These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#2781 - 2013-09-06 04:10:33 UTC
Decaff Harkonnen wrote:
I'm about 20 days away from finishing my training for the Golem and you dumb b@$tards are trying to change the role of the damn ship? I mean seriously? Make a new class of BS for this ridiculous bull$h1t. A$$h013s

you realize that there is almost no effective change to the golem other than you get a "turn ewar off/oh **** extra tank" button.

Sato Page wrote:
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?

and yea that is kinda why I'm scratching my head. seems like they are trying to jackhammer marauders into two separate roles. pve ownage, and weird sniper pvp thingys. when you look at both of the roles combined the bonuses tend to not make sense. the 90% webs can either be completely useless or a critical part of the ship. close range pvp awesome! 100km sniper fit useless, lv4s mostly useless, incursions depends on what role you are playing, but 90% webs are very awesome on at least a few ships.

or the MJD bonus + tractor beam bonus (not to mention the pvp role) tractor beam isn't going to be doing much for you in pvp, or at 100km from npc wrecks. however the 48km tractor beams (suck it anyone who only has 40km tractors!) are the main reason I fly my marauders. Duo of death is a crappy annoying mission, however having that long range tractor to get the can at the end makes it bearable.

maybe it would make more sense to give marauders bastion, and then give black ops (or maybe even make a tech 2 battle ship based of the tier 3 battleships! or make some techie two tier3 battlecrusiers?) the snipey death cannon power module!

as far as marauders go I think the paladin maybe needs a teeny bit of love, the golem is fine with cruise, maybe could use a torp buff (or just buff torps), vargur could use a bit of love, and kronos needs the most love.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#2782 - 2013-09-06 04:14:41 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
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.


ummmm.... I don't think anyone was using 100mn ab tengus for pve, well at least not for lv 4s. especially considering you can tank em just fine with a small booster and 10mn ab.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Chimpface Holocaust
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2783 - 2013-09-06 04:26:16 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
They also keep the resistances they have right now instead of gaining full Tech2 resists, otherwise the combination with the bastion module would be quite over the top.

They also are receiving full Tech2 resists.


Am I the only one that noticed this?
Cade Windstalker
#2784 - 2013-09-06 04:29:00 UTC
Chimpface Holocaust wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
They also keep the resistances they have right now instead of gaining full Tech2 resists, otherwise the combination with the bastion module would be quite over the top.

They also are receiving full Tech2 resists.


Am I the only one that noticed this?


That was from the old version of Bastion with 30% non-stacking penalized resists. Obviously he just forgot to edit that bit out. Oops. Oops
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2785 - 2013-09-06 04:38:02 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.

It's amazing feeling when someone makes a write-up that encompasses all yout thoughts and then some. Thank you, kind sir. This should be seen.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2786 - 2013-09-06 05:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
I'm going to try and go through this point-by-point, if it will fit.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

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.


If you get your local active tanking improvement via resists, that also makes the ship more proficient at receiving remote reps (yes, I know that the current proposal has them un-RR-able in Bastion mode, but personally I think the Bastion module is a mistake, and resists will still apply to receiving RRs outside the mode anyway). If the goal is to avoid making the ship overpowered for fleet scenarios while still having a very strong tank for solo PvE, a baller resist profile is not the way to go.

I do agree with you though that T1 BS handle Incursions etc just fine and should the the optimal ship for that purpose.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

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.


Poor example: Attack BCs are actually an ideal example of a very flexible skirmish ship because their combination of excellent agility, speed, scan-resolution, and damage projection allows them to quickly lock up targets of all sizes and apply damage to them while leveraging their excellent mobility to dictate range and mitigate tracking problems. While attack BCs technically aren't T2 hulls, they might as well be-- they're definitely a role-specialized ship that excels at one thing (small-scale PvP) while being fairly useless for PvE (now that anoms have been rebalanced to include smaller NPCs) and having only a very limited niche role in fleet operations (as parts of small sniper wings). I would be pretty comfortable applying this level of specialization to T2 battleships.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

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.


Well, I suppose we'll never know which dev was responsible for which aspects of things, but at the end of the day it's Ytterbium's posts that I tend to find poorly thought out. Don't get me wrong-- it's not like I have a massive hadron for all of Fozzie or Rise's ideas, but at least theirs are hit-or-miss rather than miss-or-miss.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Also, seriously, you just said "sneaky and skirmishy" and applied that to Marauders instead of Black-Ops? Really?


