These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#2741 - 2013-09-06 01:23:46 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
This a concept I could support, it is like everyone wins here. But without the power creep.


No, this is still power-creep, and it's crowding the battleship space which is already pretty crowded.
Cade Windstalker
#2742 - 2013-09-06 01:27:53 UTC
Melek D'Ivri wrote:
I will do my best to lower my blood pressure before typing much more, but basically:

Marauders have a long standing tradition of being a tank bonused ship, and yes this new bastion mod is, kinda nice looking, but the 100% bonus to boost/rep is because it's going to have a 0 transversal and be stuck in place. And considering I don't see it replaced with an innate marauder bonus to rep, I'll assume my ships should be sold before prices take a nose dive, while I can still make ISK or break even.

Please for the love of God don't get rid of the tanking bonus. Either that or turn the bastion mod into a 200% bonus to boost/rep.


This is not how tanking works. Battleships in a mission are already taking almost full damage from mission rats, even while moving, unless you're using a prop-mod.

I agree that the hulls should have an innate bonus to tank but because they're tanky ships and shouldn't have to equip Bastion to be tanky, not because them standing still is going to increase damage taken from anything but Dreadnaughts but because having a sub-cap that's defined entirely by a single module seems like a poor idea.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2743 - 2013-09-06 01:28:54 UTC
Melek D'Ivri wrote:
I will do my best to lower my blood pressure before typing much more, but basically:

Marauders have a long standing tradition of being a tank bonused ship, and yes this new bastion mod is, kinda nice looking, but the 100% bonus to boost/rep is because it's going to have a 0 transversal and be stuck in place. And considering I don't see it replaced with an innate marauder bonus to rep, I'll assume my ships should be sold before prices take a nose dive, while I can still make ISK or break even.

Please for the love of God don't get rid of the tanking bonus. Either that or turn the bastion mod into a 200% bonus to boost/rep.


Not an innate boost to the rep amount, no, but the resists are improving, which works out to an effective bonus to rep amount (by reducing the incoming damage).
M1k3y Koontz
THE AESIR.
#2744 - 2013-09-06 01:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
CAS3Y wrote:
Paladin should have the 5 percent capacitor bonus rolled into the base hull and get a tracking bonus instead like the Apoc


^ This, and I don't even fly Amarr unless its required, its just common sense (just like the Vaga speed bonus was rolled in)




Marauders should keep their per level tank bonus so that we get a battleship that can effectively active tank, and the bonuses should be for long range (range bonus + MJD bonus) OR close range bonuses (web bonus, module that freezes Marauder in place)

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Cade Windstalker
#2745 - 2013-09-06 01:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Arrendis wrote:
Not an innate boost to the rep amount, no, but the resists are improving, which works out to an effective bonus to rep amount (by reducing the incoming damage).


Except that that's not the case for PvE. Two of the Marauders are getting a massive boost to tanking most missions, two others are SOL in that respect.

This is not particularly balanced nor does it make current Marauder owners very happy.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2746 - 2013-09-06 01:50:24 UTC
Anyone know if the MJD can be activated in bastion? so i could time the spool up with coming out of bastion?
Tarikan
Anoikis Outlaws
Get Off My Lawn
#2747 - 2013-09-06 01:52:17 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


I am glad to here you are looking into our feedback, I just want to emphasize the fact that taking away the rep bonus on the marauders to give them a web bonus is really not helping the in the style you want the ship to take.

You seem to want the marauder to go into the direction of applying damage at farther ranges and having a very large burst active tank, but adding a web velocity bonus is not, in my humble opinion, helping that direction. realistically you'd fit a T2 or faction web which would give you 10-15km of range without boosts. how does that help the marauder with applying damage farther?

Granted Kronos and Paladin players love their webs, but i have never understood why you would need the webs...what was the gameplay factor for them in PvE?
Cade Windstalker
#2748 - 2013-09-06 01:53:43 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Anyone know if the MJD can be activated in bastion? so i could time the spool up with coming out of bastion?


