These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sp CCP, how is that Marauder as a PvP ship concept working out?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kawaiian Breeze
Doomheim
#101 - 2014-01-04 07:03:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kawaiian Breeze
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Note the word's PvP.
Note the CSM minutes where Yitterbum makes it oh so clear the changes were to make it a PvP ship


The current pvp meta, at least in 0.0 is drone assist. Ishtars, Dominix, Archons. Everywhere. All sentries, even on the chinese server.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#102 - 2014-01-04 09:20:18 UTC
Kawaiian Breeze wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Note the word's PvP.
Note the CSM minutes where Yitterbum makes it oh so clear the changes were to make it a PvP ship


The current pvp meta, at least in 0.0 is drone assist. Ishtars, Dominix, Archons. Everywhere. All sentries, even on the chinese server.

sounds like drone assist is the best balanced thing to use

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#103 - 2014-01-04 13:41:40 UTC
thought this might intrest ye

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#104 - 2014-01-04 20:09:24 UTC
Reading this thread amuses me greatly. So fozzie says marauders are magic in pvp then quotes a few extremely vague figures and says they've dealt damage. I'm so impressed. Meanwhile my torps golem is outclassed by cruise missiles and a stealth bomber gets more range than me when in bastion. That's just dandy.

Rhml golem maybe? is this how desperate it could go? 1000dps for 50s and quite good damage stats.
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc
#105 - 2014-01-04 20:34:27 UTC
The tankiest sub cap in the game is now a kiting ship. Good thinking! Shocked
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#106 - 2014-01-04 20:55:02 UTC
Seeing as how the new RHML was featured prominently for the new Golem, I'd be curious to know what the RHML usage stats (on or off Marauders) have been since Rubicon.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#107 - 2014-01-04 21:03:50 UTC
McBorsk wrote:
The tankiest sub cap in the game is now a kiting ship. Good thinking! Shocked


It's actually using a cruiser weapon with the same raw dps as cruise missiles. Did you know with a rack of estamels you get 829 dps including reloading? Excluding reload its nearly 1700 dps per clip which is applied at 100 sig radius. Ok so not many people will use estamel rhml anyway but its the idea that counts
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2014-01-04 21:29:06 UTC
Marauders shine when it comes to being a brick so hard you'll break your hand punching it and having the grace of an iceberg. None of their advantages - massive active tank namely - apply well in big fleets, because they go immobile in bastion. Immobile targets are easily bombed off the field and outmaneuvered by other fleets.

Plus, large fleets are reliant on RR anyway. Medium/Small gang fights though... yep, that's where Marauders could get interesting and judging by a lot of people doing hilarious things solo on undocks/gates, getting "caught" and slaughtering people they work fairly well now.

If anything, the number of videos that involve solo marauder shenanigans is a good evidence of their success. Solid doctrines take time to shape and in the world of perfect alpha sentries the Marauder with its active tank is at a disadvantage from the start.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#109 - 2014-01-04 21:33:30 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Reading this thread amuses me greatly. So fozzie says marauders are magic in pvp then quotes a few extremely vague figures and says they've dealt damage. I'm so impressed. Meanwhile my torps golem is outclassed by cruise missiles and a stealth bomber gets more range than me when in bastion. That's just dandy.

Rhml golem maybe? is this how desperate it could go? 1000dps for 50s and quite good damage stats.

Didn't you get beaten about the head by a small gang looking and prepared for a scrap as a result of undocking in a derpy pve fit with the wrong ammo and no cap boosters...

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
voetius
Grundrisse
#110 - 2014-01-04 22:06:14 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Reading this thread amuses me greatly. So fozzie says marauders are magic in pvp then quotes a few extremely vague figures and says they've dealt damage. I'm so impressed. Meanwhile my torps golem is outclassed by cruise missiles and a stealth bomber gets more range than me when in bastion. That's just dandy.

Rhml golem maybe? is this how desperate it could go? 1000dps for 50s and quite good damage stats.

Didn't you get beaten about the head by a small gang looking and prepared for a scrap as a result of undocking in a derpy pve fit with the wrong ammo and no cap boosters...


I have no idea whether he did or not but that isn't addressing his point.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#111 - 2014-01-05 18:24:45 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I have not seen or heard of many fleet doctrines including Marauders.
So CCP , can you show me some km's of players using Marauders as a PvP weapon?
And no, 12 Catalysts killing a Vargur does not count.

Looks to me that Yitterbum/Fozzie/Rise's vision for the Marauder, is, as predicted, an utter failure.


I have seen plenty of Marauders being used in 0.0 small gang fights. Some ballsy folks from PL even brought some into Tenal. Made for great fights and great fun.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Dave Stark
#112 - 2014-01-05 18:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rubicon compared to the 12 weeks before Rubicon so we managed to do it all while making highsec Incursions more popular, not less.


also a potentially meaningless stat because shield incursions, the more popular of the incursions, generally don't use marauders to begin with. (because pirate hulls are better, and marauders are still **** for incursions as we told you in your feedback thread)

fozzie could you do us all a favour and stop using statistics without context or actual thought please. it's irritating having to sift through your post to find a number only to find that it has no context nor application.
i mean that's nice that more people are doing incursions; kinda obvious since they're insane isk/hour for almost no input. however, how is the proportion of marauders in armour fleets in comparison to pre rubicon (as i said, you seldom see them in shield fleets)

you know, useful and relevant statistics please.

edit: also 12% more sites being completed doesn't mean incursions are "more popular" it might just mean fleets are running longer with more dedicated players. if there were 12% more players completing incursion sites then you might have an argument for popularity.
also, it could just mean people have stopped closing them early and making pointless drama and you've actually done absolutely nothing to make incursions more popular.
i miss statistics, give me a job at ccp. i'd be awesome at numbers and stuff.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#113 - 2014-01-05 20:01:50 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rubicon compared to the 12 weeks before Rubicon so we managed to do it all while making highsec Incursions more popular, not less.


