't know about you guys, but i'm going to be flying the hell out of a cruise Golem..


As an owner of a cruise Golem, I'm probably going to sell it, because the bastion module's benefits do not at all in any context outweigh it's drawbacks seen thus far (not to mention the other pointless stat nerfs to the hull itself that put the Golem into the "what is moving" state that most capitals end up in).

Keep in mind too, the WARP SPEED of Marauders is going to be tanking as well. So they've just got WAY, WAY slower, in ALL respects, and must be STATIONARY for their main gimmicks to actually be applicable.

So ISK/hr is probably going to end up going down due to exceptionally awkward quantized 100km jumps in mission sites (the hull's too slow and heavy for an AB, and the MWD uses too much capacitor to be considered with awful agility), longer time for the Golem to actually REACH the missions (and return to station)... Pretty much the only "pro" that happens here is that you can massively downgrade your tank because bastion mode can compensate for it.

Basically, these changes drain literally any semblance of fun from the hull, and believe it or not, both fun and isk/hr are things that I consider in terms of missioning.



Well, i'm interested in bastion mode.

That said, the cap, velocity, and mass nerfs p!ss me off

I really wish they would revert these 3 things as there is no purpose behind them.

I have to agree with the sentiments here. At least with the turret boats you get to use better ammo and see bigger numbers while deployed at that range. The added range/missile velocity does nothing to enhance the pilot experience.

I am also very worried about the impact on mission times with the combination of velocity reduction, mass increase, warp speed reduction, and warp acceleration reduction. There are two aspects to this: travel to and from the mission site and local travel within the individual rooms. I don't think there's any way to improve the former situation unless you allowed remote mission turn-in. The local travel is still up in the air. We'll just have to see how well the reduced MJD cool down works for the latter. If the MJD distance was selectable, local travel would be improved overall and maybe recover the time lost in warp.

Edit: Actually looking at the new warp speed/acceleration info, a T3 will probably do laps around a Marauder during mission travel time. If a T3 cuts that in half, is 3x as fast during local movement, and is only 25% slower than a Marauder in kill times I'm not sure why you wouldn't just fly one of those.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4783 - 2013-10-04 22:48:27 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
im still at a loss for words....of how even to describe....this new version of the ship. I cant comprehend their reasoning.

Why would i want to sit still? In order for that to increase my effectiveness, i would need a really good bonus..... but range isnt a bonus, it only negates my immobility. Ok, mjd bonus so i can move around, but at 100k, i am negating my range bonus because i will be out of optimal. Ok i have ewar immunity, well thats only there so that being still isnt as terrible.

Everything on this ship is just to negate the horrible effects of something else on this ship, it seems designed by committee... No coherence.

and 'encouraging' mjd via nerfing the ship so normal speed, abs, and mwds are WAY WAY worse, is just Insulting. The only reason there could be for these nerfs is that using an MJD on this ship is SO OP that everyone is assumed to be doing it - therefore we have to nerf it (even for those who wont use an mjd) But thats not the case here.

Exactly the same reason for all the non-bastion mode nerfs, it will be useless without the useless module.

CCP: what is the purpose of the marauder? What is it supposed to do? What will it excel in that make its massive sp, isk costs and stupid drawbacks and nerfs, worth it such that it is better than other ships in said scenario?

edit: Maybe there are some very niche uses in pvp where you want to spend billions on a ridiculous ship and setup that is only good because its strange. Please dont balance the entire game for alliance tournaments. Thanks.



I still say I love how bastion is.. The range doesn't mean much to me, but oh well.

however, i have said several times that every nerf to the hull was not at all necessary.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4784 - 2013-10-04 23:15:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
Joe Risalo wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
im still at a loss for words....of how even to describe....this new version of the ship. I cant comprehend their reasoning.

Why would i want to sit still? In order for that to increase my effectiveness, i would need a really good bonus..... but range isnt a bonus, it only negates my immobility. Ok, mjd bonus so i can move around, but at 100k, i am negating my range bonus because i will be out of optimal. Ok i have ewar immunity, well thats only there so that being still isnt as terrible.

