These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mer88
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2601 - 2013-09-05 17:14:00 UTC
this might sound silly but can we get a web range bonus also while you are in bastion mode? maybe 200% range ?
Mr Wiklo
CHOAM Directorate
#2602 - 2013-09-05 17:16:14 UTC
Mia Restolo wrote:
I don't know what direction marauders are supposed to be taking any more, and it seems neither does CCP. So many changes coupled with the addition of the bastion module with its set of bonuses doesn't seem to work out while trying to keep all the marauders on even footing for lvl4s, incursions, null PvE, and PvP.

So with proposed changes we have a ship with low mobility that can blink 100km often with range bonuses that seem to push it towards sniping, but then it also gets a massive brick tank and a web bonus that is far more useful point blank. A tractor beam bonus that reaches about half way between the two.

Bastion seems to be in for sure, but I think it should be balanced with itself, not mesh with a nerfed marauder hull or compensate with its shortcomings. FIRST improve the hulls, leave them similar to TQ, retain the fitting buffs, buff sensor strength, maybe T2 resists. THEN do the bastion module pass with much smaller bonuses than currently proposed, maybe even two different modules with one set for defense that nerfs offense and one that does the opposite, or tailored to fighting style (long/short maybe?)

CCP give this guy a job
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#2603 - 2013-09-05 17:19:44 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:
@CCP

I have a question regarding the weapons timer on the bastion module and how this will effect Maruaders.

Currently, the mini-siege cycle is 60secs. Does this weapons timer that comes from activating the module mean that I would have to wait an additional minute of "deaggressing" after the mini-siege cycle ends before I could jump through the gate or dock up?

If this is the case, this will need to be looked at. If I'm forced in a situation where I need to deaggress from the "super awesome" repping of bastion mode because there are to many people or to much incoming DPS, I'm now forced to wait another minute outside of bastion mode....

I believe there is some missing logic there. Especially when you consider the fact that you took away the native repping bonuses from the hulls. Just for some basic comparison, my dual rep armor BS (no native rep hull bonuses)with legion boost and strong exile booster couldn't tank a Cruise phoon, sleipnir, prophecy, 2 caracals, and gate guns. Now you expect me to take a 1bil BS so I can lose that due to lol active tanking and reduced boost efficiency.

Round 3 is waiting CCP, go find it and bring it to us so we can give you guys some praise.


That timer isn't likely to go away, otherwise the only use these ships will see is in Incursions (since they ruined them for anything else by demanding a web bonus) and station games.

We don't need a ship that excels at station games.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#2604 - 2013-09-05 17:20:20 UTC
If one of each marauder activates it's repsective bastionmode in the same tick and all are in the same squad, will they form a revenant?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2605 - 2013-09-05 17:25:31 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
wonders if people realize that with t2 resists, you don't need the repairamoutnbonus anymore...

and that webs is kind of optional like the tractors. Still works fine neglecting those.


Yes because 90% kin resistance helps me defend against sansha amd blood raiders right?


Then choose appropriate hull... It's not that hard.


i would agree, but that would mean changing weapons systems as well. Personally i dont think its a huge deal though, the resists i mean.

No, it's not that bad to work around, but it still leaves the ships with less distinction for having to do so. We're talking about ships that are slower, have weaker sensor strength, lower HP, more mass, less drone flexibility and less DPS than damage focused pirate ships.

The kronos will be the poster child of obsolete any time you want your ship to move. The Paladin's resists mean that for faction specific tanking it gains nothing. And while it's easily made up for, that means you are essentially trading any tank advantage over a nightmare.

Choose the right hull is also a dumb thing to say as it basically is like saying the Paladin shouldn't be used for solo PvE, and we all know the amarr need fewer decent PvE ships. Right?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#2606 - 2013-09-05 17:28:04 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:
Late comer to this thread (been inactive for a while) but these proposed changes look good to me. I still don't see any PvP use for the paladin but the Vargur and Golem should be fairly monstrous if you're willing to spend the isk.

PvE wise, they should all be usable. I see the greatly enhanced tank making them a viable solo lvl5 option. The Vargur can already pull it off but these changes should allow the others to as well. Also, I happen to be a fan of the web bonus on the Paladin, it's very handy.

The MJD bonus is an interesting choice but honestly it feels more like a desperate attempt to make that module useful rather than an attempt at sensible bonuses for the ship. It doesn't serve a PvE purpose and for PvP, you wouldn't take a ship like this into a 50+ man fleet where such a device might be handy. Marauders are a squad level ship at most due to price and RR concerns. In such smaller gangs, you will be scrambled thus making the WJD useless.

