These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Underwhelming. Fix Ideas
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#141 - 2012-03-03 04:41:26 UTC
Marauders are built on a very bad design choice. No ship in EVE should be designed specifically around PvE. They should remove them from the game and refund SPs in them.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#142 - 2012-03-03 05:54:57 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Like you've stated with your kronos, it handles just fine because you face up against serpentis missions most of the time. That works perfect because you're using a gallente ship for gallente missions. However, come to Caldari space and try to use any Marauders for Guristas missions. So, if you take a Golem into Caldari missions, you pretty much can't do them. However, no Marauders can due to the jamming. You'll also face problem running Amarr missions in any Marauder. Now, in the Amarr case, they suffer more because they rely on that cap for tank and dps, where as the other Marauders don't rely on cap as much for dps. However, they're massive ships, so if they're getting cap neuted or drained, then they become a very large, easy to kill target because they rely heavily on their tank.


To be perfectly fair on the caldari missions, 90% of all other ships have the same issues in them, Guristas jamming is a pita for every ship mainly because it doesnt seem to want to play by all the regular rules. and unless you are running a drone ship you arent going to be able to kill them quickly. but that golem has an advantage over my kronos in Guristas missions FOF, which i know suck, but you can still do something. one of the big issues with missile ships though is they kinda suck sometimes.

Joe Risalo wrote:

Gallente missions and probably minmatar missions are kinda the easier missions. I can come into gallente and run serpentis missions in my golem all day long and not have any problems apart from high dps in certain missions.

Now, this brings me back to one of my initial comments on Marauders.

The problem with Marauders isn't so much the ships themselves. The only true issue I see with Marauders is the fact that they have a very large sig radius, so they get hit pretty hard, thus negating the bonus tank. This can be solved one of two ways. 1) Give them a better tanking bonus 2) Reduce their sig radius, and in the case of the golem, get rid of the stupid penalties for t1 missiles.

When it comes to their targetting issues, this falls on the missions. Gallente missions are easy cause they don't jam, and don't drain cap. So if you remove the jamming and cap neuting from missions, then they'll be able to do missions for all races better.


Serpentis do dampen, Angels Target paint, everyone webs, why not remove all ewar from missions? how about shooting? surely missions would be a lot easier if they didnt shoot so much....

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.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#143 - 2012-03-03 06:01:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kusum Fawn
Xorv wrote:

y is ther minin ?
y u have hauler
y is game not MW3?

OLY PEOLPE SHOOTY IS ALLOWED



Thank you Sir for your valued input.

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.
Pidgeon Saissore
Tyrant's
Short Bus Syndicate
#144 - 2012-03-03 20:28:42 UTC
When comparing marauders even to basic battleships I don't see an advantage for a straight fight, to say nothing about pirate ones. What I think they need to correct this is as follows

+1 mid and low slot -1 high. This will make it equal in total slots to other battleships and the third high isn't used much anyway

+10% to all resists. Even the basic battleship has more base hp then a marauder and this will offset that

+20% to locking speed. This will simply make it even and it is the sensor strength that will still be the drawback.
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#145 - 2012-03-03 22:44:49 UTC
@Pidgeon
No

There is no reason whatsoever that marauders should have any drawbacks. None. Your minus 1 high slot would **** off a lot of people who like to salvage on the go, also.

Current changes that need implemented are here in case any new comers skipped some pages.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2012-03-03 23:21:08 UTC
Pidgeon. It's probably important for you to know that m3talc0re X has perfect ideas that are completely balanced and that all other ideas are pointless because they are not like his or his ideas.

m3talc0re X is also infallible and awesome.
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#147 - 2012-03-04 04:40:33 UTC
Damn right
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2012-03-04 10:35:03 UTC
and it seems completely impervious to sarcasm
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#149 - 2012-03-04 11:14:48 UTC
Women be my kryptonite :(
Kitt JT
True North.
#150 - 2012-03-04 15:10:08 UTC
Personally, my biggest belief with marauders is the lack of a proper damage boost.

