These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Marauders: Golem Bonus Adjustment

Author
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#21 - 2015-03-25 15:51:20 UTC
I think something that the OP should clarify as a VERY good point to adding this is range.

The target painting bonus on the golem reaches out pitifully short compared to its max cruise missile range, so having it be bonused to the ship rather than as a separate module not only allows for better ranged damage application, you get a free mid or two out of the deal.

I honestly don't see why anyone is up in arms over this. It's a good idea and would be a reasonable change to the ship. +1
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#22 - 2015-03-25 15:54:31 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
This is a request to have the Marauder bonus for target painter effectiveness changed to missile explosion radius, along with a slight slot adjustment. The Golem is the only T2 Marauder that doesn't receive either a rate of fire or damage bonus, so it basically requires all 4 low slots for ballistic control system modules to maximize damage.

With the removal of the target painter bonus, one mid slot can be transferred to a low to allow the fit of a damage control. Unlike tracking computers or tracking enhancers, target painters require constant micromanagement - not too mention that you need 2 painters minimum for an optimal setup. In addition, even with target painters you often need to run a pair of large warhead rigour catalysts in the rigs - which then precludes the use of large core defines field extenders for rigs instead.

Golem Marauder
50% cruise missile and torpedo max velocity
25% cruise missile and torpedo explosion velocity
25% cruise missile and torpedo explosion radius(replaces 50% target painter effectiveness)
37.5% shield booster amount
25mbit drone bandwidth; 50m3 drone bay
8H, 6M(-1), 5L(+1)


I don't agree with your assessment about rig and mid slots, but it should free up another mid for extra shielding or targeting range. As I stated in the above post, having the bonus apply to the hull directly is much more beneficial at longer ranges; something I think you should elaborate on in particular is that point since it's the biggest advantage of rolling damage application bonuses into the hull instead of just the TP.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#23 - 2015-03-25 16:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Donnachadh wrote:
You list the bonus as 25% for explosion radius and that would be horrible, smaller is always better so if you want to push your idea better change that to a -25% bonus.

I thought it was a given that the 25% explosion radius bonus was a negative value...

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

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#24 - 2015-03-25 16:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Double post.

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

Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-03-25 16:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
This is a request to have the Marauder bonus for target painter effectiveness changed to missile explosion radius, along with a slight slot adjustment. The Golem is the only T2 Marauder that doesn't receive either a rate of fire or damage bonus, so it basically requires all 4 low slots for ballistic control system modules to maximize damage.


personal preference here as always but 4 bcu's stacked is not really maximizing. This for any damage mod imo...I don't run more than 3 gyro, mag stab, etc either. Factor in stacking penalty....I generally find a more support-ish mod a better drop in overall.

Why not digging the 1 mid slot for the low. Being nice and tp is removed for your bonus there'd be quite a few mods that would be better off long run if mids stayed the same. Sebo res scripted comes to mind. Faster locks, faster to get targets to fire. Hell...tp. With the boost to missile TP unbonused even after the change would be of more help. Helps your drones kill frig rats faster at any rate.


Well that and ccp tried this trick (well similar slot shifting modification) with scorpion and it didn't make it get much better really. TBH I'd be happier if my 2nd utility high slot was given back and it dropped the new low slot it got. As I found when not jamming my scorpion was pretty decent as a ghetto logi if fit hit the shan (cap booster required for this ofc). What i used the old 2 utility highs for. 1 hull, 1 armour RR. I know from a few runs I was of more use repping peeps than trying to be a dps dealer.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#26 - 2015-03-25 16:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Zan Shiro wrote:
personal preference here as always but 4 bcu's stacked is not really maximizing. This for any damage mod imo...I don't run more than 3 gyro, mag stab, etc either. Factor in stacking penalty....I generally find a more support-ish mod a better drop in overall.

Most PvE fits will have 4 damage modules. I agree that the 4th module doesn't typically add much, but a 4th T2 damage module that gives you an additional 5% is still cheaper than an implant. If missiles had a ballistic enhancement module I would definitely agree that would be more beneficial.

