These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2861 - 2013-09-06 13:42:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
Yeah, I have to imagine that the ASB module contributed to the second revision of the bastion module and the removal of the rep boost hull bonus. Those things are so far out of line that they severely complicate ship balancing efforts. Simply implementing a one-per-ship for ASB as they have for AAR would go a long way towards simplifying things.

Edit: I was going to add exactly what Captain suggested above me ^^^^. Instead of a pulse, it should simply stream armor points back into the tank. Would make armor and shield similarly effective but still quite different in operation.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#2862 - 2013-09-06 13:48:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
So the bastion still provides some tank bonus. I mistook the hulls for the module. Oops

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2863 - 2013-09-06 13:50:22 UTC
Captain Semper wrote:
This why armor reps need new mechanic. For example constant heal when armor rep ON. Not a chunk of hp at the end of cycle. Just constantly repair.

1 second server tics, thank you for paying attention.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2864 - 2013-09-06 13:54:58 UTC
Rroff wrote:
The Spod wrote:
Why this marauder idea is bad:

• capitals are brought on field if subcap fight looks favorable
• t2 buffer marauders roflstomp all other subcap fleets (possibly even worse with target spectrum breakers putting the EHP into good use)
• only bang for buck counter is dronefleet


What could be done about it:

Make the bastion a siege mode with guns gaining double rate of fire but hopping tracking and resolution to dread levels. This would make marauders an anti-capital power creep mechanism. The bastion mode would only hit structures and capships, for subcaps you use them like normal BS. Cut the t2 resist crap and roll bonus into bastion which now won't work against subcaps. Cut the ewar immunity crap. Keep the damage projection bonus in hull stats to make them decent for pve. Cut the MJD crap.


They'd still die ridiculously fast against dreads tho - from the logfile of taking down a POCO recently:

78142 - Penetrates
121413 - Smashes
70811 - Penetrates
97167 - Smashes
102970 - Smashes
73963 - Penetrates

And thats a fairly typical example of any section of the log - even factoring in resists very little sub-capital thats sitting dead still will survive against that let alone against 2 or more dreads and that wasn't even a gank fit moros.


This is a good thing. The difference in range, lock timeand numbers still vastly favor the marauder blob. It's not supposed to solo kill a capital, that would just be redundant power creep.

It's the subcapital anti-capital wing.

Dropping dreads on 200 marauders each pushing 2000-3000dps against capitals, each sporting target spectrum breaker to make the dread pilots hate their lock time... Not a good move.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2865 - 2013-09-06 13:57:49 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Captain Semper wrote:
This why armor reps need new mechanic. For example constant heal when armor rep ON. Not a chunk of hp at the end of cycle. Just constantly repair.

1 second server tics, thank you for paying attention.


Knowing that the server is limited in how it processes information doesn't negate the general idea. You could simply implement it as HP/sec instead of total boost amount at the end of a cycle.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2866 - 2013-09-06 14:03:00 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
Captain Semper wrote:
This why armor reps need new mechanic. For example constant heal when armor rep ON. Not a chunk of hp at the end of cycle. Just constantly repair.

1 second server tics, thank you for paying attention.


Knowing that the server is limited in how it processes information doesn't negate the general idea. You could simply implement it as HP/sec instead of total boost amount at the end of a cycle.


I am not convinced... Sounds nice, but somehow not convincing. Straight

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#2867 - 2013-09-06 14:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Allandri
That web bonus ... needs to be removed.

Overall, you need to think about what the bonus you are giving to the class is going to have on specific hulls. Webs on a Golem and Vargur, please no D:

Quote:
...instead, they tank and project damage better


So how about you actually give the class bonuses to that end? Since all of the ships sensor strength are still going to be **** and able to be jammed by a Griffin, it makes more sense to give the class a bonus to shield boost / armor repair amount, capacitor regeneration, or explosion velocity / turret optimal / missile velocity / turret falloff. you know the stuff you are trying to change in order to make these ships see the light of consensual PVP or the delivering end of ganks
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2868 - 2013-09-06 14:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Iome Ambraelle
Debora Tsung wrote:
Iome Ambraelle wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
Captain Semper wrote:
This why armor reps need new mechanic. For example constant heal when armor rep ON. Not a chunk of hp at the end of cycle. Just constantly repair.

1 second server tics, thank you for paying attention.


Knowing that the server is limited in how it processes information doesn't negate the general idea. You could simply implement it as HP/sec instead of total boost amount at the end of a cycle.


