These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#2361 - 2013-09-05 04:20:13 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Zoe Israfil wrote:
Snip

Now redo the maths for situation A using a 0% Bastion module. You are trying to combine the effect of two changes at once here. One of which was not currently in game and was only in initial proposal stage. So using two different bastion module proposals to argue a single stat change doesn't work.
The T2 resist profile is to compensate for the Rep bonus being lost. Not for both bonuses. And you get another bonus alongside the T2 resists as a result (Currently Webs, and the ships that used to have a web bonus get a different bonus instead if you want to look at it that way)


but those were the two changes proposed so it makes sense to compare them right?

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2362 - 2013-09-05 04:20:22 UTC
With the goal of these ships being to project better damage over longer distances I cant help but feel the web bonus is very out of place being that its a very close range tool. I much preferred the the bonus to the active tank.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2363 - 2013-09-05 04:23:30 UTC
CCP Ytterbium, it would seem many would prefer iteration one with the following changes.
Kronos, give back the web bonus but reduced to 7.5% leave the rest as is.
Paladin, give back the web bonus but reduced to 7.5% leave the rest as is.
Vargur, no one seems to be complaining about the web bonus, but put it where the old TP bonus was.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2364 - 2013-09-05 04:24:20 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:


but those were the two changes proposed so it makes sense to compare them right?

No, because the Bastion resist bonus was removed because CCP felt it was OP in it's own right, in either iteration. They mentioned something about in house thinking it was OP already before they even discussed the T2 resist profile vs rep bonus.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2365 - 2013-09-05 04:25:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Battle Cube
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Ytterbium, it would seem many would prefer iteration one with the following changes.
Kronos, give back the web bonus but reduced to 7.5% leave the rest as is.
Paladin, give back the web bonus but reduced to 7.5% leave the rest as is.
Vargur, no one seems to be complaining about the web bonus, but put it where the old TP bonus was.


as a vargur guy, if we get a web bonus i might use one, but its not a high priority.... and seeing as the big bonus is to range, if i am going to use a marauder i will probably start training amarr because i like tachyons for many situations

that is to say, i already have vargurs on some characters, and one character can use a paladin (but hasnt yet) and i think i will be switching. Just taste no complaint here about one being op or anything.
Oberus MacKenzie
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#2366 - 2013-09-05 04:31:42 UTC
Oberus MacKenzie wrote:
- get rid of the web bonus in favor of some variation of a defense bonus (or if that's not an option at least change golem/vargur to web range for variety)
- change the paladin's capacitor bonus to a damage application bonus (tracking or ROF) to mirror the kronos and vargur
- swap the golem's TP bonus for a built-in explosion radius bonus (5% per level or so) and drop one mid slot for one low slot
- apply T2 resists
- give the bastion mod a mild damage application bonus (20% to tracking, 10% to explosion vel+rad)
- make the bastion module use 25 heavy water per cycle


I'd like to make an addendum or two:
- someone mentioned a probe strength bonus and ability to fit expanded probe launcher, which is a fantastic idea
- get rid of the MJD bonus (great idea for the blackops revision, though!) and make it able to warp out of bubbles (like T3's with an interdiction nullifier)
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#2367 - 2013-09-05 04:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Aglais
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.

We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:


  • Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.

  • We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.

  • Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.


I will change the OP to match the changes.


I do not understand.

So you're tearing out their powerful active tanking ability, but only when they're not using bastion mode?

So now they HAVE to use bastion mode? Regardless of the activity?

AND YOU ARE GIVING THEM ALL WEB BONUSES?!

WHAT

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WHY, THE WEB BONUSES ARE ONLY REALLY VALID ON THE KRONOS. Every time I come back to this thread, I am more and more confused. And I am now most DEFINITELY selling my Golem. Webs will not help a cruise Golem in any way shape or form. PvE or PvP. How are you supposed to USE the webs, anyways? Lock down in bastion mode and just HOPE that the enemy stays in web range long enough for you to crap whatever guns you have over them? Wow, I can't.

I just can't.

Not to mention the web bonus contradicts your "projecting damage" thing because AFAIK, webs only work within 10-14 km and under. And you know what? I think these changes have killed these ships for PvP. Just completely wrecked them. You're not going to see marauders outside of L4s. Hell, I'm probably going to sell mine and buy a CNR. It's cheaper, faster, and not constrained by having to use an utterly bizarre module to rearrange how it sucks.
Patrice Macmahon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2368 - 2013-09-05 04:42:40 UTC
Aglais wrote:
"Only Valid on the Kronos....