Everything on this ship is just to negate the horrible effects of something else on this ship, it seems designed by committee... No coherence.

and 'encouraging' mjd via nerfing the ship so normal speed, abs, and mwds are WAY WAY worse, is just Insulting. The only reason there could be for these nerfs is that using an MJD on this ship is SO OP that everyone is assumed to be doing it - therefore we have to nerf it (even for those who wont use an mjd) But thats not the case here.

Exactly the same reason for all the non-bastion mode nerfs, it will be useless without the useless module.

CCP: what is the purpose of the marauder? What is it supposed to do? What will it excel in that make its massive sp, isk costs and stupid drawbacks and nerfs, worth it such that it is better than other ships in said scenario?

edit: Maybe there are some very niche uses in pvp where you want to spend billions on a ridiculous ship and setup that is only good because its strange. Please dont balance the entire game for alliance tournaments. Thanks.



I still say I love how bastion is.. The range doesn't mean much to me, but oh well.

however, i have said several times that every nerf to the hull was not at all necessary.



CCP logic, 'lets make missiles better by making everything else fly slower!' :D
that patch was real fun... X)

ya gotta think bottom up when talking to these guys, it's not when one thing's bad it gets made to match the good stuff, it's when one thing's bad everything else gets made worse so that it looks less bad XD
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#4785 - 2013-10-04 23:55:30 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
im still at a loss for words....of how even to describe....this new version of the ship. I cant comprehend their reasoning.

Why would i want to sit still? In order for that to increase my effectiveness, i would need a really good bonus..... but range isnt a bonus, it only negates my immobility. Ok, mjd bonus so i can move around, but at 100k, i am negating my range bonus because i will be out of optimal. Ok i have ewar immunity, well thats only there so that being still isnt as terrible.

Everything on this ship is just to negate the horrible effects of something else on this ship, it seems designed by committee... No coherence.

and 'encouraging' mjd via nerfing the ship so normal speed, abs, and mwds are WAY WAY worse, is just Insulting. The only reason there could be for these nerfs is that using an MJD on this ship is SO OP that everyone is assumed to be doing it - therefore we have to nerf it (even for those who wont use an mjd) But thats not the case here.

Exactly the same reason for all the non-bastion mode nerfs, it will be useless without the useless module.

CCP: what is the purpose of the marauder? What is it supposed to do? What will it excel in that make its massive sp, isk costs and stupid drawbacks and nerfs, worth it such that it is better than other ships in said scenario?

edit: Maybe there are some very niche uses in pvp where you want to spend billions on a ridiculous ship and setup that is only good because its strange. Please dont balance the entire game for alliance tournaments. Thanks.



I still say I love how bastion is.. The range doesn't mean much to me, but oh well.

however, i have said several times that every nerf to the hull was not at all necessary.


yeah i guess the one thing it DOES have is good solo tank. (although, personally, i dont want good solo tank at expense of rr, thats just me)
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#4786 - 2013-10-05 00:03:28 UTC
Slated for Rubicon

Never tested til TQ.

I love being an alpha tester.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4787 - 2013-10-05 00:08:29 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Slated for Rubicon

Never tested til TQ.

I love being an alpha tester.

Sisi is scheduled to open Monday with these changes.
visitante inferno
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4788 - 2013-10-05 01:17:06 UTC
I feel like the golem got the short end of the stick again... my favorite ship is prolly the crappiest. ohwell. goodthing i cross trained on all of them. also. one thing you mentioned is that they are not meant to out do pirate ships. I somewhat understand your point but at the same time that makes it "not worth my while" to train to t2 ships when i can just use a pirate faction...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4789 - 2013-10-05 01:35:02 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
im still at a loss for words....of how even to describe....this new version of the ship. I cant comprehend their reasoning.

Why would i want to sit still? In order for that to increase my effectiveness, i would need a really good bonus..... but range isnt a bonus, it only negates my immobility. Ok, mjd bonus so i can move around, but at 100k, i am negating my range bonus because i will be out of optimal. Ok i have ewar immunity, well thats only there so that being still isnt as terrible.

Everything on this ship is just to negate the horrible effects of something else on this ship, it seems designed by committee... No coherence.

and 'encouraging' mjd via nerfing the ship so normal speed, abs, and mwds are WAY WAY worse, is just Insulting. The only reason there could be for these nerfs is that using an MJD on this ship is SO OP that everyone is assumed to be doing it - therefore we have to nerf it (even for those who wont use an mjd) But thats not the case here.