MJD's are a very commonly used module for PVE, especially on drone boats.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Xaen
Telepathic Death Mimes
#2607 - 2013-09-05 17:30:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Time for another update.
  • 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.
  • [/list]


    Awwww :(

    That would have been the ultimate blueball maneuver. I was so looking forward to doing it.

    I get shouty crackers a lot. Deal with it.

    Mer88
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #2608 - 2013-09-05 17:32:30 UTC
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    Kagura Nikon wrote:


    Now thigns are better.. Eve is a PVP GAME, all ships that bear weapons should be PVP ships as much as possible.

    It is a sandbox, and by that right I can say F*U to your PVP.
    I don't think asking for one solid, dedicated PVE ship in the hordes of PVP ships out there.


    yeah in this game PVE is also pvp even in high sec, you can get ganked by pirates especially when you are hauling mission loots to sell.
    TheFace Asano
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2609 - 2013-09-05 17:32:31 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    To quote this other post.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We haven't decided on anything regarding Marauders yet regarding web bonuses, remember until release this is an open discussion we're having.

    We will still be running internal tests on both proposed versions on the Marauder thread, as well as some other variations - so consider yourself warned if things evolve in the future.


    And by that we mean, Winter release is still quite some time away, we want to take our time to shape those things right, and see them on public testing before coming up with a final decision. Theory crafting is nice, but they also need to be put into practical situations.


    I would personally like both tested. +1

    In the end I think you need to fold some of the bonus into the Bastion Module, and make 2 versions

    One version for brawling, the other for Range, and let both be fit like a dual prop where only one can be active. Immobile while either module is active.

    Range version:
    Much like the current version, Increase range (+50%) and add damage (+20), + 300% range of tractors (remove from hull bonus) keep EWAR immunity and lighter than original proposal tank. Can deactivate for -100percent range de-buff for 30-60 seconds, cannot recieve RR like original. Tank bonus should be something like +50 percent repper or +20% hp, +10% resist profile. The damage and range +EWAR immunity is the reason to use, plus the ability to turn off. Drawback is severely decreased range for a de-buff if you deactivate or when the cycle ends. Turning the module back on removes de-buff. Cannot activate more than once every 60 seconds.

    Brawling version:
    Increases tracking (30%) and Rate of Fire (20%), add web bonus of 75% increased velocity factor (not on hull), keep EWAR immunity and have the original proposal tank. Cannot deactivate this module for duration or receive RR like original proposal. Draw of this module is highly increased damage potential + huge tank with the inability for targets to run from you. Drawback is your stuck in place for 60 seconds and can be bumped out of alignment and nueted.

    Make the module the star, or people won't use them.

    I really like the painter bonus on the Golem, but I personally feel it should go by by for an explosion radius buff. Also, don't make these ships easier to lock down than the current ships. They are battleships, you don't need to nerf the speed or align times so severely if the module locks you into place for 60 seconds.

    I am have been pretty ok with most of the balance changes, and I have every confidence you will give us something cool to fly, but I just want to make sure that the concept is cohesive, fun and worth using in multiple situations as the original proposal is unique. 2 separate bastion modules would go a long way to help this.
    Ralph King-Griffin
    New Eden Tech Support
    #2610 - 2013-09-05 17:33:10 UTC
    Mr Wiklo wrote:
    Mia Restolo wrote:
    I don't know what direction marauders are supposed to be taking any more, and it seems neither does CCP. So many changes coupled with the addition of the bastion module with its set of bonuses doesn't seem to work out while trying to keep all the marauders on even footing for lvl4s, incursions, null PvE, and PvP.

    So with proposed changes we have a ship with low mobility that can blink 100km often with range bonuses that seem to push it towards sniping, but then it also gets a massive brick tank and a web bonus that is far more useful point blank. A tractor beam bonus that reaches about half way between the two.

    Bastion seems to be in for sure, but I think it should be balanced with itself, not mesh with a nerfed marauder hull or compensate with its shortcomings. FIRST improve the hulls, leave them similar to TQ, retain the fitting buffs, buff sensor strength, maybe T2 resists. THEN do the bastion module pass with much smaller bonuses than currently proposed, maybe even two different modules with one set for defense that nerfs offense and one that does the opposite, or tailored to fighting style (long/short maybe?)