Sneaky relative to T1, yes. My idea is to have Marauders have bonuses to the use of normal cloaks in much the same way that Blackops currently do, while transitioning Blackops hulls over to covert ops cloaks (making them the last word in BS-class sneakiness as opposed to "somewhat sneaky").

Cade Windstalker wrote:

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.


Um, I'd just like to point out that CCP have a track-record of hiring non-game designers as game designers for EVE. I believe that seven years of experience playing this terrible game counts at least as much as a professional background when it comes to devising solutions to EVE-specific problems. IIRC Fozzie or Rise (I can't remember which) has a degree in political science-- apparently this doesn't stop you from taking them seriously. They were hired because of their extensive EVE experience and general loveability!

If CCP would hire me, I'd accept in a second-- and then you could take me seriously too!
HolidayDerp derf
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#2787 - 2013-09-06 05:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: HolidayDerp derf
with 100% inflation i dont see much bs pvp at all

i dont consider nullsec pvp bs pvp unless its solo
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2788 - 2013-09-06 05:21:09 UTC
HolidayDerp derf wrote:
with 100% inflation i dont see much bs pvp at all

i dont consider nullsec pvp bs pvp unless its solo

That's one of the most absurd positions I've seen in a long time.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Cade Windstalker
#2789 - 2013-09-06 06:10:36 UTC
Welp, point for point I guess. Amazed yours fit lets see if mine will too.

Ganthrithor wrote:
If you get your local active tanking improvement via resists, that also makes the ship more proficient at receiving remote reps (yes, I know that the current proposal has them un-RR-able in Bastion mode, but personally I think the Bastion module is a mistake, and resists will still apply to receiving RRs outside the mode anyway). If the goal is to avoid making the ship overpowered for fleet scenarios while still having a very strong tank for solo PvE, a baller resist profile is not the way to go.

I do agree with you though that T1 BS handle Incursions etc just fine and should the the optimal ship for that purpose.


I'm mostly unconcerned with high base resists as long as they have lower damage. If a T1 Battleship hull can do more raw damage for less SP then Null will still be stocking their fleets with those rather than Marauders. It also helps if the overall base EHP is lower to make up for it too. As I said though, that's up to CCP. Personally I'm a little wary of T2 resist Battleships in PvP but at least as long as they don't have innate resist bonuses it can't go as ridiculous as the Vulture and Damnation but on a Battleship scale.

I should also rephrase a bit. I don't think these should do *better* than current incursion ships. I would like to be able to use them personally since I can't fly any of the Pirate Battleships. I have Gallente/Caldari trained but no interest in Minmattar so the Vindi is meh to me and I don't have the missile or drone skills for the Rattlesnake (which is lackluster in incursions anyway). If they come out about on par with current offerings trading a bit of tank for a bit of damage I'd be fine with that.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Poor example: Attack BCs are actually an ideal example of a very flexible skirmish ship because their combination of excellent agility, speed, scan-resolution, and damage projection allows them to quickly lock up targets of all sizes and apply damage to them while leveraging their excellent mobility to dictate range and mitigate tracking problems. While attack BCs technically aren't T2 hulls, they might as well be-- they're definitely a role-specialized ship that excels at one thing (small-scale PvP) while being fairly useless for PvE (now that anoms have been rebalanced to include smaller NPCs) and having only a very limited niche role in fleet operations (as parts of small sniper wings). I would be pretty comfortable applying this level of specialization to T2 battleships.


That's more focused then flexible. It's just a very good combination of attributes that make for powerful and cost-effective ships when used right. In other environments though they get taken apart in seconds with the right counter. They basically trade HP for damage and the ability to shoot smaller things for mobility. It's a very good but focused combo with some interesting trade-offs.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Well, I suppose we'll never know which dev was responsible for which aspects of things, but at the end of the day it's Ytterbium's posts that I tend to find poorly thought out. Don't get me wrong-- it's not like I have a massive hadron for all of Fozzie or Rise's ideas, but at least theirs are hit-or-miss rather than miss-or-miss.