No, as stated in the OP:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

They also cannot use Micro Jump Drives in that mode.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2749 - 2013-09-06 01:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Battle Cube
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


Whatever you do, please be very explicit about the purpose behind the ships' next iteration bonuses... that is to say, what roles it will play and why its huge isk and sp cost is warranted.

Having it applicable for a wide range of applications.... does lead to balance concerns. If it has wide enough range to be readily compared to pirate, then the marauders sp requirement is not being taken into account. Personally, i would be happy with marauders being generally, if not always, slightly better than pirate. (it seems to me that sp should be more important than isk, this coming from someone who has enough isk)

Otherwise they need to be REALLY good at something. We need to have a reason to use a marauder over using a pirate ship as it seems the pirate will still be generally better for most applications....
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2750 - 2013-09-06 02:01:09 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Not an innate boost to the rep amount, no, but the resists are improving, which works out to an effective bonus to rep amount (by reducing the incoming damage).


Except that that's not the case for PvP. Two of the Marauders are getting a massive boost to tanking most missions, two others are SOL in that respect.

This is not particularly balanced nor does it make current Marauder owners very happy.


honestly if its a huge deal i'll just train for different marauders.
Lair Osen
#2751 - 2013-09-06 02:06:39 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Melek D'Ivri wrote:
I will do my best to lower my blood pressure before typing much more, but basically:

Marauders have a long standing tradition of being a tank bonused ship, and yes this new bastion mod is, kinda nice looking, but the 100% bonus to boost/rep is because it's going to have a 0 transversal and be stuck in place. And considering I don't see it replaced with an innate marauder bonus to rep, I'll assume my ships should be sold before prices take a nose dive, while I can still make ISK or break even.

Please for the love of God don't get rid of the tanking bonus. Either that or turn the bastion mod into a 200% bonus to boost/rep.


This is not how tanking works. Battleships in a mission are already taking almost full damage from mission rats, even while moving, unless you're using a prop-mod.

I agree that the hulls should have an innate bonus to tank but because they're tanky ships and shouldn't have to equip Bastion to be tanky, not because them standing still is going to increase damage taken from anything but Dreadnaughts but because having a sub-cap that's defined entirely by a single module seems like a poor idea.


Theres quite a few T2 ships that can be defined by modules
Stealth Bomber, HIC, Interdictor, BLOPS for example
Oberus MacKenzie
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2752 - 2013-09-06 02:10:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Oberus MacKenzie
Battle Cube wrote:
Whatever you do, please be very explicit about the purpose behind the ships' next iteration bonuses... that is to say, what roles it will play and why its huge isk and sp cost is warranted.

Having it applicable for a wide range of applications.... does lead to balance concerns. If it has wide enough range to be readily compared to pirate, then the marauders sp requirement is not being taken into account. Personally, i would be happy with marauders being generally, if not always, slightly better than pirate. (it seems to me that sp should be more important than isk, this coming from someone who has enough isk)

Otherwise they need to be REALLY good at something. We need to have a reason to use a marauder over using a pirate ship as it seems the pirate will still be generally better for most applications....



Agreed.
A stated focus is needed. At the moment it seems like the marauder changes reduce the ship's potency because it's trying to bridge too wide of a gap. It needs to either be PvE focused or PvP focused, with the other almost as an afterthought.
And they definitely need to be worth the extra training when compared to pirate BS.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2753 - 2013-09-06 02:11:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
My biggest problem with this stands, you're trying to make the Marauders something they've never been simply based on the name of the ship class.

These have never been terribly mobile, nor have they been high on utility. They tank well which is why they're mission ships.

On the other hand the Black Ops already have mobility based bonuses, it synergizes well with their stealthy nature, and CCP have already stated intent to split the class into Bridging and combat roles. Plus we already have one of them with an EWar focus in the Widow.