    CCP give this guy a job

    And this man a cookie
    Dave stark
    #2611 - 2013-09-05 17:34:11 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    To quote this other post.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We haven't decided on anything regarding Marauders yet regarding web bonuses, remember until release this is an open discussion we're having.

    We will still be running internal tests on both proposed versions on the Marauder thread, as well as some other variations - so consider yourself warned if things evolve in the future.


    And by that we mean, Winter release is still quite some time away, we want to take our time to shape those things right, and see them on public testing before coming up with a final decision. Theory crafting is nice, but they also need to be put into practical situations.


    is this basically you saying "yeah we haven't got a clue what we want marauders to do, but we've got plenty of time to flip a coin on it"?
    Divi Filus
    New Xenocracy
    #2612 - 2013-09-05 17:34:34 UTC
    MeBiatch wrote:
    Lloyd Roses wrote:
    MeBiatch wrote:
    Lloyd Roses wrote:
    wonders if people realize that with t2 resists, you don't need the repairamoutnbonus anymore...

    and that webs is kind of optional like the tractors. Still works fine neglecting those.


    Yes because 90% kin resistance helps me defend against sansha amd blood raiders right?


    Then choose appropriate hull... It's not that hard.


    right so first iteration I did not have to choose. .. and now...


    I wonder if you realize that roughly half of Sansha and Blood Raider damage is thermal. And that something like, say, the proposed 80% base thermal resist on a Golem—just for example—actually goes quite a long way towards mitigating that damage. Fit two EM Ward Fields and you're good to go. Hell, you could even add an Invul, but it's probably entirely unnecessary because, because Bastion + thermal resist means you'll be tanking way more with the proposed changes than you are now, and very likely using fewer tanking mods to do it.

    To wit: consider a current Golem fit to take on Sanshas (avg. dps: ~52% EM, ~47% thermal). A five-slot tank of 2 EM Ward Field II, 1 Thermic Dissipation Field II, a faction XLSB, and a faction SBA, will net you a tank of 1128.1 EHP/s maximum.

    With the proposed changes, you can drop the Thermic Dissipation Field II, leaving you with a 4-slot tank (plus Bastion mod). Outside of Bastion, your tank will be 944 EHP/s, which is still respectable. But in Bastion, that number jumps to 1887.9 EHP/s, which blows the current Golem out of the water.

    tl;dr proposed changes have superior local tank in Bastion compared with the status quo, regardless of incoming rat damage type. Please complain about something else.
    marVLs
    #2613 - 2013-09-05 17:36:43 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium maybe You can prepare few versions of them (at least 3) then show to public so everyone can say something about what's cool in this idea, and what about this, and what's bad, maybe some cool combinations etc.
    Ralph King-Griffin
    New Eden Tech Support
    #2614 - 2013-09-05 17:37:48 UTC
    Dave Stark wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    To quote this other post.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We haven't decided on anything regarding Marauders yet regarding web bonuses, remember until release this is an open discussion we're having.

    We will still be running internal tests on both proposed versions on the Marauder thread, as well as some other variations - so consider yourself warned if things evolve in the future.


    And by that we mean, Winter release is still quite some time away, we want to take our time to shape those things right, and see them on public testing before coming up with a final decision. Theory crafting is nice, but they also need to be put into practical situations.


    is this basically you saying "yeah we haven't got a clue what we want marauders to do, but we've got plenty of time to flip a coin on it"?

    More of a diplomatic way of saying we haven't a clue how to avoid roving nerds with pitchforks and torches...
    Ivan St
    Doomheim
    #2615 - 2013-09-05 17:38:27 UTC
    Deploy mode?
    That sure is a double- edged sword^^

    Because you are stuck and can't do anything to run away while the 60 second timer is running P
    Sure, you have a better tank and better range, but you aren't able to move and an easy target for anyone who wants to gank you and pve ships tend to have VERY expensive fits and are thus a popular target for gankers

    So a ganker has easy work with the Golem because:

    1) not moving and large target--> receives pretty much full damage

    2) PVE tank (PVE tanks ALWAYS suck at PVP and vice versa)

    3) High alpha strike ships as the Maelstrom or the tornado can tear it apart before concord arrives (most missionrunners are in 0.5 space for the best rewards--> plenty time for the kill till concord arrives)

    4) Cannot escape and even if the timer runs out just when the gankers arrive, you are in a battleship, it needs time to align and speed up for warp

    5) While they gank you, the dps from the rats doesn't just disappear, it adds to the dps of the ganker(s)

    6) Nobody can help you (important in pvp), so I doubt it's gonna be used in fleet battles as it'd be a suicide button (no help from logistics, remember?)


