These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
The Birdhouse
#4441 - 2013-09-30 18:51:40 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Just think about it this way: Say you put 2b into a Vargur. 4guns/3neuts, mid slots for MJD and dual XLASB tank, low slots 3 damage mods, DC, TE. 1b for the hull and 1b for mods. What combination of ships that costs 2b can kill you? The only thing is a massive blob of cheap T1. Basically any gang in T2 or higher ships will never be able to kill you unless they both outnumber AND out-ISK you. That's the definition of broken.


lol
Elson Tamar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4442 - 2013-09-30 18:57:06 UTC
Tractor beam bonus OP please nerf as they make my noctis under powered ;) Seriously. However could yah remove the tractor beam bonus and give us a combat bonus. Web range etc steps on recon toes, but seriously if thease are going to be the Dread stepping stone they need to act like dreads not EvE's version of Pacman.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#4443 - 2013-09-30 19:00:14 UTC
Iome Ambraelle wrote:


I do find the remote repair platform version of the Paladin posted above interesting. However, even if it did rep the same amount as 2 guardians, at what range would it do so? Also, the benefit of 2 guardians is that you only loose half your gang/fleets repair potential if you lose one of them. You can also field 2 guardians for much cheaper and the two together would have significantly more EHP between the two of them.

I'm all for collecting information about what these hulls are capable of using the current iteration numbers. However, I think we need to ensure that those numbers are representative of real-world viable fits. Otherwise all we are doing is providing a skewed picture to the devs and community that will ultimately ensure the Marauder class is subpar compared to anything else.



http://i.imgur.com/2ZZqsgg.png this is the theoretical fit. Adjust active tank by x2.5 (actually higher) and cap recharge by x1.333 to get the actual proposed values regarding bastioneffects. The vulnerabilty of guardians are both jams and scanres-damps. While that 'archon' doesn't compete with guardians fielding a 30man+ fleet (voiding the damp-argument), jams still hurt - though canceled by the bastion itself. Two Guards are reliably enough to tank a HAC-gang against an insane amount of incoming damage already, in this case, you had to bump a HAC off his marauder to kill it.

As someone mentioned capacitor warfare immunity, my trololol-alarms went off. Cause given people can't field 6-7 good dps-ships, they won't stand a chance downing that tank.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#4444 - 2013-09-30 19:00:31 UTC
Niche ships that noone uses is 10000 times better than OP lolmobiles

I approve of this change even though i wouldn't mind further iterations (Don't bring back bonused webs and t2 res ffs)

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#4445 - 2013-09-30 19:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Niche ships that noone uses is 10000 times better than OP lolmobiles

I approve of this change even though i wouldn't mind further iterations (Don't bring back bonused webs and t2 res ffs)


indeed niche is the whole point of T2 .... webs and T2 resists are OP on these and gives too many specialisations to these ships and web bonuses creates more conflicts with pirate ships.
less T2 resists on ships please ..
Also TP on golem is odd and should be removed for a explosion radius bonus instead it shouldn't have an e-war bonus that should only belong on minnie e-war ships

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4446 - 2013-09-30 19:10:27 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
a reasonable trade off for the resistance problem could be found in doing the following:

bringing back tech II resistances but not full tech II. give them the same resist profile that field command ships used to get. for an example look at the pre-boosted astarte stats on evelopedia

this will make the ships allot more viable in non-bastion mod

but the 30% bonus to all resists would make the ship way op (even with modified tech II resists). so remove the bonus from shield and armor and just make the 30% bonus apply to hull resistance.

so now you get your psuedo tech Ii resists in either bastion or not but you get that 78% omni resist profile from bastion for hull.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
The Birdhouse
#4447 - 2013-09-30 19:15:16 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
a reasonable trade off for the resistance problem could be found in doing the following:

bringing back tech II resistances but not full tech II. give them the same resist profile that field command ships used to get. for an example look at the pre-boosted astarte stats on evelopedia

this will make the ships allot more viable in non-bastion mod

but the 30% bonus to all resists would make the ship way op (even with modified tech II resists). so remove the bonus from shield and armor and just make the 30% bonus apply to hull resistance.

so now you get your psuedo tech Ii resists in either bastion or not but you get that 78% omni resist profile from bastion for hull.


that's ******* stupid
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4448 - 2013-09-30 19:25:45 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
a reasonable trade off for the resistance problem could be found in doing the following:

bringing back tech II resistances but not full tech II. give them the same resist profile that field command ships used to get. for an example look at the pre-boosted astarte stats on evelopedia

this will make the ships allot more viable in non-bastion mod

but the 30% bonus to all resists would make the ship way op (even with modified tech II resists). so remove the bonus from shield and armor and just make the 30% bonus apply to hull resistance.