If you want to propose an entirely new T2 ship class then fine, but do it after CCP have rebalanced the rest of the Battleships and then make a case for why it doesn't step on anything else. As things stand though I feel you're trying to shoe-horn a new ship into a class that isn't really related to your concept and will likely make the Battleship roles rather crowded.


I'm not suggesting that people who already trained for current Marauders would have their SP re-allocated to my proposed Marauders. I'm merely suggesting that the name and class description that Marauders currently have be applied to a new kind of T2 battleship. The current Marauders would then be re-named / described, and all skillpoints currently invested in Marauders would be transferred to the re-named PvE battleships during the patch (IE if you currently have Marauders V, you would end up with Whatever-the-new-BS-class-is V and would continue flying the same ships under a new class name).

So, really all I'm proposing is that the current Marauders (which are not terribly good at their PvE niche-role anyway) be re-named and made to fit their existing role better. As for "what Marauders have historically been," who cares? Historically, what they've been is bad ships. It's time to move on from that and begin a bold new chapter of useful PvE battleshipping.

With regard to "waiting" to add a new class of T2 ship, my question is, "why?" If the current crop of ships doesn't adequately address the kinds of usage models the players want catered to, then the selection of ships should be changed. Qualms like this haven't stopped CCP from re-vamping other ship lines from scratch during the tiericide-- noone suggested that CCP rebalance the Hurricane first and then focus on the Tornado and Cyclone, for example. Trying to cater to all the usage models people want catered to with two T2 battleship hulls would require abominations such as the current blackops ships or Ytterbium's initial proposal here (IE ships that try to specialize in too many things and end up being bad at all of them), while only really addressing one usage model (by making Marauders into a good PvE ship and leaving things at that) just leaves current blackops BS users out in the cold for another development cycle regardless of how they use their ships (since the current blops aren't especially good at combat or gang logistics). Addressing all usage models in one, well-considered pass is clearly the superior approach here, provided CCP have got the man-hours to do so by winter-time (which I think they do, since it's really not all that difficult to tweak ship stats and the required art assets for the PvE ships have apparently already been delivered).

Regardless, I think that given what my proposed new ships would do, it makes perfect sense to put the new battleships into their new classes (Yet-to-be-named "PvE" class, Marauder, Blackops) rather than putting my proposed "new Marauders" and blackops battleships under the same heading, since they would be specialized in very different roles with the only common denominator being that they both have jump drives and are fairly mobile. Blackops with their covops cloaks and logistical focus should form one category, while Marauders with their inability to warp cloaked and perform logistical tasks (and DPS-oriented bonuses) should fall into their own category.
Cade Windstalker
#2754 - 2013-09-06 02:14:59 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
honestly if its a huge deal i'll just train for different marauders.


The purpose of a ship-rebalance should be that every ship has some role, not for 2 out of 4 ships to be demonstrably better than 2 others.

If you're going from just a Paladin to a Kronos you're looking at Gallente Battleships to 5 which is a month and a half. Then T2 Large Hybrids is another 2 months. If you're going from an armor to a shield ship then throw even more time on to that.

The response to the concerns of people who already use these ships should not be "well train one of the others and get over it".
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2755 - 2013-09-06 02:23:01 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
honestly if its a huge deal i'll just train for different marauders.


The purpose of a ship-rebalance should be that every ship has some role, not for 2 out of 4 ships to be demonstrably better than 2 others.

If you're going from just a Paladin to a Kronos you're looking at Gallente Battleships to 5 which is a month and a half. Then T2 Large Hybrids is another 2 months. If you're going from an armor to a shield ship then throw even more time on to that.

