These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Octoven
Stellar Production
#5901 - 2013-10-16 17:56:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test.
I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.




No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships.


Typical goon response
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#5902 - 2013-10-16 18:02:47 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess.

The reality is that with the third iteration, Marauders are finally the ships the majority of us have been hoping for. I'm not sure if you've been following this from the beginning, but the latest revisions are light years from the original two proposals.

baltec1 wrote:
No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships.

Yeah, I have to concur. These haven't changed so radically that they'll be drastically different from the current Marauders for PvE. If anything, they should be better for PvE.



Not radically different eh...just shows how much of a troll you are.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5903 - 2013-10-16 18:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
to bluntly force their design towards pvp. or static siegea. or capital warfare. or logi obliterating.
instead we get... this other thing...
give them bombs and the ability to lock on to cynos or give me my sp back

Since when were bombs and cynos a criteria for Marauders? These are used outside of null-sec... In any event, Marauders just picked up an extra 4th high slot which doesn't necessarily need to be utilized for Bastion.

Octoven wrote:
Typical goon response

Regardless, he happens to be right.

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Not radically different eh...just shows how much of a troll you are.

Yes, not radically different. Bastion is an entirely optional if so desired.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5904 - 2013-10-16 18:12:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
21 minutes and 30 seconds to move an unplated Paladin 16 jumps. I'd love to compare against TQ but I never really got around to finishing my Marauder training. I will of course have to re-test that time once the mass changes come through.

Anyway, having a bit of experience with battleships and the like but no experience with TQ Marauders, I can say that these proposed changes (especially under Version 3) will be tying up a month or two of my training queue once Gallente Cruiser 5 finishes.

Also, since everyone likes to talk about Pirate Ships vs Marauders, I'm just going to leave this here...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5905 - 2013-10-16 18:24:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Dinsdale Pirannha, since you took offense with my "not radically different" comment, here's a short synopsis of the actual differences:

• Marauders receive partial T2 resists (still superior to any other battleship)
• Marauders still receive the same shield boost and armor repair bonuses
• Marauders all receive one (1) additional high slot, more power grid, the same or more CPU, a net gain in shields/armor/hull, more capacitor, higher capacitor recharge rate, targeting range and scan resolution
• Marauders receive a reduction in mass and signature radius
• Paladin gets a 7.5% optimal range and Kronos gets 10% to falloff (maybe Golem gets something)

What are Marauders giving up?
• Paladin and Kronos lose the 10% stasis web velocity (which was going to be cut to 7.5% anyway)
• Drone bandwidth has been reduced by 50
• Speed and agility have been slightly reduced

The only radical differences (optional) are the new 70% MJD reactivation and Bastion module, but these are both optional. So yes, they're not radically different in that the latest proposed Marauders are better overall. And they're infinitely better with the MJD and Bastion options (emphasis here on "option").

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vendictus Prime
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5906 - 2013-10-16 18:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Vendictus Prime
Simple Solution;

When the changes go live, just let the marauder market tank, don't buy them , don't build them and then CCP might take notice of bad design changes.

Since I started playing Eve, in 2007, I have always understood marauders to be the ultimate PVE battleship but as many have pointed out, a Machariel will run circles around them. As for PVP, I have been in null fleets since before the fall of the NC and no one is going to use these over priced hulls for null PVP to ANY degree. Alliances are not going so provide SRP for BS hulls that are as expensive as capitals, when they can buy and build 5 or 6 T1 battleships hulls for the same price.. especially when taking into consideration the utter crap state of null income potential at all levels, after all the hits to income generation.



1 additional thing, The new Golem stills looks like S*** .
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5907 - 2013-10-16 18:27:57 UTC
Vendictus Prime wrote:
Simple Solution;

When the changes go live, just let the marauder market tank, don't buy them , don't build them and then CCP might take notice of bad design changes.

Since I started playing Eve, in 2007, I have always understood marauders to be the ultimate PVE battleship but as many have pointed out, a Machariel will run circles around them. As for PVP, I have been in null fleets since before the fall of the NC and no one is going to use these over priced hulls for null PVP to ANY degree. Alliances are not going so provide SRP for BS hulls that are as expensive as capitals, when they can buy and build 5 or 6 T1 battleships hulls for the same price.. especially when taking into consideration the utter crap state of null income potential at all levels, after all the hits to income generation.



1 additional thing, The new Golem stills looks like S*** .


nooo!!!! I want to get rid of my marauders!!!! do not listen to this guy!!!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5908 - 2013-10-16 18:31:31 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Vendictus Prime wrote:
Simple Solution;

When the changes go live, just let the marauder market tank, don't buy them , don't build them and then CCP might take notice of bad design changes.

Since I started playing Eve, in 2007, I have always understood marauders to be the ultimate PVE battleship but as many have pointed out, a Machariel will run circles around them. As for PVP, I have been in null fleets since before the fall of the NC and no one is going to use these over priced hulls for null PVP to ANY degree. Alliances are not going so provide SRP for BS hulls that are as expensive as capitals, when they can buy and build 5 or 6 T1 battleships hulls for the same price.. especially when taking into consideration the utter crap state of null income potential at all levels, after all the hits to income generation.



1 additional thing, The new Golem stills looks like S*** .


nooo!!!! I want to get rid of my marauders!!!! do not listen to this guy!!!


Your marauders will definitely continue to sell after this - and maybe you'll have to increase production too.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5909 - 2013-10-16 18:32:13 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess.

The reality is that with the third iteration, Marauders are finally the ships the majority of us have been hoping for. I'm not sure if you've been following this from the beginning, but the latest revisions are light years from the original two proposals.
.


