These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 buffs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#121 - 2013-04-07 01:18:51 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
stuff


The ability to run lowsec/ nullsec missions and sites with a isk efficiency (including risk) that makes them equal or slightly above doing the same thing in highsec.

This has nothing to do with Marauders. Your looking for a higher payout on low/null missions. I was under the impression they already have that.

Making these ships run missions even better than they do already will improve them for both low/null and high. So your entire suggestion is counter productive to your own goal.

Or are you suggesting that these ships should be banned from highsec like capitals?

Friends
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#122 - 2013-04-07 12:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
Arronicus wrote:
To mare wrote:
Remove the jam weakness and make them 5 turret/launchers (adjust fittings)

Change the tractor beam bonus to something more useful for pvp


Not a pvp ship.

Marauders are intended to be PvE platforms. If you want more turrets/launchers, less jam weakness, and no tractor beam bonus, fly ANY other battleship. ALL the other battleship roles were built for pvp. This is the one line of battleship not designed for pvp, so leave it alone.

I do not understand why people keep using this argument - as if the original PVE intended focus of the ship was set in stone and would not be subject to any kind of revision by CCP. The game has radically changed in the past 5 years from the time of their first release.

Secondly, no it is not going to be 'left alone' since Marauders are underwhelming and underused for PVE and are today, mostly relegated to churning Level 4s because that is one of the only things it can do with any significant degree of competency.

Their low sensor strength was originally intended to keep their use restricted to PVE but this now works against them as NPC jamming mechanics have changed from fixed-chance to player-based.
Their tractor beam bonus and generous serving of utility high slots for salvaging is now outdated with the introduction of salvage drones and the noctis.

Navy and pirate battleships are favoured over Marauders because they take half as long to train for and deal equal or more DPS. Incursion fleets almost never see any use of Marauders.
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#123 - 2013-04-07 14:43:52 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
supernova ranger wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
stuff


The ability to run lowsec/ nullsec missions and sites with a isk efficiency (including risk) that makes them equal or slightly above doing the same thing in highsec.

This has nothing to do with Marauders. Your looking for a higher payout on low/null missions. I was under the impression they already have that.

Making these ships run missions even better than they do already will improve them for both low/null and high. So your entire suggestion is counter productive to your own goal.

Or are you suggesting that these ships should be banned from highsec like capitals?


At the minimum, they don't have to be any better at running missions and doing pve activities then their T1 counterparts but they have to have the ability to negate a large portion of the risk while doing such in an active pvp environment.

Eve economics is no different then the real world, investment + risk = reward? > the more risk you take the greater the chances you loose your investment and don't receive a reward. This stands true regardless of what play style and activities one decides to enact upon.

Sanctums, station trading, industry, incursions, mission running, wormhole/high/low/null-sec mining, etc. all have risks - be it market fluctuations, competition, things going wrong, or people wanting to blow you up.

So fundamentally, any changes in eve have to be balanced with this factor in mind - be it by higher payout or lower risk as I see those two factors as the only ones that can be changed in this game.
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#124 - 2013-04-08 07:37:17 UTC
Few words adressed to the people, who against fix of marauder's sczner penalty. Your opinion about marauders are pure PvE ships and must have weak sensor strenght is not valid anymore since implementation of massive NPC EWAR. The are two ways pissible:
1. Remove EWAR and then marauders will be fine with it's sensor's strenght
2. Remove marauder's sensor penalty (it is not even buff, it is penalty's removal)
I can not really understand why people against idea to bring in BS hunter/explorer. Don't worry, we don't want to nerf your TenguImagine more fat ships, wich you can kill in low/null/wh ;)
androch
LitlCorp
#125 - 2013-04-08 11:46:27 UTC
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
They really do need a buff; I ran a vargur up on EFT the other day, and found myself severely hurting for pg compared to my mael, for only a bit more falloff. For a close to a billion investment, it's not worth it.



vargur is an autocannon boat, if you are having pg issues you are either

a) severely underskilled
or b: an idiot that tried using artillery
or c.. all of the above

as for the billion investment it has more base resists than the t1 battleships and hits harder
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#126 - 2013-04-08 13:33:03 UTC
androch wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
They really do need a buff; I ran a vargur up on EFT the other day, and found myself severely hurting for pg compared to my mael, for only a bit more falloff. For a close to a billion investment, it's not worth it.



vargur is an autocannon boat, if you are having pg issues you are either

a) severely underskilled
or b: an idiot that tried using artillery
or c.. all of the above

as for the billion investment it has more base resists than the t1 battleships and hits harder