so now you get your psuedo tech Ii resists in either bastion or not but you get that 78% omni resist profile from bastion for hull.


that's ******* stupid


care to explain why other then acting like a ******?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
The Birdhouse
#4449 - 2013-09-30 19:35:40 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
a reasonable trade off for the resistance problem could be found in doing the following:

bringing back tech II resistances but not full tech II. give them the same resist profile that field command ships used to get. for an example look at the pre-boosted astarte stats on evelopedia

this will make the ships allot more viable in non-bastion mod

but the 30% bonus to all resists would make the ship way op (even with modified tech II resists). so remove the bonus from shield and armor and just make the 30% bonus apply to hull resistance.

so now you get your psuedo tech Ii resists in either bastion or not but you get that 78% omni resist profile from bastion for hull.


that's ******* stupid


care to explain why other then acting like a ******?


you basically gave it the worst of both worlds and you can't even see what the hell is wrong with your idea?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4450 - 2013-09-30 19:45:50 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:


you basically gave it the worst of both worlds and you can't even see what the hell is wrong with your idea?


not really the field command ship resist profile is much better then the current maruader resists. so that a big plus one for it being outside of bastion mode.

but when its in bastion mode that extra 30% unstacked resits coupled with FCS resists would be way way to high. so i see this as a reasonable compromise.

you may see it as worst of both worlds but i see it was best of both.

its a good thing we are both entitled to our opinions.

personally i am rather happy with the way maraders are proposed in the op. but there are those who are rather upset to see the full tech II resists go away because that means they hurt outside of bastion mode. what i am trying to propose is meeting half way. giving the ships decent resists outside of bastion while still giving it some boost inside.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Zolian
Murderous Impulse
#4451 - 2013-09-30 19:53:11 UTC
In three weeks the best you could come up with is to revert to the first iteration. This is immensely disappointing.

All marauders really needed was an increase in fittings and sensor strength. None of this gimmicky bastion garbage, certainly not at the cost of drones and speed.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4452 - 2013-09-30 20:06:51 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:


you basically gave it the worst of both worlds and you can't even see what the hell is wrong with your idea?


not really the field command ship resist profile is much better then the current maruader resists. so that a big plus one for it being outside of bastion mode.

but when its in bastion mode that extra 30% unstacked resits coupled with FCS resists would be way way to high. so i see this as a reasonable compromise.

you may see it as worst of both worlds but i see it was best of both.

its a good thing we are both entitled to our opinions.

personally i am rather happy with the way maraders are proposed in the op. but there are those who are rather upset to see the full tech II resists go away because that means they hurt outside of bastion mode. what i am trying to propose is meeting half way. giving the ships decent resists outside of bastion while still giving it some boost inside.

Depends on the application really, they aren't any worse than now tank wise for buffer tanking, which, with a partial resist increase we likely won't make back since it seems the options are rep or resists. with full T2 we selectively make it back and with part T2 + bastion resists in hull only it means that the defensive layer you really never want touched is the only layer augmented. Unless you are doing something really wrong it's never going to be used thus it would become a new contender for most useless bonus along side the tractor beam range bonus.
Vorseger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4453 - 2013-09-30 20:09:27 UTC
Could CCP update the original post to show the current proposed changes please. Or just have a new thread like one stated if a version is going live on test server. Either way, if having to choose between two or three variations of proposed changes; it would be nice to have all of them laid out in full detail in the same post for comparison. Just a suggestion.

Interesting update. I am not excited either way. I loath sit and shoot.

I think these proposed changes should have been released A LONG TIME AGO. This short release makes me think one of two things: you either made up your mind that these changes were going through (bastion module/mode) regardless of what your players think; or that you have spent VERY LITTLE time and resources on this change (kind of like one procrastinated and maybe marauders were the last on the list to try to squeeze in amidst the other changes for the winter expansion).

Not knowing if the intent was to make this class role sit and shoot and/or snipe makes me frustrated. If you want to have very specific roles for T2 battleships then do you plan on making a T2 variant of each races other battleship hull? This would make sense having 3 roles for the 3 different battleship T2 hull variations. Maybe less players would take offense to the specialization of the marauder's role if they knew there was another T2 battleship yet to come that could/would fit their play style.
STush T
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#4454 - 2013-09-30 20:18:15 UTC
I think its safe to say that we can all stop voicing our concerns/venting because CCP has already said that
A, they didnt read what we wrote
B, they're not going to read any more of what we write in this thread.
So
If you cant change anything, then all you can do is join me in a "wait and see" attitude.
Dorororo
Keroro Platoon
#4455 - 2013-09-30 20:25:34 UTC
I currently own 3 marauders and am actually decently happy with their current performance.