Exactly the same reason for all the non-bastion mode nerfs, it will be useless without the useless module.

CCP: what is the purpose of the marauder? What is it supposed to do? What will it excel in that make its massive sp, isk costs and stupid drawbacks and nerfs, worth it such that it is better than other ships in said scenario?

edit: Maybe there are some very niche uses in pvp where you want to spend billions on a ridiculous ship and setup that is only good because its strange. Please dont balance the entire game for alliance tournaments. Thanks.



I still say I love how bastion is.. The range doesn't mean much to me, but oh well.

however, i have said several times that every nerf to the hull was not at all necessary.


yeah i guess the one thing it DOES have is good solo tank. (although, personally, i dont want good solo tank at expense of rr, thats just me)



I agree, which is why I said the hull nerfs were unnecessary.
They could have done everything they've done with bastion, and still buff the hull without making bastion OP.
Sirius Fidelis
Doomheim
#4790 - 2013-10-05 02:56:15 UTC
One of my alliance mates mentioned that if Marauders could cause a "mini escalation" in C4 and/or C3s, then it would give them purpose and people would utilize them. I thought it could be an interesting way to give smaller lower class WH corps something to do in between PVP.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4791 - 2013-10-05 03:12:54 UTC
If they pulled the range bonus stuff and put in some damage increase - that would make this hot but a parked ship shooting farther - that's not too much value for the expense - even against fixed targets (like POCO's and POS's) let alone other ships.
Bogd Khan
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#4792 - 2013-10-05 03:14:53 UTC
I just wonder who will use marauders in null after this? I dont know anyone who would be willing to go in "mini triage" in pve situation like null anom for example. What you do when neutral enters local warps to your site and lights cyno while your in "mini triage"? Just die? This marauder change sounds so stupid... Shuold i reprocess mine? As in marauder is pve ship that cannot be used in pve in future... Just wondering wth to do with marauder and skills that i cannot use in future...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4793 - 2013-10-05 03:37:54 UTC
Bogd Khan wrote:
I just wonder who will use marauders in null after this? I dont know anyone who would be willing to go in "mini triage" in pve situation like null anom for example. What you do when neutral enters local warps to your site and lights cyno while your in "mini triage"? Just die? This marauder change sounds so stupid... Shuold i reprocess mine? As in marauder is pve ship that cannot be used in pve in future... Just wondering wth to do with marauder and skills that i cannot use in future...



With the new warp mechanics, it should take him longer to get to you unless he's in a frig.... maybe cruiser.


However, if he does land in, you've probably had enough time to finish your cycle, or at least be most of the way through it.

That said, the odds of a neutral popping up in local exactly when you bastion is pretty slim... Either they're already there, or you're at least 15 seconds into the cycle.



As far as the rest, I'm thinking the self sustainability will make them a good ship for solo WH, low, and null PVE as you'll be able to tank more and use less ammo.. Not to mention ewar immunity.

I'm thinking they'll be more bang for your buck than they are now.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#4794 - 2013-10-05 03:50:29 UTC
You know, I wonder why CCP never considered to...you know...leave the hulls un-nerfed and aplly those nerfs through the bastion mod directly. Speed / Agility / Drone Control / HP penalties could be shifted to the bastion mod. That way, people that wish to use the bastion mod don't get an OP'ed boat and those that wish to run without it don't get a handicapped and overly expensive T2. It just dosn't make sense to me that they are butchering marauders just to make a new mod balanced.

"Tomahawks?"

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

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

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4795 - 2013-10-05 03:58:34 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, I wonder why CCP never considered to...you know...leave the hulls un-nerfed and aplly those nerfs through the bastion mod directly. Speed / Agility / Drone Control / HP penalties could be shifted to the bastion mod. That way, people that wish to use the bastion mod don't get an OP'ed boat and those that wish to run without it don't get a handicapped and overly expensive T2. It just dosn't make sense to me that they are butchering marauders just to make a new mod balanced.


are you saying fitting penalties, so that when you fit the module you get the nerfs to the hull?

