These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1261 - 2013-09-01 07:45:33 UTC
EXIA MIKOSZ wrote:
If you don't Use Tractor on Marauders doesn't mean they are useless for other Players
Why many of you Crying about this Tractor Bonus?Its Small thing but very usefull for many of us
As you Can See CCP like to keep this so Please..............

Supposedly, T2 is specialized and T3 is general. A marauder should be specialized. The tractor bonus has exactly one use: looting in solo PvE. But that is ultimately limited by your cargo bay. You're essentially asking for a ship bonus that will be used for selectively looting wrecks. Of all the other things that might be added to the ship, that one is pretty minor in the greater scheme of things. Any bonus added should reflect specialization. I'd rather have a reduced sig radius or increased sensor strength than a tractor bonus.

Bokononist

 
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#1262 - 2013-09-01 08:05:27 UTC
hah, mod that will reduce to 0 damage caused by overheating at the cost of nanite repair paste as fuel for that mod (cycle say 10-30 sec). there are many good ideas to rebalance marauders. Making them immobile is just one of the worst ones.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#1263 - 2013-09-01 08:35:54 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I was just reading a post in the Missions and Complexes forum and something one poster said made me chuckle.

The Bastion module should be renamed to "CAM-B" module, because once you activate it it's like saying "Come at me, Bro" Big smile.

Could have dropped me a like,
Cheers for the acknowledge though ,C-BAM great .

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ju0ZaS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1264 - 2013-09-01 08:54:36 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CueCue QQ wrote:
Badly needs a DPS bonus to go with it. For having to be 100% committed to an action for that kind of time, it should AT LEAST be able to kick around 3k DPS, 4k would be better. This is, after all, a highsec/subcapital WH dread.


that's just dumb ... don't caps do 2-3k dps??
these are clearly more about tank and range than raw dps


Well if you look at EFT you can make dreads do over 10k dps and tank over 20k dps.

Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
Cade Windstalker
#1265 - 2013-09-01 09:03:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Look up any big fight from the middle of last year and just keep going back 2 years.


Unfortunately I lack any sort of mental encyclopedia of major null-sec fleet fights and don't know of any sort of comprehensive listing of such things so the best I could do is look up Asakai (warning, lags on load) and look for T3s there. Overall between the two sides there's about 2-3 squads of Legions, half a squad of Protei, a squad and a half of Lokis, and all of *two* Tengus.

Also all of 2 Strategic Cruisers were killed during the entire fight.

Regardless of where these ships were 2 years ago they're certainly not showing up very much now compared to the swarms of Battlecruisers and Battleships that made up Asakai.

Zaxix wrote:
EXIA MIKOSZ wrote:
If you don't Use Tractor on Marauders doesn't mean they are useless for other Players
Why many of you Crying about this Tractor Bonus?Its Small thing but very usefull for many of us
As you Can See CCP like to keep this so Please..............

Supposedly, T2 is specialized and T3 is general. A marauder should be specialized. The tractor bonus has exactly one use: looting in solo PvE. But that is ultimately limited by your cargo bay. You're essentially asking for a ship bonus that will be used for selectively looting wrecks. Of all the other things that might be added to the ship, that one is pretty minor in the greater scheme of things. Any bonus added should reflect specialization. I'd rather have a reduced sig radius or increased sensor strength than a tractor bonus.


You seem to defeat your own argument here. The tractor-bonus is a highly specialized bonus and from looking at the numbers and bonuses it doesn't seem to have factored into their balancing of the hulls. It's being left there because it hurts literally nothing by its presence beyond the sensibilities of a few irate forum posters. It's used by people who already own these ships and works somewhat well with the MJD bonus, this is the very definition of specialized.

Quote:
Various people claiming that this will be the death of high-sec POSes


Someone with the skills to fly a Marauder most likely already has the capability of rolling over a poorly defended high-sec POS. If there are no defenses to speak of you can do it with an Oracle (I've met or heard of several people who do this) it just takes you about half a day. If you want it to go faster then you can bring friends. Since it takes less to fly Logi than it does a Marauder you're likely going to be able to knock off even well set up POSes.