Vargur is marauder there is no such thing as autocannon boat it is all in your imagination and or ignorance...we all will wait for you to discover world beyond l4 mission maybe you will have something that have sense to contribute by that time.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2013-04-08 13:38:46 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
androch wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
They really do need a buff; I ran a vargur up on EFT the other day, and found myself severely hurting for pg compared to my mael, for only a bit more falloff. For a close to a billion investment, it's not worth it.



vargur is an autocannon boat, if you are having pg issues you are either

a) severely underskilled
or b: an idiot that tried using artillery
or c.. all of the above

as for the billion investment it has more base resists than the t1 battleships and hits harder


Vargur is marauder there is no such thing as autocannon boat it is all in your imagination and or ignorance...we all will wait for you to discover world beyond l4 mission maybe you will have something that have sense to contribute by that time.

If one wishes to go off of the recommended certifications for these ships the following becomes true
Kronos: Railguns
Golem: Cruise Missiles (LOL)
Paladin: Beam Lasers
Vargur: Autocannons

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#128 - 2013-04-08 13:49:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Heh i love how you skipped TP operator on vargur too..that make all sense in the world as well as proving that recommendation tab is a must and ultimate truth that we all must follow.

One thing is fitting one thing coz you think is better(torp on a golem) and another thing is you cant choose what to fit (ac or nothing on a vargur)...those are two different things one is you choose on behalf of your skills and knowledge and another one is ship is nerfed you will do what ship can due to limited pg nothing more.

And dude we start quoting mention that hi have issues with vargur pg(true) and got idiot remark........

Maybe i need my morning coffee before i hit this place...















Edit for post below

oh you posted cert,s for no apparent reason or to prove them inaccurate? ...ok i didn't get that...anyway got my coffee il be fine in a few :P

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2013-04-08 13:56:23 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Heh i love how you skipped TP operator on vargur too..that make all sense in the world as well as proving that recommendation tab is a must and ultimate truth that we all must follow.

One thing is fitting one thing coz you think is better(torp on a golem) and another thing is you cant choose what to fit (ac or nothing on a vargur)...those are two different things one is you choose on behalf of your skills and knowledge and another one is ship is nerfed you will do what ship can due to limited pg nothing more.

And dude we start quoting mention that hi have issues with vargur pg(true) and got idiot remark........

Maybe i need my morning coffee before i hit this place...

You need to go back to bed and get some more sleep, never did I say that those were the best options for the ships nor did I say they need to be kept there.
Also I did not bring any e-war certs into light.
The long range turret ships bet bonuses to web strength, the long range missile ships get bonus to the strength of TP which won't hit out to the missile max range, and yes like you said the only close range weapon gets a bonus to TP which can be effective but is more or less pointless.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#130 - 2013-04-08 17:05:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ager Agemo
androch wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
They really do need a buff; I ran a vargur up on EFT the other day, and found myself severely hurting for pg compared to my mael, for only a bit more falloff. For a close to a billion investment, it's not worth it.



vargur is an autocannon boat, if you are having pg issues you are either

a) severely underskilled
or b: an idiot that tried using artillery
or c.. all of the above

as for the billion investment it has more base resists than the t1 battleships and hits harder


the base resists are useless when the base HP its so low the T1 battleship gets more tank, and put it this way. the maelstrom being a ******* t1 ship, can fit both kind of weapons and use them properly, while the vargur can only use autocannons while having a REAL tank lower than that of the maelstrom, autocannons are not very effective on missions, most lvl 4 missions have ranges of well beyond 50 kilometers, sometimes as far as 120kms.

BTW Web bonuses on this "PVE" ships is ******* useless. given mission ranges PVE wise, battleships WILL always kill the puny frigates at any range since idiot npcs fly on straight lines towards you, except for the golem who cannot do anything against anything smaller than a planet.
androch
LitlCorp
#131 - 2013-04-08 19:48:44 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
androch wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
They really do need a buff; I ran a vargur up on EFT the other day, and found myself severely hurting for pg compared to my mael, for only a bit more falloff. For a close to a billion investment, it's not worth it.



vargur is an autocannon boat, if you are having pg issues you are either

a) severely underskilled
or b: an idiot that tried using artillery
or c.. all of the above

as for the billion investment it has more base resists than the t1 battleships and hits harder


the base resists are useless when the base HP its so low the T1 battleship gets more tank, and put it this way. the maelstrom being a ******* t1 ship, can fit both kind of weapons and use them properly, while the vargur can only use autocannons while having a REAL tank lower than that of the maelstrom, autocannons are not very effective on missions, most lvl 4 missions have ranges of well beyond 50 kilometers, sometimes as far as 120kms.