For example:

I've used a raven to rat for a very long time.
I've often thought about getting a golem, but the golem doesn't actually put out any more raw damage than a raven. (granted it does have a tp and exp velocity bonus, but the raw damage is the same)

So I'd end up spending ~1b so i could salvage slightly quicker

By the same token, i've thought of getting a pally

But the paladin is overshadowed by the bhaal (4 lasers + web bonus)
And it lacks the optimal bonus the apoc gets :(
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#151 - 2012-03-04 15:38:20 UTC
Paladin will out damage a Bhaalgorn, both have the 100% damage bonus, paladin has web strength vs range, but paladin also gets a 7.5% bonus on top of the other. Nightmare is the one spanking the Paladin. I think I may get a Golem in a few months (skill queue XD) and try it out with t2 torps. I may get one and try it with cruise for the hell of it, but I can't use t2 torps yet.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#152 - 2012-03-05 03:05:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
m3talc0re X wrote:
Paladin will out damage a Bhaalgorn, both have the 100% damage bonus, paladin has web strength vs range, but paladin also gets a 7.5% bonus on top of the other. Nightmare is the one spanking the Paladin. I think I may get a Golem in a few months (skill queue XD) and try it out with t2 torps. I may get one and try it with cruise for the hell of it, but I can't use t2 torps yet.


When you get into the golem you are going to NEED t2 torpedo because you'll need the javelins. You also need to have missile projection and missile bombardment to lvl 5. You will also need both rig slots to be t2 range rigs. If you don't have every bit of that, then you wont be able to hit the battleships orbiting at Max range. Unless you wanna use a burner or mwd. In which case you can chase them down, but I always hated chasing, so I went with range.
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#153 - 2012-03-05 03:24:37 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
m3talc0re X wrote:
Paladin will out damage a Bhaalgorn, both have the 100% damage bonus, paladin has web strength vs range, but paladin also gets a 7.5% bonus on top of the other. Nightmare is the one spanking the Paladin. I think I may get a Golem in a few months (skill queue XD) and try it out with t2 torps. I may get one and try it with cruise for the hell of it, but I can't use t2 torps yet.


When you get into the golem you are going to NEED t2 torpedo because you'll need the javelins. You also need to have missile projection and missile bombardment to lvl 5. You will also need both rig slots to be t2 range rigs. If you don't have every bit of that, then you wont be able to hit the battleships orbiting at Max range. Unless you wanna use a burner or mwd. In which case you can chase them down, but I always hated chasing, so I went with range.


That's why I'm having to wait on them :P I've got like a month and a half of Int/Mem skills to finish up, then respec back to Perc/Will and probably work on some more of my missile skills. I have a whole 4.7 mill sp in Missiles and can only use t2 heavies and cruise. My other char was heavily missile based and I didn't really bother with them much on this char. But yeah, this aint my first rodeo :P
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#154 - 2012-03-05 07:32:09 UTC
m3talc0re X wrote:

That's why I'm having to wait on them :P I've got like a month and a half of Int/Mem skills to finish up, then respec back to Perc/Will and probably work on some more of my missile skills. I have a whole 4.7 mill sp in Missiles and can only use t2 heavies and cruise. My other char was heavily missile based and I didn't really bother with them much on this char. But yeah, this aint my first rodeo :P


I figured you knew that already, but I stated anyway just to explain how skill intensive Marauders are apart from the required skills to fly the ship. I personally can't think of any other ship in the game that requires the same amount of intense support skills as the golem. I fly Caldari and most of what I've flown can be done with t1 launchers, t1 rigs, and in some cases, even a t1 tank.
Try doing any of that in a Golem and you're boned. Hell, you'd probably be pretty boned in a golem if you even tried to use t1 drones.


Now, I had a thought on what might solve the problem with Marauders and make them the kings of pve like they should be.
This might be a contraversial idea, but I really do think it would solve a LOT of problems.