What really annoys me about these changes is that CCP is making one of the biggest mistakes a developer can make : if you want players to change their playstyle, you incentivise them to make the change. You don't push them to make the change by adding penalties to the current iteration that can only be removed by utilising the new modules.

For example, if you want to encourage MJD use with Marauders, then just add the MJD bonus as it is. Why nerf speed and mass? I don't see the point. All you manage to achieve is to make a subset of your players ***** and swear every time they are "forced" to MJD because you nerfed their speed. If they are still not using MJD with the bonus, then it obviously means that the MJD gimmick is not worth using because it's too much trouble. You could further ENCOURAGE people to use MJD if you really want them to by making a range-selectable MJD that can only be used on Marauders (like Covert Ops cloaks). This idea has already been proposed by many, and will get you the same effect of people using MJD on Marauders without pissing people off.

Likewise with Bastion, it was aggravating that the local rep bonus was removed to push people to use Bastion. If you do that, then everytime people go into Bastion they won't be thinking "wow this is cool". They will be thinking "dammit now I'm forced to be stationary to tank the same as I could before". For those people who think T2 resists will help, take a look at the Paladin. Paladin often fights NPCs which do EM/Thermal, since you know it's a laser boat. And the T2 resists have the exact same armor EM/Thermal resist as the live version... If the concern is that local repping is OP in Bastion, then the obvious response is to tune the repping bonus in Bastion.

I'm happy to hear that the dev team has listened to some feedback and gone back to Iteration 1. But I would hope that you keep this in mind when you consider further changes. Don't go the route of F2P developers who first burden you with limited bag space, then provide you with "bag upgrades" to remedy the situation. In the same way, don't nerf the hull to uselessness just to push people to MJD/Bastion/whatever other stuff you come up with. The new features should be attractive by themselves, otherwise they should not be implemented.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
Mean Coalition
#4456 - 2013-09-30 20:28:36 UTC
Oh well time to sell my marauders then, I didn't want that marauder 5 anyway.

Is it really that much to ask to simply address the issues that I have pointed out multiple times in this thread instead of making them all basically useless for people that used them for what they where made for?

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4457 - 2013-09-30 20:35:18 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Depends on the application really, they aren't any worse than now tank wise for buffer tanking, which, with a partial resist increase we likely won't make back since it seems the options are rep or resists. with full T2 we selectively make it back and with part T2 + bastion resists in hull only it means that the defensive layer you really never want touched is the only layer augmented. Unless you are doing something really wrong it's never going to be used thus it would become a new contender for most useless bonus along side the tractor beam range bonus.



the use i was seing for the hull resistance was for when reloading your aar or asb, at that point you usually start to bleed into hull. so for me the 78% vrs 60% could mean getting that extra reload.

i will admit that the reduced tech II resist profile while using the bastion mod is not as good as the proposed 30% all round while in bastion mode. but it does do one key thing and that is increased resistances outside of bastion mode. to which i think would add to utility and give you more options on how to pilot the ship.

moreover if bringing the shield and armor resist bonus to 0% on the bastion is too much you could always give it the same bonus for a DCU II. that would balance out the missing resist from the reduced Tech II profile.

so now the bastion module would do:
12.5% to shield resistance
15% to armor resistance
30% to hull resistance

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4458 - 2013-09-30 20:37:09 UTC
The Djego wrote:
Oh well time to sell my marauders then, I didn't want that marauder 5 anyway.

Is it really that much to ask to simply address the issues that I have pointed out multiple times in this thread instead of making them all basically useless for people that used them for what they where made for?


What were they "made for," exactly? They're better at everything now except possibly l4 missions, and even there I think immunity to TDs, damps, and jams makes up for the DPS loss from losing drones.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4459 - 2013-09-30 20:54:07 UTC
The Djego wrote:
Oh well time to sell my marauders then, I didn't want that marauder 5 anyway.

Is it really that much to ask to simply address the issues that I have pointed out multiple times in this thread instead of making them all basically useless for people that used them for what they where made for?

Weren't they made for PvE? In my mind while this doesn't give it as a handout this actually dues increase their capacity in that regard through some creative means. I suppose we could tun them into navy BS's with rep bonuses and less ammo consumption, but that sounds boring IMHO.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4460 - 2013-09-30 20:58:50 UTC
so.. golem tp bonus or no? it you guys remove it then well.. then it is useless in pvp as far as i am concerned. the tp bonus was its ONE saving grace.