You have been hoping for an useles ship that basically there is no reason to use over a T1 Battleship in PVP since they have less dps and that is worse in PVE than they used to be? Again because PVE is about making money and making money is about having BARELY enough tank and a LOT of dps?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5910 - 2013-10-16 18:34:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You have been hoping for an useles ship that basically there is no reason to use over a T1 Battleship in PVP since they have less dps and that is worse in PVE than they used to be? Again because PVE is about making money and making money is about having BARELY enough tank and a LOT of dps?

Why would you use an uninsurable $1-billion+ ISK hull in PvP? How are they worse in PVE exactly, since the DPS is roughly the same and the applied damage is actually better with some of the new bonuses (and not including the range bonuses with Bastion).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5911 - 2013-10-16 18:38:31 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess.

The reality is that with the third iteration, Marauders are finally the ships the majority of us have been hoping for. I'm not sure if you've been following this from the beginning, but the latest revisions are light years from the original two proposals.
.


You have been hoping for an useles ship that basically there is no reason to use over a T1 Battleship in PVP since they have less dps and that is worse in PVE than they used to be? Again because PVE is about making money and making money is about having BARELY enough tank and a LOT of dps?


Same damage from the guns or slightly better and you can fit them exactly as you do now for pve.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5912 - 2013-10-16 18:41:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Same damage from the guns or slightly better and you can fit them exactly as you do now for pve.

I'd say application damage is probably 25-33% better, at a minimum.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#5913 - 2013-10-16 18:56:19 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha, since you took offense with my "not radically different" comment, here's a short synopsis of the actual differences:

• Marauders receive partial T2 resists (still superior to any other battleship)
• Marauders still receive the same shield boost and armor repair bonuses
• Marauders all receive one (1) additional high slot, more power grid, the same or more CPU, a net gain in shields/armor/hull, more capacitor, higher capacitor recharge rate, targeting range and scan resolution
• Marauders receive a reduction in mass and signature radius
• Paladin gets a 7.5% optimal range and Kronos gets 10% to falloff (maybe Golem gets something)

What are Marauders giving up?
• Paladin and Kronos lose the 10% stasis web velocity (which was going to be cut to 7.5% anyway)
• Drone bandwidth has been reduced by 50
• Speed and agility have been slightly reduced

The only radical differences (optional) are the new 70% MJD reactivation and Bastion module, but these are both optional. So yes, they're not radically different in that the latest proposed Marauders are better overall. And they're infinitely better with the MJD and Bastion options (emphasis here on "option").



The fact that you don't understand the ramifications of losing the web bonus, let alone the other nerfs, and how they far outweigh any bonuses coming to the ships, indicates you are a troll, or really don't have a clue how these boats operate.
Lucidia fern
Bacon.
#5914 - 2013-10-16 18:58:37 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
*Ship Changes*


Seems a little one sided vs Paladin & Golem i must say,
Why the substantial differences in the drone bays yet the paladin cannot keep its characteristically high cap (required for melting things) ?

Might be worth someone with the know how projecting out the full differences between the hulls as i get a strong feeling that they are improperly balanced against each other (maybe not as a result of these changes, but as a result of the original poor design).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5915 - 2013-10-16 19:00:18 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:



The fact that you don't understand the ramifications of losing the web bonus, let alone the other nerfs, and how they far outweigh any bonuses coming to the ships, indicates you are a troll, or really don't have a clue how these boats operate.


So use the vindi which has the web bonus and has more firepower than the old kronos.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#5916 - 2013-10-16 19:04:54 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Same damage from the guns or slightly better and you can fit them exactly as you do now for pve.

I'd say application damage is probably 25-33% better, at a minimum.


if by losing the web bonus you think they can apply dps better...Roll
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5917 - 2013-10-16 19:07:12 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
gascanu wrote:

if by losing the web bonus you think they can apply dps better...Roll


You do, at range.

But if you must have a web then use the vindi, which also happens to have 1902 more base armour HP than the old kronos.
MARKEETTT ALT
Krypteia Operations
#5918 - 2013-10-16 19:11:46 UTC
-snip-
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5919 - 2013-10-16 19:13:57 UTC
MARKEETTT ALT wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
gascanu wrote:

if by losing the web bonus you think they can apply dps better...Roll


You do, at range.

But if you must have a web then use the vindi, which also happens to have 1902 more base armour HP than the old kronos.


8km webs ain't gona help my 30 km blasters.


Yet that same web will help my 80km optimal railguns...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5920 - 2013-10-16 19:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The fact that you don't understand the ramifications of losing the web bonus, let alone the other nerfs, and how they far outweigh any bonuses coming to the ships, indicates you are a troll, or really don't have a clue how these boats operate.

The reality is that the web bonus was getting nerfed to 7.5%, so are you saying that even at 37.5% you can still live with the change? Because I suspect the answer is still no. Is it just the loss of the stasis web or is it the drone bandwidth as well? Because the other modifications (with one or two minor exceptions) are almost overwhelmingly positive on the latest iteration. And the drones were getting nerfed, regardless.

Fine. Adjust the bonuses as follows (this should make everyone happy):

Paladin: Battleship - 5% capacitor, 7.5% stasis web; Marauder - 7.5% optimal, 5% damage, 7.5% armor repair
Golem: Battleship - 10% missile velocity, 5% explosion velocity; Marauder - 5% rate of fire, 10% TP, 7.5% shield boost
Kronos: Battleship - 5% damage, 7.5% stasis web; Marauder - 10% falloff, 7.5% tracking, 7.5% armor repair
Vargur: Battleship - 5% rate of fire, 10% falloff; Marauder - 7.5% tracking, 5% optimal, 7.5% shield boost

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.