Quote:
Why not digging the 1 mid slot for the low. Being nice and tp is removed for your bonus there'd be quite a few mods that would be better off long run if mids stayed the same. Sebo res scripted comes to mind. Faster locks, faster to get targets to fire. Hell...tp. With the boost to missile TP unbonused even after the change would be of more help. Hopes your drones kill frig rats faster at any rate.

With an extra low you could run a signal amplifier, nanofiber, power diagnostic or even an armor tank.

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

Iain Cariaba
#27 - 2015-03-25 17:12:21 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
With an extra low you could run a signal amplifier, nanofiber, power diagnostic or even an armor tank.

I'm kinda curious how you imagine you could build an effective armor tank out of that without further reducing the DPS that you're already whining about. Last I checked, two modules, allowing that the 5% reduction in DPS by dropping one BCU is acceptable, did not make an effective armor tank.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#28 - 2015-03-25 17:20:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Agondray
As a golem pilot I find this post offensive as it has hurt Twilight's feelings

All ships give up damage when you use the lows for tank

I don't even know where to go about micro management with painters, seriously? do you use auto targeting missiles on your golem?
you know you can move the module layout around that's on the right of your hud right? is pushing F1 to much for you?

I have missiles for F1, painters 1-3 are F2,F3, and F4.

I MJD out to my want and roll my fingers from F1 to F4 and GG
My tank consist of a large shield booster and 2 invul IIs
My lows a DC II and 3 BCU IIs, it doesn't need a damage boost in place of a painting boost, the painting boost mixed with missile is the best thing ever, since like the whole invention of the sliced bread and some other inventions in there.
The TP bonus allows me to go with out the use of drones that die as soon as they are deployed because everything wants to lock on to my lights now, and I can 1 hit frigates with a missile, my full tanked CNR cant do that and you want to make it armor tank for even less DPS?

GTFO of here

Now I have to go attend to twilight and buy her something nice, Ships have feelings to you know...

edit: cathrine give a good point but its still being lazy to be an F1 monkey

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#29 - 2015-03-25 17:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Agondray wrote:
As a golem pilot I find this post offensive as it has hurt Twilight's feelings

Yes, apparently I touched a nerve... I give up. I didn't realize it was heresy to suggest changes to the Golem.

Catherine Laartii wrote:
I think something that the OP should clarify as a VERY good point to adding this is range.

The target painting bonus on the golem reaches out pitifully short compared to its max cruise missile range, so having it be bonused to the ship rather than as a separate module not only allows for better ranged damage application, you get a free mid or two out of the deal.

I honestly don't see why anyone is up in arms over this. It's a good idea and would be a reasonable change to the ship. +1

I appreciate the vote of support. At least someone sees where I was trying to go with this...

Catherine Laartii wrote:
I don't agree with your assessment about rig and mid slots, but it should free up another mid for extra shielding or targeting range. As I stated in the above post, having the bonus apply to the hull directly is much more beneficial at longer ranges; something I think you should elaborate on in particular is that point since it's the biggest advantage of rolling damage application bonuses into the hull instead of just the TP.

Or expanded capacitor booster, etc. I amended the OP with your suggestion (thanks).

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

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#30 - 2015-03-25 18:16:32 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Agondray wrote:
As a golem pilot I find this post offensive as it has hurt Twilight's feelings

Yes, apparently I touched a nerve... I give up. I didn't realize it was heresy to suggest changes to the Golem.


Replacing a flexible TP bonus that scales beyond solo-pve with a exploradius that only affects yourself, overall netting identical results, is just a very meager proposal.

Some people are reluctant to your proposal because some people use/have used the golem for exactly that bonused TP (think of cyno+2 TPs+Dreads to back you up) coupled with a really solid tank ranging from 4k/s to 12k/s depending on your dedication.