The response to the concerns of people who already use these ships should not be "well train one of the others and get over it".


you said it yourself that 2 would be good for rats, while 2 would not...those other 2 are better at omni tanking, which is good for other things. And yes going from one race to another causes a huge problem with weapons training, that there is no doubt.
Flyinghotpocket
Doomheim
#2756 - 2013-09-06 02:24:30 UTC
have the bastion do 50% capacitor reduction on lasors, and put a real bonus on the paladin, you know, like the other battleships.

or give all battleships a 50% reduction in capacitor use HAH,

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Cade Windstalker
#2757 - 2013-09-06 02:26:59 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
I'm not suggesting that people who already trained for current Marauders would have their SP re-allocated to my proposed Marauders. I'm merely suggesting that the name and class description that Marauders currently have be applied to a new kind of T2 battleship. The current Marauders would then be re-named / described, and all skillpoints currently invested in Marauders would be transferred to the re-named PvE battleships during the patch (IE if you currently have Marauders V, you would end up with Whatever-the-new-BS-class-is V and would continue flying the same ships under a new class name).

So, really all I'm proposing is that the current Marauders (which are not terribly good at their PvE niche-role anyway) be re-named and made to fit their existing role better. As for "what Marauders have historically been," who cares? Historically, what they've been is bad ships. It's time to move on from that and begin a bold new chapter of useful PvE battleshipping.

With regard to "waiting" to add a new class of T2 ship, my question is, "why?" If the current crop of ships doesn't adequately address the kinds of usage models the players want catered to, then the selection of ships should be changed. Qualms like this haven't stopped CCP from re-vamping other ship lines from scratch during the tiericide-- noone suggested that CCP rebalance the Hurricane first and then focus on the Tornado and Cyclone, for example. Trying to cater to all the usage models people want catered to with two T2 battleship hulls would require abominations such as the current blackops ships or Ytterbium's initial proposal here (IE ships that try to specialize in too many things and end up being bad at all of them), while only really addressing one usage model (by making Marauders into a good PvE ship and leaving things at that) just leaves current blackops BS users out in the cold for another development cycle regardless of how they use their ships (since the current blops aren't especially good at combat or gang logistics). Addressing all usage models in one, well-considered pass is clearly the superior approach here, provided CCP have got the man-hours to do so by winter-time (which I think they do, since it's really not all that difficult to tweak ship stats and the required art assets for the PvE ships have apparently already been delivered).

Regardless, I think that given what my proposed new ships would do, it makes perfect sense to put the new battleships into their new classes (Yet-to-be-named "PvE" class, Marauder, Blackops) rather than putting my proposed "new Marauders" and blackops battleships under the same heading, since they would be specialized in very different roles with the only common denominator being that they both have jump drives and are fairly mobile. Blackops with their covops cloaks and logistical focus should form one category, while Marauders with their inability to warp cloaked and perform logistical tasks (and DPS-oriented bonuses) should fall into their own category.


Except that Ytterbium's initial point, that having a forced pure PvE ship class is contrary to Eve's emergent nature, is correct. There is absolutely no reason why we can't have tanky T2 battleships that deal a bit less damage but good projection, and the Bastion skill and have them have at least some PvP use even if they're built for PvE.

As for why wait? How about because we have three ship classes to balance and we shouldn't be shoving more ships into an already crowded space until we've determined that there's already room for them in that space. This won't be accomplished until the existing ships have been rebalanced.

For reference here's Ytterbium on where the re-balancing effort stands.

New ships should at the least come after Pirate Battleships and Black-Ops, and for preference after Capitals and T3s as well. If there's space in the meta at that point then it would be a good idea to look at filling it, but not in the middle of re-balancing all the other ships in the same class, that just leads to "but I want MY favorite class to be like that one!!!" which is already what we're seeing a bit of here. Everyone wants Marauders to fit *their* purposes rather than saying "okay, these can be good at Y if something else is good at X".

Plus if I'm reading you correctly your entire argument is that you don't like that these ships are called Marauders... I'm sorry, argue for a renaming *after* they're done balancing things. Personally I'd rather this stay as a thread about the Marauders, not one about you pushing for a new ship class that you want to use the name.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2758 - 2013-09-06 02:27:48 UTC
Incindir Mauser wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

Wanted to just drop and in and say that we're keeping up on feedback and appreciate all the input. We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you. We want to do process a lot of the feedback, do some testing internally and have some more dialogue in the department and after that we'll come back here.