also a potentially meaningless stat because shield incursions, the more popular of the incursions, generally don't use marauders to begin with. (because pirate hulls are better, and marauders are still **** for incursions as we told you in your feedback thread)

fozzie could you do us all a favour and stop using statistics without context or actual thought please. it's irritating having to sift through your post to find a number only to find that it has no context nor application.
i mean that's nice that more people are doing incursions; kinda obvious since they're insane isk/hour for almost no input. however, how is the proportion of marauders in armour fleets in comparison to pre rubicon (as i said, you seldom see them in shield fleets)

you know, useful and relevant statistics please.

edit: also 12% more sites being completed doesn't mean incursions are "more popular" it might just mean fleets are running longer with more dedicated players. if there were 12% more players completing incursion sites then you might have an argument for popularity.
also, it could just mean people have stopped closing them early and making pointless drama and you've actually done absolutely nothing to make incursions more popular.
i miss statistics, give me a job at ccp. i'd be awesome at numbers and stuff.


I bet you would be 25% to 75% better at providing valid data compared to Fozzie.
Dave Stark
#114 - 2014-01-05 20:07:24 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I bet you would be 25% to 75% better at providing valid data compared to Fozzie.


*shrug* probably, it's what i did at university.
not that i dislike fozzie giving us these stats (i love that he's making the effort); it's just that due to the lack of context etc they are basically useless and tell us nothing. we still end up speculating wildly and we're no more well informed than we were before he posted.

I quite regret not applying for the Statistics job i saw on the CCP website a few months ago. didn't meet half of the experience requirements but still... c'est la vie, i guess.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#115 - 2014-01-05 20:07:32 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I bet you would be 25% to 75% better at providing valid data compared to Fozzie.
You mean “fudge data to match your incorrect preconceptions rather than utterly thrash them the way reality always does”?

Yes, he'd probably be able to do that better than Fozzie, but since Fozzie uses actual data, the results you were hoping for fail to materialise.
Dave Stark
#116 - 2014-01-05 20:08:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I bet you would be 25% to 75% better at providing valid data compared to Fozzie.
You mean “fudge data to match your incorrect preconceptions rather than utterly thrash them the way reality always does”?

Yes, he'd probably be able to do that better than Fozzie, but since Fozzie uses actual data, the results you were hoping for fail to materialise.


fozzie might have actual data, but as i pointed out it hasn't actually told us anything.

12% more incursion sites being completed does not mean incursions are becoming more popular. it just means 12% more sites are being completed; i even listed the reasons that could be, and none of them relate to them being "more popular".
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#117 - 2014-01-05 20:13:53 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I bet you would be 25% to 75% better at providing valid data compared to Fozzie.


*shrug* probably, it's what i did at university.
not that i dislike fozzie giving us these stats (i love that he's making the effort); it's just that due to the lack of context etc they are basically useless and tell us nothing. we still end up speculating wildly and we're no more well informed than we were before he posted.

I quite regret not applying for the Statistics job i saw on the CCP website a few months ago. didn't meet half of the experience requirements but still... c'est la vie, i guess.


I hear you.
Stats are meaningless without he hard data behind them.

I am curious as to what kind of stats background one needs to work at CCP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#118 - 2014-01-05 20:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dave Stark wrote:
fozzie might have actual data, but as i pointed out it hasn't actually told us anything.
He told us enough: that Dinny's supposition that the attempt at making Marauders viable for PvP has failed (but then again, since that supposition was itself based on an incorrect assumption about design intent, that's hardly surprising), and that in spite of an entire (apparently) incursion-specific ship class being “wrecked”, more incursions are being run, which doesn't fit well with the presumption that they're being “thrashed”.

Could the data be more precise? Sure. Does it need to be in order to show that Dinsdale's paranoid delusions once again fail to match up to reality? No.

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I hear you.
Stats are meaningless without he hard data behind them.
You're not hearing him then. Hard data is just as (if not more) meaningless than statistics — what's usually needed is context.
Dave Stark
#119 - 2014-01-05 20:26:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
fozzie might have actual data, but as i pointed out it hasn't actually told us anything.
He told us enough: that Dinny's supposition that the attempt at making Marauders viable for PvP has failed (but then again, since that supposition was itself based on an incorrect assumption about design intent, that's hardly surprising), and that in spite of an entire (apparently) incursion-specific ship class being “wrecked”, more incursions are being run, which doesn't fit well with the presumption that they're being “thrashed”.

Could the data be more precise? Sure. Does it need to be in order to show that Dinsdale's paranoid delusions once again fail to match up to reality? No.


i don't even think that can quite be true.

fozzie told us that more marauders have been destroyed. let's think about this for a moment. just because marauders have been destroyed does not support that they are now better for pvp. a mission runner being ganked is, indeed, involved in pvp. however the marauder that was blown up was not used for pvp, it was being used for pve and it's life simply ended in a pvp activity because ganking happens.

again, context is sorely lacking for any of these statistics to be useful.

if i had the time, i'd gladly look at ccp's statistics just for the joy of it. (not that they'd let me, with all the **** i post i'm sure they'd rather i got hit by a bus). i think there really could be some interesting things to be gleaned from these numbers, but without any context we'll never know.
Dave Stark
#120 - 2014-01-05 20:28:41 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am curious as to what kind of stats background one needs to work at CCP.


judging from the last job posting i saw and didn't apply for, it requires a bit more SQL experience than i have, and a hell of a lot more industry experience than i have.