Kronos Pilot here... Nope! Not even needed on a valid Kronos.

It's not needed. Not with the range and damage of rails... And we have the PG / CPU to fit our full sized rails without gimping the fit...

Dual Tracking Computers...

 "Much of this is crystallised in our philosophy, or as others call it "the Intaki Faith". We simply call it Ida - the literal translation is "to consider", and is a good description of the Intaki." 
CanI haveyourstuff
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2369 - 2013-09-05 04:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CanI haveyourstuff
Oberus MacKenzie wrote:
- give the bastion mod a mild damage application bonus (20% to tracking, 10% to explosion vel+rad)


GOLEM does not need any 10% explo vel+rad bonus.

GOLEM needs serious large missile velocity bonus, like 100%+ This would make golem useful in pvp and PVE alot more.
It doesnt increase dps but it increases chance to hit alot!


and +1 low slot ffs..

why missiles are not being used in pvp, especially torps and cruises? because they apply damage with huge delay and can be mitigated really easily. Why try to fix it like *********? rather fix it like it's supposed to be.

I mean.. for gods sake we have torpedoe traveling 3500 m/s , crusies 12k m/s
cruises are slowly getting to the point of being useful - torps, far from it and only used on bombers if at all.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#2370 - 2013-09-05 04:45:45 UTC
Patrice Macmahon wrote:
Aglais wrote:
"Only Valid on the Kronos....



Kronos Pilot here... Nope! Not even needed on a valid Kronos.

It's not needed. Not with the range and damage of rails... And we have the PG / CPU to fit our full sized rails without gimping the fit...

Dual Tracking Computers...


Then why the fresh hell did they lose their active tanking bonuses for web strength? This is absolutely bonkers. It doesn't help any of the marauders because long range guns are useful on them. Cruise golems can be off at like 120 kilometers and do whatever and not even need to think about webs. Ever. Torp golems... Still outside of web range.

Do the resistance profiles make up for the loss of the active tank bonus? If yes, I can excuse that. If no, I will have to begin seriously doubting this round of rebalancing and hope to hell that in mid-october there is a Marauders Round II thread.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2371 - 2013-09-05 04:47:35 UTC
Patrice Macmahon wrote:
Aglais wrote:
"Only Valid on the Kronos....



Kronos Pilot here... Nope! Not even needed on a valid Kronos.

It's not needed. Not with the range and damage of rails... And we have the PG / CPU to fit our full sized rails without gimping the fit...

Dual Tracking Computers...


Its only handy with antimatter balsters but most of the time things will be in null range and if we cannot move then its a mostly useless mod.
Jasmine Assasin
The Holy Rollers
#2372 - 2013-09-05 04:48:53 UTC
Darkwolf wrote:


The Golem in particular is disappointing. We now have a propulsion system which moves in units of 100km (MJD), a tractor beam bonus which works out to 40km, a web bonus which works out to 12km, and a weapon system which is either 35-40km or lock range. There is a severe lack of focus going on here.




Yeah, with V1.0 I was really liking the Golem.

V2.0 is a mess. I hope you guys realize how weird this is.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2373 - 2013-09-05 04:52:34 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
ITT: Terrible terrible players that complain they need a tank bonus on top of a 100% rep bonus to run L 4s.

Also, ridiculous hyperbole asking CCP to change nothing rather than do this, as if range, resist, scan res, tank and we immunity bonuses are worse to have than 15% ehp and speed.

baltec1 wrote:
With the goal of these ships being to project better damage over longer distances I cant help but feel the web bonus is very out of place being that its a very close range tool. I much preferred the the bonus to the active tank.

So much fir the hive mind.

That aside it's nice to know it's not just the highsec dwellers that think the new direction is unfocused.
Patrice Macmahon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2374 - 2013-09-05 04:53:56 UTC
Aglais wrote:

Do the resistance profiles make up for the loss of the active tank bonus? If yes, I can excuse that. If no, I will have to begin seriously doubting this round of rebalancing and hope to hell that in mid-october there is a Marauders Round II thread.


It just hit me...

CCP isn't trying to re-invent the Murader: A person engaged in banditry or related activity (Wikipedia).

CCP is trying to turn the Murader into a Siege Tank: Siege Tank

I think we are feeling that on a subconscious level, and we are wholly rejecting it - because it comes at the expense of something we already have.


Now that I have some perspective on this. I would LOVE to see this creation as an ADDITION to my game, not at the EXPENSE of my Murader.


CCP - I'm calling you out.

