Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ehhh..... Maybe. Personally when I hear that I think ABCs and what an OP'd nightmare those became. But on a less kneejerk response, would a 1Bil+ T2 BS really be a practical choice for blasting at caps, structures, and massively webbed/painted targets. Other than WHs I really don't see a whole lotta use for that when you could just use a Dread instead. Which would be cheaper, tankier, and able cyno around the map as needed. The idea might work for some sort of T1 battleship, but then you are running into issues of power creep with welp fleets of XL-Weapon using BSs flying around smashing structures left and right.

well, i understand you ccp guys want set t2 BS have same level as HA resists.

and i strangly agree that.

but, as it is much expensive than HA, only give it 100% repair and immune EW is not change too much,

let's have a compare:

AF have 210% ehp than frigat without any equipment

and almost 130% dps with full equipment than frigat

HA have 130% ehp than cruiser without any equip

it got around 150% dps with full equip than cruiser

same as bc and command.

and now, you just set Marauder got high ehp and self repair, but no dps buff, don't think fire range buff is dps, it just make ppl more comfortable shoot

i know you want pirate bs got more dps than Marauder, same as frigat and cruiser and bc. their pirate ship have more useful on speed/ ehp/ less weapon but same damage ( maybe bit higher). Marauder just almost smae

I'm about 20 days away from finishing my training for the Golem and you are trying to change the role of the damn ship? I mean seriously? Make a new class of BS for this ridiculous .

**** EDITED DUE TO WORK A ROUNDS **** ( ISD FLIDAIS )

I really think the removal of the bastion tank bonus and the active tank bonus are a huge mistake. I also don't agree that the web bonus is necessary for this class of ship, and it certainly does not mesh well with the optimal/falloff/missile velocity bonuses considering that it's a web strength bonus, not a web range bonus (which would be vastly more useful).

Ok, first let me get this out of the way: I don't really have that much confidence in Ytterbium as a game designer, period. I've never seen a proposal from him that struck me as a particularly good idea and a lot of the things he says lead me to believe he's not really very in-touch with how this game is played. I don't want this to read like too much of a callout post, but I'll just say I pretty consistently disagree with the way he frames things and with his priorities.

Ytterbium's notion that he can make a ship that excels at both PvP and PvE without being overpowered in either role is a good example of a poorly-conceived idea. I do agree with him that it would be nice and in-keeping with CCP's design philosophies for EVE if it were possible to make such a ship, but unfortunately EVE isn't perfect and doesn't always live up to it's philosophical design goals. PvE, especially in its common form-- missions and anomalies-- is, at a very fundamental level, different from PvP. The majority of PvE content in this game is fundamentally repetitive, predictable, controllable, static (all the combat takes place within static "rooms") and designed to be reliably handled by a single player instance after instance.

By way of contrast, PvP in EVE is none of these things: the numbers of players involved varies dramatically and is unpredictable and combat is fundamentally dynamic (as people constantly maneuver to optimize DPS/ewar application and/or try to engage and disengage at will).

PvP ships must by definition be flexible because they encounter vast numbers of combat scenarios. Ships used for the majority of PvE want to excel at a specific and predictable task. There is no way to design a ship that is both specialized for ratting and excellent at PvP, because the two activities hinge on fundamentally different mechanics: a mission or anomaly runner does not care if their ship is fast, slow, or immobile because rats are content to simply sit there orbiting at a textbook range and take damage until they are dead. Anomalies and missions are a static shooting gallery and no more, and unless CCP plan to completely change PvE dynamics, PvE-specialized ships must necessarily cater to the dynamics that exist, which means ships that are capable of absorbing moderate-to-large amounts of sustained incoming damage over prolonged periods of time while applying usefully-high amounts of damage to all NPCs within a room (which we can safely characterize as close to medium-range engagements). In addition, any attributes which improve a PvE ship's resistance to NPC ewar will also speed up clear times. Mobility is always a welcome addition to any ship, but in the case of PvE boats it is certainly not necessary to be particularly mobile.

Solo and small-gang PvP ships, on the other hand, have to be able to skirmish against other players. This puts much more emphasis on the importance of mobility (range dictation is of fundamental importance in PvP-- whether you need to close on your targets or stay at arms' length from them). Of course, all the characteristics of a PvE ship (damage projection, ewar resistance, tanking ability) would be welcome additions to any PvP-oriented hull as well, but generally speaking the most important attributes for PvP ships are mobility, ability to absorb extreme amounts of damage over short periods of time, and achieving a flexible balance of stats that allow them to function usefully against opposing forces of unknown quantities and qualities.

Although I don't want to spend too much time talking about Incursion / wormhole PvE or large-scale fleet PvP, one curious thing to note is that these activities have many more similarities than conventional PvE and solo / small gang PvP. As such, you'd expect that the same types of ships that excel in one of these environments are probably pretty useful in the other environments as well. As a result, I think it's important that CCP DON'T design a class of ship that's specialized for wormhole or Incursion PvE, as the result would be to create a type of T2 ship that simply outclassed it's T1 cousins for fleet PvP-- the result being massively increased ISK costs to remain competitive in sov warfare: a bad idea for EVE.

What made me worry the most is CCP's wild swing between bonuses and roles in the matter of days. CCP do you know what you are doing?

Crimminy still with the "waah waah Marauders will suck at level 4's with Bastion and MJD".

