These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2761 - 2013-09-06 02:39:17 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
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.

None of them seem good for PvP, which leaves incursions and WH's. They are somewhat lackluster in incursions compared to other options and in WH's they run into mass issues which makes them unattractive and are still only excelling in solo activity, which doesn't include the most lucrative PvE activities there. All of them not working excessively well in solo PvE against mission rats would be more acceptable if the ones that didn't actually shined somewhere else.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#2762 - 2013-09-06 02:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff
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
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.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#2763 - 2013-09-06 02:48:59 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
We will probably slow down a bit here and look to wait awhile before sharing a new iteration with you.


sounds good to me, as I honestly have no idea what to think about marauders/bastion anymore. that **** got weird.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Remote Cat
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2764 - 2013-09-06 03:09:04 UTC
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 Shocked

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
Atreides 47
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2765 - 2013-09-06 03:09:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Atreides 47
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:

[list]
  • 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.
  • Why wait 3 months ? Implement this changes without Bastion module and see how things will turn out.

    Long Live the Fighters !

    CCP and nerfs - http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg

    Decaff Harkonnen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2766 - 2013-09-06 03:14:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Flidais Asagiri
    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 )
    Teroh Vizjereij
    Tolarian Academy
    #2767 - 2013-09-06 03:17:42 UTC
    Marauders getting the ultra mobility of MJD'ing like mad now ... and a web bonus is super stupid.
    The web bonus is just CCP giving in to the Incursion bears. Thing is .. in shield incursions ( like 95% of the inc fleets ) you barely ever see a marauder except the Vargur. So until the Vindi looses its web bonus non of those T1 guns + T1 drone 2 month old Vindi Bears would ever switch to a marauder.

    I actually like this guys idea a lot : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3577571#post3577571 .. even though with his values its absurdly op right now, but the idea is good.

    And for all those "local rep" guys .. the marauders finally get T2 resists now which kinda equals to the local rep bonus ( except you use 2-3 in pvp ) and free's up one stat spot for CCP to play around with.

    But webstrenght is def. not the answer .. at all.
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #2768 - 2013-09-06 03:20:00 UTC
    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).

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)

    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #2769 - 2013-09-06 03:21:52 UTC
    Ganthrithor 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/


    Here's a hint for your departmental dialogue: do what I suggested like 50 pages ago. Redo the whole T2 battleship selection with a PvE-specialized BS; an actual PvP / direct combat-focused Marauder; and a revised, more stealthy / support-oriented blackops battleship. It fits your design philosophy (T2 ships specialized for one role) and actually has a hope of making the various crowds that have been posting in this thread happy. Whatever you do, DO NOT try and make a combination PvP/PvE ship and DO NOT end up making a "HAC" version of battleships that would make a viable fleet PvP ship.

    E: I guess it was more like 70 pages ago. Here's a link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3559765#post3559765

    Yes, this. Dear god, this.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)

    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #2770 - 2013-09-06 03:28:28 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    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.


    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.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #2771 - 2013-09-06 03:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    So, to sum up my previous post:

    1. We're generally talking about three usage scenarios here: conventional PvE (anoms / missions), small-scale PvP (solo, small gang), and large-scale fleet PvP / PvE (I think it's safe to lump fleet fights and Incursion / WH PvP into this category, since the mechanics share a lot of overall similarities)

    2. These three usage scenarios each demand a different set of competences from a ship

    3. A ship that possessed multiple sets of competences would be supremely overpowered

    4. A ship that possessed portions of multiple sets of competences would not be overpowered, but would also excel at nothing and therefore be incapable of justifying a T2 pricetag

    5. Conclusion: it is best to build separate, specialized T2 hulls for traditional PvE and small-scale PvP, while leaving large-scale PvP and PvE to the more generalist hulls that already exist and fill these roles very well.