We're definitely running into some problems where these ships are showing potential for a wide range of applications which can lead to balance concerns for some things and obviously can lead to frustration about the ships not being strong enough for others. We want them to be awesome, just like you, and by the time winter comes I think we'll be in a good place.

In the mean time keep up the discussion and you'll hear from us again soon o/


Naturally.

I frankly don't see why it wouldn't make sense just to make a T2 battleship class that does what you want with your Bastion idea.

And it is a good idea. A mini-dread would be a great addition to the T2 line of battleships, just trying to crowbar a new gadget onto a ship that is extremely niche at the moment probably isn't going to end well for the ship class.

If you guys at CCP are insistent on making a buttersheep out of Marauders, I'd basically refit the four racial ship types to play to the racial weapon types that they use.

Webs make sense on shorter range turret based ships, but not medium to long range weapon platforms. Webs on the Kronos, Vargur, and Paladin makes sense. On the Golem, not so much, as with your PvP idea with the MJD/Bastion kiting setup, if something is that close to you, you are likely going to die anyway.

I personally would make a new line of T2 battleships based off the Abbadon, Rohk, Typhoon, and Hyperion models. Give them base T2 resists, the bonus to MJD use, Bastion module with stated EWAR immunity, optimal range + 5% RoF (or a 25-30% bonus to overheating modules), 8 highs 7 turrets, mids and lows that fit racial profiles, and 10% damage per level of Marauders skill to turrets with a local rep bonus coupled that makes sense probably in the 5-7.5% per level.

Or if you really want to get creative, give them all 6 capital turrets with RoF bonuses (NO CITADEL MISSILES! **** last thing we need is another travesty like the Phoenix.).

And there you go, your space seige tank in a nutshell.


i also think it would be intensely fun to have a BS with capital weapons. Would be fun for the ship, good for industry for the parts and ammo, good stuff. I suggested a possibility earlier that the bastion module should simply enable capital modules that are equiped (but otherwise have little effect) this way bastion mode could have bonuses or effects that dont multiply the regular version, so the regular version doesnt have to be nerfed for bastion mode to have something
Cade Windstalker
#2759 - 2013-09-06 02:31:14 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
you said it yourself that 2 would be good for rats, while 2 would not...those other 2 are better at omni tanking, which is good for other things. And yes going from one race to another causes a huge problem with weapons training, that there is no doubt.


Except that you can still tank the other two for omni-damage fairly easily, they're just even better at most missions, which is historically what the Marauders have been great at.

I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't also losing the local repair bonus on the hull. At that point you're flat nerfing the mission tank of two of these hulls while giving the other two a massive buff.

The full T2 resists are great for Incursions and Wormholes, but the loss of local repair capacity hurts the other two for missions massively.

I want to be clear here, I am not arguing for the full T2 resists to go away. If CCP thinks those are balanced then by all means, I'll love flying a Kronos in Incursions, but I also think they need to keep the local repair bonus so the Paladin and Vargur don't get screwed over for regular missioning since that's most of what these hulls are already doing.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#2760 - 2013-09-06 02:36:50 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
i also think it would be intensely fun to have a BS with capital weapons. Would be fun for the ship, good for industry for the parts and ammo, good stuff. I suggested a possibility earlier that the bastion module should simply enable capital modules that are equiped (but otherwise have little effect) this way bastion mode could have bonuses or effects that dont multiply the regular version, so the regular version doesnt have to be nerfed for bastion mode to have something

How are capital weapons fun? Especially on a battleship... If you're fighting other capital ships, and you need to be stationary to use the capital guns, then you're a free kill for any dreadnaught. The only thing capital guns on a battleship would do would make them high-sec POS bashers. And last I checked, POS bashing was pretty boring.