 "Much of this is crystallised in our philosophy, or as others call it "the Intaki Faith". We simply call it Ida - the literal translation is "to consider", and is a good description of the Intaki." 
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2375 - 2013-09-05 04:54:21 UTC
Patrice Macmahon wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
ITT: Terrible terrible players that complain they need a tank bonus on top of a 100% rep bonus to run L 4s.

Also, ridiculous hyperbole asking CCP to change nothing rather than do this, as if range, resist, scan res, tank and we immunity bonuses are worse to have than 15% ehp and speed.



100% bonus to brick tanking. Which means we can no longer dictate range. The immobile aspect of the siege module is a NERF to a muraders primary defense and damage application system - It's long range.


Forcing us to sit mobile while tanking a while room of agro in order to survive a nasty pocket = slower mission times. Why? We can't dictacte angular velocity or range on our target anymore.

If we are inside or outside the pre-designed orbital of the rat in question, they fly directly away from us or towards us, dopping their angular, allowing us to shoot them for full damage.

Forcing us to sit still to manage incoming damage (brick tanking), severely lowers our DPS output. It's a NERF in DPS in regards to how effective mission running is generally handled.


Against sansha/blood, tracking disruptor immunity is worth far more DPS than the DPS lost from beingstationary. Against other rats, you have your t2 resists in place of the tank bonus.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2376 - 2013-09-05 04:58:49 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

So much fir the hive mind.

That aside it's nice to know it's not just the highsec dwellers that think the new direction is unfocused.


When it comes to mega hulls I have a very keen interest.

The original idea was exciting to me but this latest build is no good. Its just a slower vindi with less DPS without bastion and with it it has less staying power and a useless bonus to a mod that will not be needed at all. If I want a blaster battleship with a web bonus I would use the vindi which is better suited for this task.
Big rEy
Ro Maniacs
Fragsters
#2377 - 2013-09-05 04:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Big rEy
Jasmine Assasin wrote:
Darkwolf wrote:


The Golem in particular is disappointing. We now have a propulsion system which moves in units of 100km (MJD), a tractor beam bonus which works out to 40km, a web bonus which works out to 12km, and a weapon system which is either 35-40km or lock range. There is a severe lack of focus going on here.




Yeah, with V1.0 I was really liking the Golem.

V2.0 is a mess. I hope you guys realize how weird this is.

I hope they do. Instead of web give a bonus to tractor beam on golem. It's a missile/torpedo boat which isn't good for incursions due to the ammo type.
I am a new player and I still don't get it: why a tech II that takes 100 days to get into it, it performs almost the same as a RNI which takes very little time to get in. After one mounth I had an RNI and it would seem that I should stay in it forever because there is nothing much better for L4 in the game.
The only reason to get a marauder it's for "salvaging as you go". That's it!

I Don't always PvP, but when I do...

I Don't always PvP, but when I do...
Patrice Macmahon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2378 - 2013-09-05 04:59:47 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Against sansha/blood, tracking disruptor immunity is worth far more DPS than the DPS lost from beingstationary. Against other rats, you have your t2 resists in place of the tank bonus.



That is a non issue. Extreme range on guns, and the ability to MOVE to lower angular is how you best blood raiders.


The only rats the bastion module EWAR immunity truly helps against are Pithi Jammers. You seriously have to nerf your fit to get a semblance of a work around.

The ability to MOVE helps turret gunners hit their targets more effectively than any other module or boosting service.

 "Much of this is crystallised in our philosophy, or as others call it "the Intaki Faith". We simply call it Ida - the literal translation is "to consider", and is a good description of the Intaki." 
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2379 - 2013-09-05 05:06:32 UTC
It appears that CCP decided to give back web bonuses to allow marauder fleets to try to get rid of ships that try to get closer so that they could scram a fleet member once bastion is down. It kind of make sense, but in this case I'd prefer small web range bonus. That, however, would warrant further reduction of web speed factor bonus (probably). Maybe something like 5% per level bonus to both could work (webs would still require overheating and faction bling, but whatever...).

That said, I feel that this helps noone when it comes to PvE. Maaaybe (some math was done, but not quite sure still about that) those ships will be doing well in logiless 11 man VG fleets (EWar immunity allows you to ignore Niarjas and go straight for Augas and other DPS and that actually can work, although I'm still not sure how competitive those fleets will be), but that's it.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
To mare
Advanced Technology
#2380 - 2013-09-05 05:18:49 UTC
honestly a ship called MARAUDER that focus on defense doesnt make sense to me.