    Interestingly, the whole "T2 ships not better, but specialized" thing is Ytterbium's own design gimmick, which leaves me even more perplexed as to why he seems to have taken an antithetical approach with his proposed Marauder changes. Ytterbium's proposed ships are a perfect example of #4 here-- a ship that tries to specialize in two things, but makes so many tradeoffs to avoid being overpowered in either role that it ends up offering no useful benefits in either. The current blackops BS have the same problem: if you fit them for combat, you're wasting their logistics bonuses and end up with a ship that's not particularly good at combat; if you fit them as a gang-support ship, you waste their combat-friendly attributes and end up with a ship that isn't particularly good at being a jump-bridge. It would be infinitely preferable to just have a selection of ships where each one caters to one of these usage patterns-- a new PvE battleship for doing conventional, solo PvE; a new Marauder that focuses on being a little bit sneaky and very skirmishy; a new blackops that actually does it's job of being very sneaky while supporting covert gangs well; and the newly-rebalanced T1 battleships for generalist uses like fleet PvP, Incursions and wormholes. By separating the ships out by roles, it becomes possible to create a ship that can justify its pricetag for one activity while not being too good at another.
    Sato Page
    Auctor Illuminatas Infinitum
    Ashfell Federation
    #2772 - 2013-09-06 03:45:37 UTC
    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?

    Dinsdale Pirannha for [u]CEO [/u]of [u]CCP[/u]

    HolidayDerp derf
    Lazerhawks
    L A Z E R H A W K S
    #2773 - 2013-09-06 03:53:37 UTC
    Game Breaking
    ASB = 2k hp/cycle
    add 100%bonus and crystals as well as a booster and you can get 4k-6k hp/cycle
    Trinkets friend
    Sudden Buggery
    Sending Thots And Players
    #2774 - 2013-09-06 03:54:14 UTC
    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.
    Cade Windstalker
    #2775 - 2013-09-06 03:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    So, to sum up my previous post:

    1. We're generally talking about three usage scenarios here: conventional PvE (anoms / missions), small-scale PvP (solo, small gang), and large-scale fleet PvP / PvE (I think it's safe to lump fleet fights and Incursion / WH PvP into this category, since the mechanics share a lot of overall similarities)

    2. These three usage scenarios each demand a different set of competences from a ship

    3. A ship that possessed multiple sets of competences would be supremely overpowered

    4. A ship that possessed portions of multiple sets of competences would not be overpowered, but would also excel at nothing and therefore be incapable of justifying a T2 pricetag

    5. Conclusion: it is best to build separate, specialized T2 hulls for traditional PvE and small-scale PvP, while leaving large-scale PvP and PvE to the more generalist hulls that already exist and fill these roles very well.

    Interestingly, the whole "T2 ships not better, but specialized" thing is Ytterbium's own design gimmick, which leaves me even more perplexed as to why he seems to have taken an antithetical approach with his proposed Marauder changes. Ytterbium's proposed ships are a perfect example of #4 here-- a ship that tries to specialize in two things, but makes so many tradeoffs to avoid being overpowered in either role that it ends up offering no useful benefits in either. The current blackops BS have the same problem: if you fit them for combat, you're wasting their logistics bonuses and end up with a ship that's not particularly good at combat; if you fit them as a gang-support ship, you waste their combat-friendly attributes and end up with a ship that isn't particularly good at being a jump-bridge. It would be infinitely preferable to just have a selection of ships where each one caters to one of these usage patterns-- a new PvE battleship for doing conventional, solo PvE; a new Marauder that focuses on being a little bit sneaky and very skirmishy; a new blackops that actually does it's job of being very sneaky while supporting covert gangs well; and the newly-rebalanced T1 battleships for generalist uses like fleet PvP, Incursions and wormholes. By separating the ships out by roles, it becomes possible to create a ship that can justify its pricetag for one activity while not being too good at another.


    Or, and this is just a thought, we could have the Marauders be good at tanking with good resists (from a full T2 resist profile) and good damage application and/or projection along with a bonus to local tank. This can be balanced out by overall slow speed and align times and overall lower damage.

    The main things you need for most PvE, where these ships should be expected to excel, is good damage application and a good local tank. For incursions you just need good resists and EHP but honestly I could live with these ships not being the king of Incursions, you can do incursions in a T1 Battleship just fine and incursion runners don't actually need more Isk per hour.