    You sure can use it if you are somewhere in highsec where aren't many people or deep within your alliance's territory, but always consider that you are risking a ship that costs with fit between 1 and 3 billion ISK, depending on how rich/crazy you are
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #2616 - 2013-09-05 17:43:31 UTC
    Kasuko Merin wrote:
    Sssooo they have all kinds of bonuses to make them work better at range and be better at getting to that range...

    ...and a web bonus that can only be applied if you're at short range. Dafuq is with the scattershot bonuses?



    certain people who play incursions used tier many alts to ***** about the loss of the web bonus because they do not want vindicators....

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    Crysantos Callahan
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #2617 - 2013-09-05 17:45:52 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    To quote this other post.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We haven't decided on anything regarding Marauders yet regarding web bonuses, remember until release this is an open discussion we're having.

    We will still be running internal tests on both proposed versions on the Marauder thread, as well as some other variations - so consider yourself warned if things evolve in the future.


    And by that we mean, Winter release is still quite some time away, we want to take our time to shape those things right, and see them on public testing before coming up with a final decision. Theory crafting is nice, but they also need to be put into practical situations.


    What I don't get is why don't you answer the central question people are asking. What role should the marauder fulfill within tiericide? What features do you want to focus on? Once this is clear we can work/discuss together on the best compromise. And maybe you could tackle some questions, e.g. why the paladin gets the stupid resist pattern for its own limited damage pattern with lasers. That would be very helpful, thx
    Dave stark
    #2618 - 2013-09-05 17:46:09 UTC
    MeBiatch wrote:
    Kasuko Merin wrote:
    Sssooo they have all kinds of bonuses to make them work better at range and be better at getting to that range...

    ...and a web bonus that can only be applied if you're at short range. Dafuq is with the scattershot bonuses?



    certain people who play incursions used tier many alts to ***** about the loss of the web bonus because they do not want vindicators....


    well, when a vindicator has more damage, better webs, and an extra mid slot over a kronos... where's the incentive to use a marauder?
    Nano Quantum
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #2619 - 2013-09-05 17:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nano Quantum
    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.

    The changes to the resist profiles seem fair and offset the loss of 30% across in bastion mode for a bit more flexibility.
    The stasis webifier bonus in exchange for the local repair bonus?Beyond the fact that neither bonus is directly related in their role....the only ships that remotely gain from this are the exact ships that currently have them. The Golem and Vargur are getting shorted in this respect. Why not give them racial weapons specific bonuses to damage application rather than stasis web bonuses. How about a sensor strength/scan resolution bonus instead if you are not inclined to put damage based bonuses. That would both make the ships viable PVP platforms if you added that to these changes minus the web bonuses. Also how about an additional 10% tractor range and velocity to offset the base speed nerf for the solo PVE mission people.
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #2620 - 2013-09-05 17:53:04 UTC

    A few thoughts:

    T2 Resists combined with a 30% resist bonus from a bastion is too much.

    A Vargur: DCU, 3x Shield Hardeners, 2x Resist Rigs, Links, has 3 extra mids and 85-90% resists across the board.
    A Golem, DCU, 3x Shield Hardenrs, 1 Resist Rig, Links, has 4 extra mids and 80-90% resists across the board.
    A Kronos, DCU, 3x Hardeners, 2x Resist Rigs, Links, has 3 extra lows and 80-90% resists across the board.
    A Paladin, DCU, 3x Hardeners, 1x Resist Rig, Links, has 4 extra lows and 80-90% resists across the board.

    And these are before any 30% bastion resist bonus.

    Combine this with EWAR Immunity, 82.5% webs, and runnaway MJD's, and these are very hard to hold and tank small fleets.
    Combine with the MJD-Cloak trick (== Fool proof, bubble proof, MWD-Cloak Trick), and you have a mobile Nullsec plex beast.

    In truth, the bastion mode is about damage projection, if I'm understanding your intentions. I fully support the removal of the 30% resist bonus, but perhaps it should be replaced with a 50-100% boost to the range of Skirmish mods (scrams, pts, and webs). This fits with it's damage projection.

    At the end of the day though, the biggest issue these behemoths will have is cap pressure. Without increased cap generation (like triage carriers get), these simply won't have the ability to operate for terribly long. They essentially run their tank off cap boosters, which will run out!