BTW Web bonuses on this "PVE" ships is ******* useless. given mission ranges PVE wise, battleships WILL always kill the puny frigates at any range since idiot npcs fly on straight lines towards you, except for the golem who cannot do anything against anything smaller than a planet.

actually it shares the tank with the malestrom, does over 1200 dps with autocannons and can reach out to 70 km with autocannons, asnd its base resists are better meaning you have more module space to dedicate to tank because holes in your defenses dont have to be plugged with resist mods have you ever tried flying one or are you just a whiny eft warrior that makes assumptions before experiencing them
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#132 - 2013-04-08 21:50:08 UTC
My character unfortunately hasn't had the pleasure of flying one yet, I was looking forward to it (even got the marauder skill up to lvl 4) but I stopped playing the game about a year ago and half ago. I still want to add my voice to the discussion though.

Hmmm, Its hard to decide what sort of adjustments to make to a ship which apparently has no real specific role assigned to it... the write up of it makes it sound like an all in one type of ship, which it clearly isn't...

If I am reading this correctly, the concensus seems to be that this is a solely PvE ship crammed into a PvP universe (sort of like a square peg being crammed into a rectangular hole; it'll fit but is definitely lacking)...

Making it a PvP ship, unbalances it....

I personally like the idea of adding a few bonuses to the scanning/salvage capabilities of the ship... as for buffs to defence... to add my voice to the dialogue, I say only so much where it is a better stand alone ship for soloing missions. (sorry if I can't add any more specifics to it)

The other option to this dilemma, would be to instead of altering the ship to fit to the world, alter the universe a bit to fit the ship...

ie. find a way to make PvE missioning more like PvP. - in which case, a heavier salvage ship that can take care of itself would be desireable to fly.



I noticed another post on this forum about the 'tiericide' of the BS class, are the tech 2 BS going to fall into those catergories as well (battle and combat)?

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
androch
LitlCorp
#133 - 2013-04-09 15:29:46 UTC  |  Edited by: androch
Enya Sparhawk wrote:
My character unfortunately hasn't had the pleasure of flying one yet, I was looking forward to it (even got the marauder skill up to lvl 4) but I stopped playing the game about a year ago and half ago. I still want to add my voice to the discussion though.

Hmmm, Its hard to decide what sort of adjustments to make to a ship which apparently has no real specific role assigned to it... the write up of it makes it sound like an all in one type of ship, which it clearly isn't...

If I am reading this correctly, the concensus seems to be that this is a solely PvE ship crammed into a PvP universe (sort of like a square peg being crammed into a rectangular hole; it'll fit but is definitely lacking)...

Making it a PvP ship, unbalances it....

I personally like the idea of adding a few bonuses to the scanning/salvage capabilities of the ship... as for buffs to defence... to add my voice to the dialogue, I say only so much where it is a better stand alone ship for soloing missions. (sorry if I can't add any more specifics to it)

The other option to this dilemma, would be to instead of altering the ship to fit to the world, alter the universe a bit to fit the ship...

ie. find a way to make PvE missioning more like PvP. - in which case, a heavier salvage ship that can take care of itself would be desireable to fly.







I noticed another post on this forum about the 'tiericide' of the BS class, are the tech 2 BS going to fall into those catergories as well (battle and combat)?

interesting idea but the ship was designed for ratting and level 4 missioning solo nothing more nothing less
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#134 - 2013-04-09 15:31:57 UTC
just thinking maybe the kronos should get a falloff bonus to differentiate it from the vindi and megathron/Navy mega like a big deimos.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Lina Theist
Running out of Space
ExoGenesis Consortium
#135 - 2013-04-09 15:50:28 UTC
warp core + 2 and another turret. Strong ratter for all security standings
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#136 - 2013-04-09 15:59:22 UTC
Quote:
I noticed another post on this forum about the 'tiericide' of the BS class, are the tech 2 BS going to fall into those catergories as well (battle and combat)?

No. T2 ships are not in the programm of tiercide
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#137 - 2013-04-09 17:31:23 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
Quote:
I noticed another post on this forum about the 'tiericide' of the BS class, are the tech 2 BS going to fall into those catergories as well (battle and combat)?

No. T2 ships are not in the programm of tiercide

This says otherwise.