    The original Bastion module did this fairly well but wasn't making the PvP crowd happy. That said, Ytterbium also stated flat out the ships were only intended to have niche PvP applications. In Eve terms this means "whatever people can find that works with the ship bonuses".

    As to the idea that PvP ships need to be flexible, I direct your attention to the Attack Battlecruisers, three of which have no drone bay and which tend to fit speed and damage and not much else. These are hardly flexible ships but they're extremely widely used in PvP. For a solo ship you need a lot of different things on one ship, for a fleet though a bunch of more highly specialized ships is superior.

    Also the specialization isn't "Ytterbium's design gimmick" he wrote that post but you can bet there were a dozen more more meetings between him and everyone else doing ship design to hash out a set of overall guidelines for the ship rebalancing. Rise even brought up that HACs were being left as an exception to the rule because they already had a place in Eve and they didn't want to invalidate that with their changes. Also, seriously, you just said "sneaky and skirmishy" and applied that to Marauders instead of Black-Ops? Really?

    So yeah, personally I have plenty of faith in Ytterbium and the rest of the CCP balance team. So far they've been doing a great job. Your ideas though I don't have so much faith in. Go get a job as a professional game designer and then you can start calling other designers bad.
    Zoe Israfil
    #2776 - 2013-09-06 04:02:21 UTC
    Trinkets friend wrote:
    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.
    mark sean
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #2777 - 2013-09-06 04:03:40 UTC
    HolidayDerp derf wrote:
    Game Breaking
    ASB = 2k hp/cycle
    add 100%bonus and crystals as well as a booster and you can get 4k-6k hp/cycle


    I also agree with this persons statement. This will make shields extremely over powered. While armor will be left in the dust.
    Unless there is some kind of fix i don't see this going well in terms of rebalancing.
    Nick Parker
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2778 - 2013-09-06 04:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Parker
    [
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Marauders were initially released during the Trinity expansion in 2007 and were aimed for PvE activities. However, as time passed and we rebalanced other classes, especially the Pirate Battleships, they lost appeal as a whole.

    We also believe that designing them for a very specific activity doesn't fit the emergent nature of EVE, and as such we wish to expand their use to PvP as well. Of course, their high price, low mobility will always ensure their role remains a niche one, but we at least can make that purpose more appealing than a simple "jam me now and forever" target dummy.

    ........

    The combination of both results in a ship that can jump 100km away to quickly react to a shifting environment, then go into bastion mode and use its increased damage application to deal with opposition while absorbing damage. However, due to the lack of remote assistance in that mode and isolating nature of Micro Jump Drives, they will still die easily in larger fights where DPS is concentrated. Remember that the spool up nature of the Micro Jump Drives plus the time needed to align will give opponents a window of opportunity to tackle them before they can jump again.


    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 Arrow[/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.
    Corvald Tyrska
    Valknetra
    #2779 - 2013-09-06 04:04:36 UTC
    People need to take a step back and have a long think about what this rebalancing is all about. Ships are being rebalanced to give them a role so that they all have a use (ideally).

    PVP and PVE are not roles! Incursion running and WH site running are not roles!

    Have a look at the recent cruiser changes or the T2 frigates and cruisers. Logistics, recon, interceptors, tanky brawlers, fast kiters, long range alpha DPS - these things are roles.

    The rebalance is aiming to provide a similar role for Marauders and eventually all other T2 ships. How they are used in PVP and PVE is a matter for how well players are able to apply that role to PVP and PVE. Ships are not being and should never be rebalanced around a game mode. It defeats the whole purpose of it.

    What most of the griping in this thread seems to be about is that people want a ship they can solo blitz all PVE content in. A ship that has great tank and DPS and damage application and salvaging and everything else. Wake up people it's not going to happen.

    What we need to discuss is what roles do we see fitting with the Marauder as a T2 Battleship. Personally I quite liked the first concept of a long range, heavily tanked ship that could jump around as needed.
    Cael Autumn
    Dark 0rder.
    VINDICTIVE
    #2780 - 2013-09-06 04:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Flidais Asagiri
    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 )