I am not convinced... Sounds nice, but somehow not convincing. Straight


I wrote a long winded post about the armor rep mechanics in the 1.1 module rebalancing thread but one of the main points is how the long cycle time + end of cycle rep is problematic because of the way it aligns with enemy weapon rate of fire. Basically, when you're talking about RoF between 5-9 seconds you wind up with shield boosters being able to rep twice between strikes, where as armor can take 2 strikes between reps. This means that occasionally you are taking 2X the enemy's damage in a spike which makes alpha doubly effective against armor tanks.

I think the reason why armor works well in large engagements is that it can be easily local buffered while the remote armor repair system works more like a shield boost with its cycle time being 4.5 seconds. Which means you can land multiple remote repairs between alpha strikes.

Edit: I might go ahead and drop a new topic in here about armor in general instead of distracting from this thread. I wonder how Marauders will wind up based on what we've seen so far. At this point it's anyone's guess.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

loles
Perkone
Caldari State
#2869 - 2013-09-06 14:27:24 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'm glad you are reading everything, it certainly takes some time (I'm personally not able to keep up with all the updates).

Just thought a justification for an idea someone else (can't remember who) wrote earlier in the thread (if marauders are going to be PvE oriented):
Bastion module increases mass by XXXXX, generating it's own gravity field and pulling unanchored containers and wrecks from within 150km nearby. Then give marauders a salvager/salvage drone bonus and ta-da! Marauders save noctis flight, making other debatable stats be worth it as in the long run you complete+salvage missions quicker.
Grombutz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2870 - 2013-09-06 14:28:22 UTC
The Spod wrote:
Why this marauder idea is bad:

• capitals are brought on field if subcap fight looks favorable
• t2 buffer marauders roflstomp all other subcap fleets (possibly even worse with target spectrum breakers putting the EHP into good use)
• only bang for buck counter is dronefleet


What could be done about it:

• Make the bastion a siege mode with guns gaining double rate of fire but hopping tracking and resolution to dread levels. This would -make marauders an anti-capital power creep mechanism. The bastion mode would only hit structures and capships, for subcaps you use them like normal BS.
• Cut the t2 resist crap and roll bonus into bastion which now won't work against subcaps.
• Cut the ewar immunity crap.
• Cut the MJD crap.

Now you have a specialized (t2) anti-capital subcap. Not a "lets do 7 different things and be best at each specialized". The price is high and vulnerability too to make them less powerful vs. subcaps because you can't blink around every minute or fit half million ehp buffer. Counter power creep of capitals.


PvE players disagree - as one, I'm eager to say that I don't want to lose the only dedicated PvE-boat available. If you want to make an anti-cap BS, make a new line of battleships for it. TY!
Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#2871 - 2013-09-06 14:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Grombutz wrote:


PvE players disagree - as one, I'm eager to say that I don't want to lose the only dedicated PvE-boat available. If you want to make an anti-cap BS, make a new line of battleships for it. TY!


These mauraders would be pretty much useless against a cap fleet. Local tank only wouldn't be able to handle slowcats. Plus an immobile battleship with a large sig? Dread fairy says YES!

......and for a dedicated PvE boat, mauraders kind of suck at PvE, they are big and they are slow and not particularly versatile Golem likely being the best but when I threw a pile of them into the fitter to see if I could come up with anything to justify buying the skill book(s) I came up with "meh"

Aside from being able to salvage on the fly there isn't a lot going for them, the pirate BSs, specifcally mach and vidi are just plain better.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2872 - 2013-09-06 14:36:08 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
The Spod wrote:
Why this marauder idea is bad:

• capitals are brought on field if subcap fight looks favorable
• t2 buffer marauders roflstomp all other subcap fleets (possibly even worse with target spectrum breakers putting the EHP into good use)
• only bang for buck counter is dronefleet


What could be done about it:

• Make the bastion a siege mode with guns gaining double rate of fire but hopping tracking and resolution to dread levels. This would -make marauders an anti-capital power creep mechanism. The bastion mode would only hit structures and capships, for subcaps you use them like normal BS.
• Cut the t2 resist crap and roll bonus into bastion which now won't work against subcaps.
• Cut the ewar immunity crap.
• Cut the MJD crap.

Now you have a specialized (t2) anti-capital subcap. Not a "lets do 7 different things and be best at each specialized". The price is high and vulnerability too to make them less powerful vs. subcaps because you can't blink around every minute or fit half million ehp buffer. Counter power creep of capitals.