Ideas like these aren't created in a vacuum. They don't lock Fozzie, Rise, or Ytterbium in a box and tell them they can't come out until the ships are balanced. All three of these people and several more we don't get to interact with are working together on these bouncing ideas and testing things. If you don't like Ytterbium's posts then... oh well? Could be just bad luck that he's adjusted things in ways you don't like (I'm rather fond of the Navy Battlecruisers though, which was one of his). Overall though I was rather fond of his first iteration on Marauders. These are PvE focused ships and the original idea was something new and interesting that deviated from old established bonuses.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Sneaky relative to T1, yes. My idea is to have Marauders have bonuses to the use of normal cloaks in much the same way that Blackops currently do, while transitioning Blackops hulls over to covert ops cloaks (making them the last word in BS-class sneakiness as opposed to "somewhat sneaky").


Again, still a Black-Ops ship, not a Marauder. Marauders at present have absolutely nothing to do with cloaking, Black-Ops do. Plus CCP stated way back that they were thinking of splitting the class into support and combat ships. Personally I don't think that's likely to still happen but I do think your concept fits better there than it does under some new ship class. A Covert/Improve cloaking split on Black-Ops hulls could have interesting implications.

Either way it's a new ship class and has very little to do with rebalancing the existing ship class. If you want to push for re-naming them then by all means go ahead, if only to get rid of people arguing that balance should match the definition of a word.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Um, I'd just like to point out that CCP have a track-record of hiring non-game designers as game designers for EVE. I believe that seven years of experience playing this terrible game counts at least as much as a professional background when it comes to devising solutions to EVE-specific problems. IIRC Fozzie or Rise (I can't remember which) has a degree in political science-- apparently this doesn't stop you from taking them seriously. They were hired because of their extensive EVE experience and general loveability!

If CCP would hire me, I'd accept in a second-- and then you could take me seriously too!


I never said get a game design degree, I said get a job as one. It's rather thankless work (eg, this thread). Lots of games hire players but that's because they have good design sense, not because they've played a long time.
Onictus
SniggWaffe
Pandemic Horde
#2790 - 2013-09-06 06:11:41 UTC
mark sean wrote:
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.


The nature of ASBs vs AARs already makes local armour repair of little value.

ASB:
Over size
No cap
Multiple mods allowed
front of cycle

Check

AAR
only one per ship
Fitting equal to same size repper
Cap consumption equal as well
Reps far less
It's there even a capital size?

........gee tough choice there

I guess you could make the cargo argument.....till you look at the cost on nanopaste.

Periapsis Retrograde Burn
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2791 - 2013-09-06 06:14:45 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
Periapsis Retrograde Burn wrote:
As I am currently in heavy theorycrafting mode, does anyone know if the Bastion bonuses to optimal and falloff are stacking penalized? The longer I look at the prospect of a 70ish km optimal on a Tachy-Paladin, the more I like it. Big smile

70k?
scorch on a pulse apoc gets 90km. then add the bastion 25% to optimal/fall off and u have a 135km pulse paladin.

yer lookin at like 200km tachyon paly.


Multifrequency, my friend, glorious, glorious Multifrequency. I doubt a Tachy-Paladin will use ammo other than MF and Gamma when this change hits.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#2792 - 2013-09-06 06:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
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.


"PVP" and "PVE" are not roles and "PVE ship" or "PVP ship" doesn't mean anything.
And on top of that, designing a ship for PVE would just end up in the state marauders currently are- **** ships that nobody flies, because pirate BS, ships not designed for a ********, non-existing arbitrary misconception of a role are better in PVE activities.

Ships are designed to perform a task, or execute a tactic. Kiter, brawler, logistics, tackler, booster are roles. Marauder is a role, and it's a new role with no existing meta in game- there are no functional T2 general combat battleships in game currently. This is what CCP is trying to do, and if they succeed, people will adopt it, metas emerge and then also EVE happens- ship finds other uses.

.

Onictus
SniggWaffe
Pandemic Horde
#2793 - 2013-09-06 06:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Quote:


Ships are designed to perform a task, or execute a tactic. Kiter, brawler, logistics, tackler, booster are roles. Marauder is a role, and it's a new role with no existing meta in game- there are no functional T2 general combat battleships in game currently. This is what CCP is trying to do, and if they succeed, people will adopt it, metas emerge and then also EVE happens- ship finds other uses.


Well if they have an eye on doing anything PvP wise with them that bastion mode needs help.

Local reps only
Can't move
No damage bonus?

What do you do with it other then present a half a dread loot pinata? They are to slow to use against anything but a potato fleet, no damage bonus, can't break slows without multi fleets, bastion mode blocking remote reps means you can't use them defensively, they just get alpha'd eventually.....oh and T2 insurance, a dread would likely cost the same to lose.