If so, I completely agree, and had considered that.


Take the base hull and buff everything that needs to be buffed, and balance it in a way to where it is fleet compatible.

Then, when you fit a bastion module it comes with a bunch of fitting penalties.


However, I would rather not get a mobility nerf with the bastion module... That's just not fair and only makes these ships less likely to be used with bastion...
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#4796 - 2013-10-05 04:17:04 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, I wonder why CCP never considered to...you know...leave the hulls un-nerfed and aplly those nerfs through the bastion mod directly. Speed / Agility / Drone Control / HP penalties could be shifted to the bastion mod. That way, people that wish to use the bastion mod don't get an OP'ed boat and those that wish to run without it don't get a handicapped and overly expensive T2. It just dosn't make sense to me that they are butchering marauders just to make a new mod balanced.


are you saying fitting penalties, so that when you fit the module you get the nerfs to the hull?

If so, I completely agree, and had considered that.


Take the base hull and buff everything that needs to be buffed, and balance it in a way to where it is fleet compatible.

Then, when you fit a bastion module it comes with a bunch of fitting penalties.


However, I would rather not get a mobility nerf with the bastion module... That's just not fair and only makes these ships less likely to be used with bastion...


Yes, absolutely. As far as what penalties and to their individual degree can be tweaked as we go, but I feel like it would make better sense to first migrate as much of the proposed alterations to the hulls to the bastion module. This would, I think, make the bastion module more of an actual fitting option to consider rather than an absolute necessity.

"Tomahawks?"

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

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

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4797 - 2013-10-05 04:23:37 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, I wonder why CCP never considered to...you know...leave the hulls un-nerfed and aplly those nerfs through the bastion mod directly. Speed / Agility / Drone Control / HP penalties could be shifted to the bastion mod. That way, people that wish to use the bastion mod don't get an OP'ed boat and those that wish to run without it don't get a handicapped and overly expensive T2. It just dosn't make sense to me that they are butchering marauders just to make a new mod balanced.


are you saying fitting penalties, so that when you fit the module you get the nerfs to the hull?

If so, I completely agree, and had considered that.


Take the base hull and buff everything that needs to be buffed, and balance it in a way to where it is fleet compatible.

Then, when you fit a bastion module it comes with a bunch of fitting penalties.


However, I would rather not get a mobility nerf with the bastion module... That's just not fair and only makes these ships less likely to be used with bastion...


Yes, absolutely. As far as what penalties and to their individual degree can be tweaked as we go, but I feel like it would make better sense to first migrate as much of the proposed alterations to the hulls to the bastion module. This would, I think, make the bastion module more of an actual fitting option to consider rather than an absolute necessity.



Agreed.

Also, if we buff the hull and leave bastion alone, then (while the two wouldn't effect each other) you would have a ship that is too versatile because you'd be able to jump from one to another.

So, in giving fitting penalties to bastion to more or less FORCE bastion to be used in most cases, I feel is fair..
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4798 - 2013-10-05 05:02:10 UTC
Its amazing how many pve players are demanding a ship with no drawbacks.
Lair Osen
#4799 - 2013-10-05 06:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lair Osen
baltec1 wrote:
Its amazing how many pve players are demanding a ship with no drawbacks.


More like they don't want their expensive ships nerfed in order to accommodate a module and playstyle that that may be detrimental for their activities for various reason.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4800 - 2013-10-05 06:57:25 UTC
Lair Osen wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Its amazing how many pve players are demanding a ship with no drawbacks.


More like they don't want their expensive ships nerfed in order to accommodate a module and playstyle that that will be detrimental for their activities for various reason.



Not unless it's the module itself that nerfs the hull.

Basically, base hull would be fliable on it's own and fit well into a fleet.
While fitting a bastion would nerf the hull in exchange for what bastion mode provides.

You can essentially equate it to bastion by-passing several on-board systems in order to give itself proper functionality.


Also, this would mean that you have to commit to whichever you fly and can't just have two ships balled up into one at the click of the mouse.



That said, after a long thinking process, I think the bonus to MJD should be given to another ship and leave the Marauder out of it, as it doesn't suit most PVE needs.

Give the bonus to blops, expecially if they're going to be splitting blops into two (which is what I've heard)