Whoever told you T2 ships will not be rebalanced is an idiot.

Friends
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#138 - 2013-04-09 17:44:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
androch wrote:
Ager Agemo wrote:
androch wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
They really do need a buff; I ran a vargur up on EFT the other day, and found myself severely hurting for pg compared to my mael, for only a bit more falloff. For a close to a billion investment, it's not worth it.



vargur is an autocannon boat, if you are having pg issues you are either

a) severely underskilled
or b: an idiot that tried using artillery
or c.. all of the above

as for the billion investment it has more base resists than the t1 battleships and hits harder


the base resists are useless when the base HP its so low the T1 battleship gets more tank, and put it this way. the maelstrom being a ******* t1 ship, can fit both kind of weapons and use them properly, while the vargur can only use autocannons while having a REAL tank lower than that of the maelstrom, autocannons are not very effective on missions, most lvl 4 missions have ranges of well beyond 50 kilometers, sometimes as far as 120kms.

BTW Web bonuses on this "PVE" ships is ******* useless. given mission ranges PVE wise, battleships WILL always kill the puny frigates at any range since idiot npcs fly on straight lines towards you, except for the golem who cannot do anything against anything smaller than a planet.

actually it shares the tank with the malestrom, does over 1200 dps with autocannons and can reach out to 70 km with autocannons, asnd its base resists are better meaning you have more module space to dedicate to tank because holes in your defenses dont have to be plugged with resist mods have you ever tried flying one or are you just a whiny eft warrior that makes assumptions before experiencing them


it does not share tank with maelstrom, in every situation bar station gaming and tanking tier 1 rats it have weaker tank than mail because it hit points got gutted to accommodate that same boost bonus on top of t 2 resist .

i do understand that back in the day when dinosaurs walked the earth and wow space clone was way to go that this ships wore awesome, mindless npc's going straight line to be killed without no real dmg to throw at you,man that was times.

but after years of changes meta evolved eve evolved too different styles of pve got created and from final.solution to missioning it turn out that other ships can outperform it even tengu was able to put them to shame is certain situational against certain marauders .

also no they are not ratting ships they are l4 ships nothing more no wait they are l4 tanking ships because other ones do everything else better.from doing that l4 via incursions from anoms to pvp all you can do is shout look ma look how i tank this low tier npc,they can't even budge my shield below 90%,but when mom ask but son isn't it like you are wasting all that shield away what's the point?...you shut up ma yo no nothing of video games...

waste of dam fine hulls

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#139 - 2013-04-09 17:54:40 UTC
Deerin wrote:
Didn't read all the pages but I've seen one suggestion popping up frequently

Quote:

Buff ECM strength


The moment you do this, the whole BS warfare will change. BS's with T2 resist line will be nigh unbreakable in a pvp environment with logistics. The only reason they are not being used en-masse for pvp is their low sensor str, and it should stand that way for a good reason.

So, please don't.



yer telling me a marauder has a better tank than a abaddon? a paladin has a better dps output than an abaddon?
what does the paladin have that an abaddon doesnt do = well? besides having a better cap and less lazor drain, the resists KILL a paladin. the tank KILLS a paladin.

the paladin will out rep an abaddon, but you mentioned logi. but, EHP for EHP, the paladin will not out rep an abaddon because of the resists need less hp repper to have the same ammount repaired.

i really dont think you know what you are talking about. i also think you should read the rest of the posts to see what was brought up before.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#140 - 2013-04-09 17:57:14 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
Deerin wrote:
Didn't read all the pages but I've seen one suggestion popping up frequently

Quote:

Buff ECM strength


The moment you do this, the whole BS warfare will change. BS's with T2 resist line will be nigh unbreakable in a pvp environment with logistics. The only reason they are not being used en-masse for pvp is their low sensor str, and it should stand that way for a good reason.

So, please don't.



yer telling me a marauder has a better tank than a abaddon? a paladin has a better dps output than an abaddon?
what does the paladin have that an abaddon doesnt do = well? besides having a better cap and less lazor drain, the resists KILL a paladin. the tank KILLS a paladin.

the paladin will out rep an abaddon, but you mentioned logi. but, EHP for EHP, the paladin will not out rep an abaddon because of the resistance shrugs off damage and makes it need less hp repped to have the same ammount repaired. same dps output, better tank. pound for pound, the abaddon kills the paladin.
do you even fly one or are you just guessing here?

i really dont think you know what you are talking about. i also think you should read the rest of the posts to see what was brought up before.