So WTF are you supposed to do with a presumed billion isk "PvP" battleship.

The module mode battleship idea is cool, but we see with triage aka suicide carriers and siege dreads how well local reps work in fleet combat.
Daylani
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
Aegis Requiem
#2794 - 2013-09-06 06:49:14 UTC
If you take the non-bastioned shield boost bonus from my vargur im gonna cry :,(

By Popular Demand

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2795 - 2013-09-06 06:51:21 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

I'm mostly unconcerned with high base resists as long as they have lower damage. If a T1 Battleship hull can do more raw damage for less SP then Null will still be stocking their fleets with those rather than Marauders. It also helps if the overall base EHP is lower to make up for it too. As I said though, that's up to CCP. Personally I'm a little wary of T2 resist Battleships in PvP but at least as long as they don't have innate resist bonuses it can't go as ridiculous as the Vulture and Damnation but on a Battleship scale.


On the other hand, if it does less damage than a T1 BS, why PvE with it? I still think that only providing a tanking increase for the PvE T2 BS would be a mistake, since T1 / faction BS (or T3 cruisers) don't really have tanking problems for solo PvE content to begin with. T3 cruisers (the Tengu in particular) already offer absurd combinations of range, tank, and DPS for solo PvE.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I should also rephrase a bit. I don't think these should do *better* than current incursion ships. I would like to be able to use them personally since I can't fly any of the Pirate Battleships.


I'm sure something could be worked out so that the ships wouldn't be unusable for incursions.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

That's more focused then flexible. It's just a very good combination of attributes that make for powerful and cost-effective ships when used right. In other environments though they get taken apart in seconds with the right counter. They basically trade HP for damage and the ability to shoot smaller things for mobility. It's a very good but focused combo with some interesting trade-offs.


My point is that it's a good example of specialization for PvP-- the hulls have a niche role or two in which they excel, and are pretty awful at anything else. I just think the T2 battleships should be similarly-specialized.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Ideas like these aren't created in a vacuum. They don't lock Fozzie, Rise, or Ytterbium in a box and tell them they can't come out until the ships are balanced. All three of these people and several more we don't get to interact with are working together on these bouncing ideas and testing things. If you don't like Ytterbium's posts then... oh well? Could be just bad luck that he's adjusted things in ways you don't like (I'm rather fond of the Navy Battlecruisers though, which was one of his). Overall though I was rather fond of his first iteration on Marauders. These are PvE focused ships and the original idea was something new and interesting that deviated from old established bonuses.


I'm not as offended by his proposal when considered as a dedicated PvE idea (I still don't think it offers enough improvement for PvE to justify its pricetag, but that could be worked around easily). It's the balance teams' idea that the same ship can be useful for PvP that I find mind-boggling. There needs to be a separate PvP ship.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Again, still a Black-Ops ship, not a Marauder. Marauders at present have absolutely nothing to do with cloaking, Black-Ops do. Plus CCP stated way back that they were thinking of splitting the class into support and combat ships. Personally I don't think that's likely to still happen but I do think your concept fits better there than it does under some new ship class. A Covert/Improve cloaking split on Black-Ops hulls could have interesting implications.

Either way it's a new ship class and has very little to do with rebalancing the existing ship class. If you want to push for re-naming them then by all means go ahead, if only to get rid of people arguing that balance should match the definition of a word.


Being myself, I don't really care that much what they call it, but it does seem to me like there should be separate categories for a non-covert, DPS ship and a covert-cloaking support ship. I guess you could argue that either way, though-- HACs and recons are in different groups (one's a DPS ship, one's a support) but Combat Recons and Force Recons are in the same group (covert vs non-covert, both support ships). Either way, as long as there's a Marauder that Marauds, I'll be pleased.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#2796 - 2013-09-06 07:13:03 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Quote:


Ships are designed to perform a task, or execute a tactic. Kiter, brawler, logistics, tackler, booster are roles. Marauder is a role, and it's a new role with no existing meta in game- there are no functional T2 general combat battleships in game currently. This is what CCP is trying to do, and if they succeed, people will adopt it, metas emerge and then also EVE happens- ship finds other uses.


Well if they have an eye on doing anything PvP wise with them that bastion mode needs help.