Then the comment about Marauders being able to hit within 500m is horsecrap. The Golem can do it because it blows up cruisers to the 350m+ sig required to apply torp damage. Unlike popular believe, any turret marauder will not ever hit a cruiser up-close (<500m), given the cruiserpilot is not a brainless idiot. At that range, the Golem still hits for about full damage.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#31 - 2015-03-25 21:55:49 UTC
Not a fan of changing the Golem EXCEPT with the possibility of addressing what Catherine mentioned, that is the disparity in ranges of TP's and cruise missiles. I've used my Golem for PvE a lot and, while torps can be cool, I have never fitted a single torp launcher to my Golem. The combo of range and application issues plaguing them precludes their use, at least in my opinion, for anything other than SB's or the ever glorious structure grind. This means that, obviously, my Golem makes use of cruise missiles and I have, on rare occasion, noticed the effect of the relatively short TP range. Thus, I do not think it would be entirely out of line to modify the TP bonus to include a range increase as well, nothing stupid but ~10% might not be the worst thing to happen. Also, I just want to mention, that long range cruise missile travel time IS NOT A FUN FEATURE. Missiles are fleet weapons, they're best when they have people working together to maximize their effect, and using long range cruise missiles in a fleet situation can be an exercise in throwing ISK out the space-porthole as you watch your missiles almost hit before you lose lock because the gun boats killed it from the same range instantly.
That concludes todays missile post, if you made it this far thank you and congratulations, you win a cookie. All prizes can be collected in the wreckage of your nearest Dev ship. Big smile Have a nice day
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#32 - 2015-03-25 23:54:36 UTC
A 25% explosion radius bonus + one target painter is roughly equivalent to the effect of a pair of target painters (perhaps a little better). At 100km, target painters are only about 50% effective - so the 25% explosion radius would actually be more beneficial beyond ranges of 100km.

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

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#33 - 2015-03-25 23:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
I've used my Golem for PvE a lot and, while torps can be cool, I have never fitted a single torp launcher to my Golem. The combo of range and application issues plaguing them precludes their use, at least in my opinion, for anything other than SB's or the ever glorious structure grind.

I personally like using torpedoes on my Golem. I prefer the faster rate of fire and damage application is almost as good as cruise missiles. I think the damage application for torpedoes could be improved, but as they're also closely tied to Stealth Bombers, I'm not entirely sure how much can be changed.

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

Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2015-03-26 00:23:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

"Easy mode"? Every other single Marauder does more raw DPS, has more drone capability and can run both a shield or an armour tank. If you run an armour tank on a Golem you give up about 25% of your theoretical DPS. In fact, all the other Marauders can run a shield tank with three passive tracking enhancers for easy "F1" mode. By comparison, with the Golem you need to run rigors and a minimum of 2 target painters just to get decent damage application against cruisers. This is in addition to lead time while you're counting volleys to avoiding losing even more DPS. That's a lot of micromanagement.

And no, target painters do not remedy problems with missile damage application against frigates and drones - regardless of range. You need rigors, target painters and usually webs. With the proposed change, the Golem will have only slightly better base damage application over a Navy Raven. Considering T2 Marauders are supposed to be specialized, this isn't that much of a stretch.


ah yeah easy mode, you can literally drop in to sieg hit anything on grid regardless of range, out tank most things, and force anything off or kill anything if you have good tacklers.

and lets face it why was every working marauder in AT12 a golem, It deals unavoidable damage out to the end of the grid, and has a very sustainable tank and very massive one at that. In not sure why people complain about missiles dealing bad damage to fast and small targets, when larger guns will straight up miss them in most situations.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#35 - 2015-03-26 02:19:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
personal preference here as always but 4 bcu's stacked is not really maximizing. This for any damage mod imo...I don't run more than 3 gyro, mag stab, etc either. Factor in stacking penalty....I generally find a more support-ish mod a better drop in overall.

Most PvE fits will have 4 damage modules. I agree that the 4th module doesn't typically add much, but a 4th T2 damage module that gives you an additional 5% is still cheaper than an implant. If missiles had a ballistic enhancement module I would definitely agree that would be more beneficial.