On the flip-side if you try to knock over a POS in a Marauder it's going to take you a really really long time to kill the thing and during that time the person who owns it can just pack up all the modules and even take down the POS. Alternatively they can find some allies who want to kill an expensive and largely stationary ship and if they're being ransomed it's likely they would even be willing to pay these people for the privilege of killing your Marauder. Overall it seems like this could actually lead to *more* interesting and conflict driving gameplay! Big smile
Galdrak
Interplanetary Trade Federation
#1266 - 2013-09-01 09:08:10 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    As we have hinted several times before, Marauders are next on the Tech2 to-do list. And guess what? It's feedback time!

    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.


    As such, after much internal and CSM discussion, we have designed Marauders with two modes of operation, specialized in harassing tactics.


  • In regular mode, they work approximately on the same fashion as on TQ, but are capable of using Micro Jump Drive at a faster rate than usual to quickly relocate on the battlefield.

  • In deployed mode (we call it bastion), their hulls transform (they will have fancy visible animations like the Rorqual does when deploying) and they become fixed weapon placement with a bonus to resistances, tanking, damage projection and receiving EW immunity. However, like Dreadnoughts, they cannot be remote assisted or even move when that happens. They also cannot use Micro Jump Drives in that mode.


    • 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.

    This also provides a stepping stone between sub-capitals / capital and their various siege / triage operation. It is noteworthy to remember we don't necessarily want them to out-damage or go faster than Pirate Battleships - instead, they tank and project damage better.


    This is a total fail for 2 reasons -FOZZIE and KILL2 are not the people to be rebalancing the marauders, hence this folly of taking these ships into a greater pvp role. you dont send a killer to weed your garden. the marauder is a pve ship, the time and commitment to training all the skills has to make this class of ship the highest edge of battleships, everything else should come way below the level of this class. not everyone playing this game is interested in ship pvp.

    i dont have a grudge against fozzie or kill2 they are both very skilled in the art of ship pvp. but the marauder is not a pvp ship, you want to make them pvp ships then open a new factory and build a different version . today i get 1560 dps at 32k with conflag and sentries. after the changes come in i will see just how much dps i have lost in this rebalance.




Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1267 - 2013-09-01 09:19:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
No they dont want to make them a PvP Ship just not completly useless like in the current form.

Quote:
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.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Mc Cormeg
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1268 - 2013-09-01 09:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mc Cormeg
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
No they dont want to make them a PvP Ship just not completly useless like in the current form.



I think they had so much more possibilities to achieve this goal than introducing a poor mans siege for marauders where on top of this matter its totaly unclear if this will work out well if it hits the actual eve pvp environment.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#1269 - 2013-09-01 09:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Galdrak wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    As we have hinted several times before, Marauders are next on the Tech2 to-do list. And guess what? It's feedback time!

    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.


    As such, after much internal and CSM discussion, we have designed Marauders with two modes of operation, specialized in harassing tactics.


  • In regular mode, they work approximately on the same fashion as on TQ, but are capable of using Micro Jump Drive at a faster rate than usual to quickly relocate on the battlefield.

  • In deployed mode (we call it bastion), their hulls transform (they will have fancy visible animations like the Rorqual does when deploying) and they become fixed weapon placement with a bonus to resistances, tanking, damage projection and receiving EW immunity. However, like Dreadnoughts, they cannot be remote assisted or even move when that happens. They also cannot use Micro Jump Drives in that mode.


    • 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.

    This also provides a stepping stone between sub-capitals / capital and their various siege / triage operation. It is noteworthy to remember we don't necessarily want them to out-damage or go faster than Pirate Battleships - instead, they tank and project damage better.