Here's the thing: MJD + Bastion might not suit your style of doing level 4's as you do them now (slowly motor to out gate while blam-blam) and you may need to adjust your play style to utilise them propelry...but how is that 'ruining' the ship class for its supposed 'intended role'?

The idea with designing a ship class should be to give it capabilities and let it loose and see where it ends up. People thought the Tengu was so-so for level 4's, and then they discovered the 100MN fits, and the price of CNR's dipped because you could get equal performance and way too much tank from a Tengu. This shows that what you may think a ship is intended for gets warped and twisted around by the players who find novel and unique ways to use them.

I thought the MJD was a fairly pointless module. Suddenly, there's people mumbling the 3 minute cooldown timer hurts them because they have to jump away from Level 4 mission rats twice which takes them 6 minutes to get back to gate.

Oh, hey, you can do it in 1/3rd the time with a Marauder with the Bastion mode! zomg!

The problem with the line of thinking that marauders are intended for PVE in level 4s (or as now, warped by Incursion bear whining) is that this leads to revisions and rebalances that further force the ship into what "the community' sees as an intended role.

Sure, this may be true of HICs and Dictors and Logi of all kinds, as these are very specialised ships. However, all other T2 combat ships have ship bonuses which give them special abilities and people automagically come up with interesting uses. Sentry ishtar ratting? Check. Blops running 8/10's? Check. Stealth bombers doing level 4 FW missions? Check. Soloing level 4's in Retributions? Check. Oh. My. God. CCP better buff these ships so they are more effective at their intended role of missioning!

Sarcasm in case you missed it.

The iteration 1 marauder changes gave us a niche PVP ship which would solo small POSs (yeah baby), Dickstars (hahaha), totally ruin the lamest "PVP" in EVE (being docking games), allow donut punching of lowsec gate camps (huehuehue). The problem? You can't run incursions. But you CAN destroy Level 4's. Well, shucks.

iteration 2 is a compromise which barely reduces the Marauder's use in PVE, assuming you can figure out MJD missioning style and aren't prone to ridiculously overtanking your ships for missions because you want your AFK Rattler back. It really only increases their use back to slightly worse than pirate BS for incursions. not that anyone uses them in incursions now, nor will they afterwards.

What it does do is destroys its use in PVP in any conceivable fashion. Docking games are back on because if you are going to undock a marauder, you may as well undock a Vindicator. Yay, thumbs up!

Lowsec gate camps won't have to worry about these things permatanking them while their gangmates destroy the pirates. Your sniper mode Marauder is gone, the 80% web being about as useful as bulls with DD boobs.

Whereas before i was looking forward to dropping one into harms way, assured that if I calculated right I'd have a good 10-15 minutes of fun and get a few kills baiting people, now its just a more expensive and less useful navy Faction BS equivalent with a "kill me now" module and no utility.

Be brave, CCP Ytterbium. Maybe fiddle the Bastion resist bonus to being a free DCU, or 5% across the board non-penalised. Keep the active rep bonus so you can actually tank outside Bastion mode (while, eg, hoofing it to gate), and tank in the 2-3K range while in it. You will then have a small gang or even solo boat able to punch hard, tank stronk and be a PITA.

Structure the other bonuses to actually work together to make a formidable long range platform which can protect itself from numpty ceptor pilots, idiots who blow their sig and can't tank 1000-1200 DPS and can't rid themselves of tackle. Leave the web bonus out, it will then be the achilles heel and force marauder pilots to work hard on their fits to counter the inevitable hero tackle Incursus of doom.

Iteration 1 Marauders, piloted by smart people with good gangs who pick their fights were going to be a handful. Well, guess what, an 850 DPS 280K EHP rail Proteus is a handful right now and you don't have any "kill me now" module on T3's like you do with iteration 2.

Agreed.

[


Emphasis mine.

Everything you are complaining about is working as intended. Skill intensive is not a good reason to have a Battleship class version of HAC. If you want high damage ships with less tank the Pirate Battleships are that way [/quote]

Didn't miss a thing. I think the ping pong anime BS is well BS. I didn't ask for a HAC-BS, I asked why can't marauders be higher damage than a faction BS? You don't design a new weapon to be outperformed by your current weapon, or your enemy's weapon, you design it to make the other guy die quicker.

The ships do not have a role that they are good at.

PVE-Most pirate BS, Navy BS, and some command ships outperform them. Only viable in high sec systems, with low traffic, and you want to fly that T2 BS that you have always wanted.

PVP, everything out performs them. Due to a combination of price, a crippling weakness in the form of sensor strength, and all the other weaknesses that BS have, they are not worth using. Why use a 2B isk ship that will be shot down first, when a 150m isk can do the job just as well, if not better.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility of leaving the weak sensor strength in and removing the tank bonus, but to compensate for these weaknesses, vastly increasing the DPS? Basically, having either a e-war sponge, or a glass cannon? Keep them jammed/disrupted/damped or risk them tearing you to pieces? It would fit the marauder theme well I think.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=275537

Lazy board admin copies MY link to this thread (which goes directly to my previous comment) when he locks my other thread.

Then informs me that there's another discussion. No ****.

My thread was on a different idea, not a discussion of these changes.




Screw the bastion module and the gimmicky MJD bonus.

Give em' baked in bonuses, and let them 'maraud. They are maurauders, after all.


Edit for curse work a round. ( ISD Flidais )