PvE players disagree - as one, I'm eager to say that I don't want to lose the only dedicated PvE-boat available. If you want to make an anti-cap BS, make a new line of battleships for it. TY!



You can make it work for both, just need some adjustment. Keep the new hull resists. Change the web bonus into 10% SCRIPTED BASTION MODE BONUS.

Now also bastion modules can take a script.. Anti capital ( increased damage, reduced tracking), Super tanking ( 10% repair per level) etc etc.. new types depending on the need. Also keep Ewar immunity while in bastion mode.


Also would be nice is marauders in bastion mode get a SIGNATURE reduction of 30% (woudl help as in not beign locke very fast by enemy capitals that would laught at a subcapital STATIC in field)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Grombutz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2873 - 2013-09-06 14:38:04 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Grombutz wrote:


PvE players disagree - as one, I'm eager to say that I don't want to lose the only dedicated PvE-boat available. If you want to make an anti-cap BS, make a new line of battleships for it. TY!


These mauraders would be pretty much useless against a cap fleet. Local tank only wouldn't be able to handle slowcats. Plus an immobile battleship with a large sig? Dread fairy says YES!

......and for a dedicated PvE boat, mauraders kind of suck at PvE, they are big and they are slow and not particularly versatile Golem likely being the best but when I threw a pile of them into the fitter to see if I could come up with anything to justify buying the skill book(s) I came up with "meh"

Aside from being able to salvage on the fly there isn't a lot going for them, the pirate BSs, specifcally mach and vidi are just plain better.


And that's why they need a rebalance. Marauders should not be outshined by Pirate-BS's in PvE, and as we see here, there is an effort to change this. ;)
Metal Icarus
Wraithguard.
The Wraithguard.
#2874 - 2013-09-06 14:38:11 UTC
w/e you do, giving them the same web bonus feels like homogenization. Making them similar in that fashion really takes away from their racial flavor.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2875 - 2013-09-06 14:41:42 UTC
Onictus wrote:

Aside from being able to salvage on the fly there isn't a lot going for them, the pirate BSs, specifcally mach and vidi are just plain better.


If there was ever a reason to buy a marauder, this was not it. Straight

Honestly salvaging on the fly... Ugh

The only time I ver used that tractor beam range bonus was when I wanted to get that mission critical loot one minute earlier...

Doesn't happen that often, as I could just kill all, warp out and come back with my noctis. And once you go for blitzing all missions, you've got a MWD anyways, no?

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Stirlsha
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2876 - 2013-09-06 14:50:03 UTC
Can anyone help me understand why you would need bonuses to webifiers on a cruise missile Golem?

Am I missing something here?
Dethmourne Silvermane
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2877 - 2013-09-06 14:56:18 UTC
I was excited about the first pass. I'm no longer excited.

Make up my mind - do you want damage projection, or webs? Drop bastion as a concept, drop TB range/speed, keep web bonus, give me MWD speed bonus so I can chase down cruisers and throw my webs on them.

Alternately, keep bastion, drop web bonus and give me something that helps with sniping (maybe a web range bonus, if you must go with a web bonus).

Identify the role you'd like the ship to fulfill and head that direction, quit trying to make it a hydra.

Interested Party (TM)

Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#2878 - 2013-09-06 14:56:47 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Aside from being able to salvage on the fly there isn't a lot going for them, the pirate BSs, specifcally mach and vidi are just plain better.


If there was ever a reason to buy a marauder, this was not it. Straight

Honestly salvaging on the fly... Ugh

The only time I ver used that tractor beam range bonus was when I wanted to get that mission critical loot one minute earlier...

Doesn't happen that often, as I could just kill all, warp out and come back with my noctis. And once you go for blitzing all missions, you've got a MWD anyways, no?


So other than saving on ammo, what is the advantage? Overtanking? Ship speed? DPS? Nothing matched up. My mach goes over 650 m/s on after burner and has a sig smaller than passive drake...with over 900 DPS to boot, it was basically a matter of charge destroy and bail.

What exactly is the motivation to train ANOTHER x10 skill and buy another expensive ship....that can't match any of it?
Caesar Desilva
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2879 - 2013-09-06 15:07:43 UTC
I really like this. Im 100% for it
Drizzitx
Dreamkillers
#2880 - 2013-09-06 15:07:55 UTC
Well I was gunna waste a few months training the skills to fly a Golem decently, but now I think I will stick with my Over tanked Tengu and Noctis, does the job just as easily and I can afk tank in the Tengu. 1300 shields/3 seconds :D