    This is a total fail for 2 reasons -FOZZIE and KILL2 are not the people to be rebalancing the marauders, hence this folly of taking these ships into a greater pvp role. you dont send a killer to weed your garden. the marauder is a pve ship, the time and commitment to training all the skills has to make this class of ship the highest edge of battleships, everything else should come way below the level of this class. not everyone playing this game is interested in ship pvp.

    i dont have a grudge against fozzie or kill2 they are both very skilled in the art of ship pvp. but the marauder is not a pvp ship, you want to make them pvp ships then open a new factory and build a different version . today i get 1560 dps at 32k with conflag and sentries. after the changes come in i will see just how much dps i have lost in this rebalance.





Not to be a **** but I'm doubt you could do better, also they're not locked in a room for the duration of the re-balance, disallowed contact with frends or family till the task is complete, their work is ccp, they are going to be conferring with their co- workers about this as part of a creative redesign process, especially about something as skill and isk intensive as marauders.

Also, they have brought it to Yer attention here and are asking for your feedback .

Personaly I feel they are goin in the right direction, case and point, I was not training for one, after seeing this, I now am

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1270 - 2013-09-01 09:29:15 UTC
Mc Cormeg wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
No they dont want to make them a PvP Ship just not completly useless like in the current form.



I think they had so much more possibilities to achieve this goal than introducing a poor mans siege for marauders where on top of this matter its totaly unclear if this will work out well if it hits the actual eve pvp environment.


Give me ONE.

Their goal isnt only to bring some Balance (which impossible) but also Fun and fresh mechanics.

Now its your Turn.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Mc Cormeg
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1271 - 2013-09-01 09:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mc Cormeg
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Mc Cormeg wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
No they dont want to make them a PvP Ship just not completly useless like in the current form.



I think they had so much more possibilities to achieve this goal than introducing a poor mans siege for marauders where on top of this matter its totaly unclear if this will work out well if it hits the actual eve pvp environment.


Give me ONE.

Their goal isnt only to bring some Balance (which impossible) but also Fun and fresh mechanics.

Now its your Turn.



Improve sensor strength. Or dmg projection. Increase base resistence or give them a HeatDMG Bonus. There are alot of viable options here. Choose one or all of them if you wish. What ever you need to buff them significantly but at the same time prevent them from being overpowered.

You`re right with saying its nice to have some new mechanics to play with. But in my opinion it would be much tougher to introduce an new ship class for this experimental gameplay rather than messing around with this kind of established marauder gameplay.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1272 - 2013-09-01 09:52:18 UTC
Meyr wrote:
I'm thinking that a few Carriers and Dreads at all IV, and able to be fully insured, will be preferable to an equal number of Marauders (even at all V), in the eyes of most 0.0 alliance leaders or FC's.

Honestly, I'm not sure why CCP feels the need to go in this direction. There has been ample need for a higher-end PVE ship for years, as evidenced by the way these ships are used. There are any number of hulls that are very good at PVP, but absolutely suck rocks at PVE. If you're okay with that, it stands to reason that you should be equally happy with a bare few ships that are too expensive for true PVP, but work well as a PVE investment.

If you want a way for your Goon buddies to grief hisec carebears, how about simply creating a new hull category, like you did with Tier 3 BC's, and leave what had been a marginally successful hull series focused upon its original purpose - turning rats into ISK.

Unless you're going to revamp the gate-to-gate footprint of half of the mission maps, your proposed changes are worse than useless. Micro Jump Drives will put you 40 kilometers PAST the gate, decreased mobility makes getting to the next gate an even more lengthy proposition (but I'm guessing you're okay with that, since it gives the mission gankers more time to scan down and kill those evil mission runners), you take away the drone bays (REALLY? ONE flight of Medium Drones for a Gallente battleship? At long last, have you no shame?), no added CPU (meaning that your gankers will still get sexy drops), and you expect the mission-running player base to be happy?