Make Marauders immune to all types of electronic warfare from NPCS ONLY. This means they can't be jammed, dampened, webbed, painted, scrambled, neuted, disrupted, or whatever else, but ONLY by npcs. If you do this, then you could weaken their sensor strength even more to ensure they weren't used in pvp. Even though it might not make sense that they're immune to npcs and not players, it's still something that would help Marauders do what they're good at. If you made this happen, then perhaps Marauders would be good at incursions, lvl 5's, and possibly even sleepers cause as they sit now Marauders are almost worthless in these conditions, but again, them being purely pve ships, they should shine in all types of pve, and this might help.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2012-03-05 08:49:41 UTC
EWAR immunity was one of my original suggestions. I however suggested a blanket EWAR immunity for the simple reason that CCP are looking at giving electronic attack frigates (EAf's) the ability to ignore this immunity. So, having a sub capital ship that was also immune would give EAF's much higher value as they would be required to tackle and EWAR a marauder. The EWAR immunity also makes marauders the low sec PvE ship of choice as you would only really be threatened by EAF's and HIC's. 
This is all just assuming that CCP give EAF's a bonus to ignore EWAR immunity. 
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-03-05 10:09:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Spugg Galdon wrote:
EWAR immunity was one of my original suggestions. I however suggested a blanket EWAR immunity for the simple reason that CCP are looking at giving electronic attack frigates (EAf's) the ability to ignore this immunity. So, having a sub capital ship that was also immune would give EAF's much higher value as they would be required to tackle and EWAR a marauder. The EWAR immunity also makes marauders the low sec PvE ship of choice as you would only really be threatened by EAF's and HIC's. 
This is all just assuming that CCP give EAF's a bonus to ignore EWAR immunity. 


Yeah, but at the same time there are a lot of people that would like too keep marauders as they are, as in being purely pve ships. Plus it would seem a bit unfair to everyone else that they're immune to ewar from everything except eaf's and hic's assuming they get the bonus you're suggesting.

While I would like to see marauders in pvp just cause it would be fun, I could see where it would cause some balancing issues and they'd end up getting nerfed out the @ss and end up sucking in pve all over again.

So with that in mind, I'd simply just like to see them immune to npc ewar. You could narrow it down to the computer systems being so sophisticated that they're able to negate ewar coming form npc ships, which are more generic. However, when it comes to other player ships, their computer systems are actually tied into their neural system as well as having a much more advanced computer system than npc ships which don't have a user tied into the interface, thus making it impossible to negate the ewar, so Marauders can't negate ewar from them.

Just a thought...
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2012-03-05 15:26:24 UTC
However if CCP gives EAF's the ability to ignore EWAR immunity would it not add value to EAF's to give them more use outside of capital ship fleets by giving the EWAR immunity bonus to some select few sub capital hulls. 
m3talc0re X
The Motley Crew of Disorder
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#158 - 2012-03-05 16:05:02 UTC
If EAF's have the ability to ignore ewar immunity, then I might could understand having ewar immunity on Marauders... maybe... But you gotta look at everything else on the marauders, too. Like Joe said, this could lead to some serious balance issues. Also, ewar immunity is kind of just a band-aid solution for marauders in missions when they really just need their sensor strengths buffed.

I think more along the lines of make minimal buffs and changes. You know, just a bit to really make a difference without causing too much risk for balance issues. If it's still not enough or if more issues become apparent, then work on those and/or buff just a little more to get over that little hill. I don't want to say "hey, f*** it" and just throw everything at it, OP'ing it to all hell, screwing **** up for a while until it can be rebalanced probably to have it nerfed to hell again, because again, people want to go the all or nothing route.