Quote:
Why not digging the 1 mid slot for the low. Being nice and tp is removed for your bonus there'd be quite a few mods that would be better off long run if mids stayed the same. Sebo res scripted comes to mind. Faster locks, faster to get targets to fire. Hell...tp. With the boost to missile TP unbonused even after the change would be of more help. Hopes your drones kill frig rats faster at any rate.

With an extra low you could run a signal amplifier, nanofiber, power diagnostic or even an armor tank.

You should go for a signal amp instead of that 4th bcu (assuming it would get a 5th low in this instance). I run this setup for my raven and along with two sebos it shoots and targets out past 200km.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#36 - 2015-03-26 02:21:21 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
You should go for a signal amp instead of that 4th bcu (assuming it would get a 5th low in this instance). I run this setup for my raven and along with two sebos it shoots and targets out past 200km.

Possibly. I really abhor cruise missiles at this point in time. It's a combination of the slow rate of fire and long lead time to impact. I'm enjoying torpedoes at the moment, even thought it means using the MJD a bit more.

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

Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-03-26 03:18:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
With an extra low you could run a signal amplifier, nanofiber, power diagnostic or even an armor tank.

I'm kinda curious how you imagine you could build an effective armor tank out of that without further reducing the DPS that you're already whining about. Last I checked, two modules, allowing that the 5% reduction in DPS by dropping one BCU is acceptable, did not make an effective armor tank.


Also needs to consider some other things...

For scorps you get armour mod stack penalty if you boost the armour aspect. Assume vanilla tank setup of 2 X 1600, EANM II and DCU....a type specific will not be so great with stack penalty. Stack penalty gets real fun if armour rigs on boat as well. had one like this as one home snuck an armour rig on the fleet spec. Did not feel any "safer" in it tbh.

jam mods will stack penalty with jam rigs (usually ran with them).

that and I was mentored under more rigid mindsets...either tank by jam mods or tank by armour (rig only jam boosting). Mix the 2, you get a mix that tends to lack all around. Go 1 strict setup...you at least do 1 thing passably.

But that's me again being not liking stacking penalty mindset and looking for better all around options.

Case of his golem idea....I see too much good going on with an extra mid really to not warrant the shift to low. Golem not needing TP would scream passive resist amp heavy fit to me really. Bit of a stacking penalty but if DC hits they won't shut off if you can't login before bastion cycle runs out. In this case I will risk being a hypocrite and say stacking penalty is okay here. But for a good technical reason.

Had a recent bout with CCP's mac os client being rather unreliable past few patches back. I got the mysterious crashes of doom many had. CCP fixed them it seems (yay for you CCP, good job btw)...but what about the next patch or mac's next OS revision says the paranoia I have from many years as an IT professional lol. I fear the DC active hardener shutoff of doom more than stacking penalty in this exception.

I'd give him his TP bonus change tbh...but slots stay the same my caveat here the take away.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-03-26 04:06:07 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
You should go for a signal amp instead of that 4th bcu (assuming it would get a 5th low in this instance). I run this setup for my raven and along with two sebos it shoots and targets out past 200km.

Possibly. I really abhor cruise missiles at this point in time. It's a combination of the slow rate of fire and long lead time to impact. I'm enjoying torpedoes at the moment, even thought it means using the MJD a bit more.


I tend to enjoy them immensely. I negate the issue with timing by remembering how many volleys it takes to kill specific rats, and move on to a new target after that number. It takes less time, actually, and the range means that I barely ever get hit. I can solo lvl 5s in a cheap fit this way reliably.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#39 - 2015-03-26 06:30:56 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Double post.


You lost all your free credibility in my eyes when you complained that you have to micro manage target painters. It's pretty clear you're a lazy mode player that wants easy mode farming.

Please stop trying to take a dump on a wonderful ship.
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#40 - 2015-03-26 07:54:59 UTC
This thread brings up the point that we need a sentry drone marauder.