Local reps only
Can't move
No damage bonus?

What do you do with it other then present a half a dread loot pinata? They are to slow to use against anything but a potato fleet, no damage bonus, can't break slows without multi fleets, bastion mode blocking remote reps means you can't use them defensively, they just get alpha'd eventually.....oh and T2 insurance, a dread would likely cost the same to lose.

So WTF are you supposed to do with a presumed billion isk "PvP" battleship.

The module mode battleship idea is cool, but we see with triage aka suicide carriers and siege dreads how well local reps work in fleet combat.


This is exactly what I mean, "PVP" is not a term describing an activity in any detail, it's a class of greatly varying activities from solo roaming in FW lowsec, small T3 gangs in wormholes to supercap blobs. Most of the time people only comprehend "PVP" in their own context.

An example: Noob asks random people "Is Proteus any good for PVP?"

Lowsec guy says no, it's too expensive.
Hisec guy says it's awesome on the undock with HG slaves and 17 neutral Guardian alts.
Another lowsec guy says it's too slow and will be kited to death.
Nullsec guy says it's useless as it can't project damage out to 50km.
WH guys says it's the best ship for PVP for it's mass/dps/tank ratio.

They are all correct, but the question was broken to begin with.

.

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2797 - 2013-09-06 07:14:09 UTC
Roime wrote:

"PVP" and "PVE" are not roles and "PVE ship" or "PVP ship" doesn't mean anything.
And on top of that, designing a ship for PVE would just end up in the state marauders currently are- **** ships that nobody flies, because pirate BS, ships not designed for a ********, non-existing arbitrary misconception of a role are better in PVE activities


First, it sounds like pirate BS will be on the chopping block soon.

Second, Marauders aren't bad ships that nobody flies because they're specialized for PvE-- they're bad ships that nobody flies because they're specialized for PvE but still do it badly, or at least they don't do it as well as other ships.

Lastly, you're right-- noone is going to come out and put into the flavortext description of a ship that is is only to be used in PvE or PvP. This is EVE, and people can fit / use their ships however they like. There are absolutely ships that are designed with one or the other in mind, however, and are generally used in the role they were designed for.

Roime wrote:
there are no functional T2 general combat battleships in game currently


I think that's by design. The only T2 "general combat" ships in the game are HACs, and for some reason CCP decided to give them a free pass for historical reasons rather than specializing them.
Galdrak
Interplanetary Trade Federation
#2798 - 2013-09-06 07:19:23 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Xqpvqsvs Qr'atyuqink wrote:
My proposal is to add two scripts to bastion module, so we could decide which characteristics of ship we want to boost.



This is the most common suggestion in the thread and has my money as the best way forward, adds versatility and diversity.

The specifics need refining by a LONG THUROUGH playtest and more feedback but its definitely got my money



could i suggest a t2 variant of the bastion module?

i understand the devs issues with power creep and imbalance, however, like real life the arms race forces improvement: insisting that we continue to keep searching for that imbalance and exploiting it .
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2799 - 2013-09-06 07:33:10 UTC
Regarding the web bonus.

This bonus is useful and does work well with the micro jump drive. The only risk to these ships is being scrambled and unable to jump, especially if you have opted for light tank.

Now you can argue that NPC ships do not scram, but most of this content even pre dates the use of microwarpdrives in dead space complexes and one of the first changes I would make if I was being fiendish with NPC content would be to throw in a few actual scrambling frigates. It is inevitable that there is at least done PVE overhaul at some point and if anything the drone aggro mechanics changed show CCP is definitely willing to be fiendish.

Even then there is more to PVE content than High Sec Missions. Any player wishing to try and use these ships to try PVE in Null, Low or wormholes is going to be grateful for the web bonus as an anti tackle measure.

The incursion and PVP benefits are also quite obvious.
Captain Semper
FAYN Industries
Initiative Associates
#2800 - 2013-09-06 07:37:06 UTC
I like the ideato use scripts for bastion.
For example script that will dramatically increase self-repair (300-400%) but also decreased combat capability. You can't change script while bastion running.

Or script that add neut immune.

Scripts will give much more customization and flexibility.

Main problem with bastion in PvP is that you can't get help from your fleet members (tbh logist... Its always about logists. Game meta - use logists in fleet or die). Mb if marauder could omni-tank medium gank (like he get reps from 2-3 logists) for a short time, mb it will be ok in PvP.