This is why I am sticking to my original (and occasionally modified) list of changes. They're not game changing. They're simple buffs to bring the marauders up a notch. If it still needs more after that, then we could look into them more and see what else they need. With the buffs and all I've listed, you may step back and think the ewar immunity may be not needed or too much, get me? I'm not being egotistical. I really don't have an ego, things like that don't bother me and I'll be the first to admit to a mistake. But some of the things some people have said on here are unreasonable. If we could even get CCP to at least just give us these minimal buffs, the marauders could be a lot better than they are now and some of your (everyone as a whole) ideas of what needs changed could be put to rest.

Start small, see where it takes us.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2012-03-05 17:05:36 UTC
I'm not so sure about the start small approach. I feel that it's over cautious and achieves very little.

I remember a while back when Company of Heroes was getting a major rebalancing patch. The developers researched the mothod of balancing and found that the most efficient way of balancing was to go "all out" and overpower units that were useless and then look at bringing them back down to earth to achieve a balanced end product. This is obviously done "in house" and all testing was carried out and the final balanced product was pushed out in the patch for the game.

Cautious "creep" buffing doesn't really achieve much as things end up being given a little buff and then just ignored as the attitude becomes "that'll do" and "job done, next...." without actually finishing the balancing. Look at Hybrids. This is what happened and all balancing seems to have moved on. They were given a nudge in the right direction and then it was a case of "that'll do!"
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#160 - 2012-03-05 17:21:45 UTC
m3talc0re X wrote:
If EAF's have the ability to ignore ewar immunity, then I might could understand having ewar immunity on Marauders... maybe... But you gotta look at everything else on the marauders, too. Like Joe said, this could lead to some serious balance issues. Also, ewar immunity is kind of just a band-aid solution for marauders in missions when they really just need their sensor strengths buffed.

I think more along the lines of make minimal buffs and changes. You know, just a bit to really make a difference without causing too much risk for balance issues. If it's still not enough or if more issues become apparent, then work on those and/or buff just a little more to get over that little hill. I don't want to say "hey, f*** it" and just throw everything at it, OP'ing it to all hell, screwing **** up for a while until it can be rebalanced probably to have it nerfed to hell again, because again, people want to go the all or nothing route.

This is why I am sticking to my original (and occasionally modified) list of changes. They're not game changing. They're simple buffs to bring the marauders up a notch. If it still needs more after that, then we could look into them more and see what else they need. With the buffs and all I've listed, you may step back and think the ewar immunity may be not needed or too much, get me? I'm not being egotistical. I really don't have an ego, things like that don't bother me and I'll be the first to admit to a mistake. But some of the things some people have said on here are unreasonable. If we could even get CCP to at least just give us these minimal buffs, the marauders could be a lot better than they are now and some of your (everyone as a whole) ideas of what needs changed could be put to rest.

Start small, see where it takes us.


Well, to be honest, I think that the ewar immunity to npcs is actually a really good fix for Marauders. Basically, the way it sits now, Marauders are pretty much boned against any type of ewar.

Lets break it down. If a marauder gets any jamming, it's boned because it'll be perma jammed. If it get painted it's boned, cause it's already so big. If it gets webbed, it could possibly suck, expecially since the webbing ships are typically close up. If it get scrammed, then it's boned cause Marauders can't hang for very long. If they get cap neuted or drained, then they're really hurting because Marauders rely on that cap probably more so than most other ships. If it gets dampened it's not only boned on range, but it'll take forever for it to target something, and they're pretty weak against dampening as well.

So, making Marauders immune to non-pod controlled ships (i.e. npcs) then it would actually help them out a LOT. Like I also said, it'll make them the kings of pve and usable possibly in lvl 5's, incursions, sleepers, and other difficult pve situations. As they are right now, they can barely hang in lvl 4's.

The other things they might need is a boost tractor and salvage, just so they can be back where they were intended when they were created before the noctis. Then you can give them a boost to scan res, which will help their targetting speed, but without a boost to sensor strength, this won't effect their pvp use.

I actually feel that making them immune to ewar from non-pod controlled ships is exactly what they need to make them the kings in most pve situations.