The only ones happy with this are your true target audience - Goons, and those like them, who hate everyone they refer to as 'carebears', and who go out of their way to grief them. You've given them the perfect platform with which to grief small, non-aligned, 2 & 3-man industrial corps doing T2 invention in a hisec POS.

The Law of Unintended Consequences - look it up.


Meyr, it is a waste of time even discussing this.
The pandemic legion guy is involved in wrecking this ship class, and he HATES PvE.
He is used to massive moon goo as income, and has zero use for anyone who grinds to pay for anything. (This is the same guy who said on the forums that anyone who did not vote in the CSM elections he does not have to listen to)
This is the same guy who wrecked small and heavy drones in missions, and ignored over 100 pages of people screaming how bad an idea it was, (and still is). He will ignore any feedback on this, just as he does about any PvE mechanic.

I use a Paladin in Incursions, and it is losing about 8% DPS(120 DPS lost from going from 3 Garde II"s to 1), its ability to web frigates in close (2 webs at 90% effectiveness slowed down a ship to 1% of its base speed, now it will be 16%, a 16 fold drop in effectiveness). The improvement in optimal range? Who ******* cares? I was already shooting stuff in optimal at 20 km with a properly fit Paladin. Further, it will be impossible to micromanage the timing on that bastion module (60-64 seconds minimum timer) to have it time out the precise moment the incursion finishes, so we will have entire fleets sitting their holding their manparts, while all the timers run out, before moving to the next site, hence another big loss in ISK/hour.

When you factor in the 30 plus % nerf to armour bonuses , and the 30 plus % nerf to web range bonuses next week, and THEN the loss of the OGB (which the pandemic legion guy has guaranteed is happening soon), anyone using a Paladin or Kronos in an Incursion is righteously screwed in armour incursion fleets.

This was another premeditated attack on high sec income, since the null sec cartels apparently can't make enough money now, and need to drive more serfs into null for the cartels to maintain their income stream. (btw, listen to the Crossing Zebra's industry podcast near the end where one of the goon CSM members says that the moon goo drop in prices is a temporary thing)
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1273 - 2013-09-01 10:00:13 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Null. We would fill at least two fleets with tengu (150 to 200 in each fleet not counting logi, booster, brave newbee rifters etc). We did this for years. T3 fleets are far from rare.


Color me somewhat skeptical. Got a battle-report or two to throw my way?

I also feel it's worth noting that T3s were at worst half the cost of Marauders and are currently running about 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost.

They're also being saved till last on the balancing chopping block which would indicate CCP find them to be a particularly thorny issue which is backed up by comments from CCP and the CSM.


Tengu doctrine has long been a CFC favourite and they did indeed field hundreds at a time.
Loki doctrines have also been popular in null.
Tempest Fleet Issues were also a CFC doctrine until they used them against BL and 401k to defend a titan production POS and lost the fleet and the in-build super. They were quickly phased out although i suspect not for reasons of cost.
(more likely how easily they were countered / replacing them via FW limits supply/ it was hugely embarrassing loss) pick one or more of the above or add your own flavour.
We are talking about large null entities with sov bills of hundreds of bill isk a month and incomes of hundreds of bill per month with alliance wallets in the trillions. The cost of a doctrine is worth it if you can use it to successfully and efficiently use it to hold your moons, sov assets etc.
If these ships can be used to create real battlefield advantages in certain situation they will be used in those situations and potentially in vast numbers. For example people like to bring a couple of hundred celestis as a support fleet and thus neutralise the opposing fleets ability to either use logi or to apply dps. These ships with ewar immunity and huge local tank could quickly turn such support fleet to ash allowing the conventional fleet to operate normally once more. The warlords of null will decide if this is worth it /a bad idea/ whatever but i throw it out as an idea of how people might be thinking.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Max50
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1274 - 2013-09-01 10:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Max50
With these changes, the Golem is going to be the ultimate ISK printing machine easilly hitting the 500MIL per hour limit.

And all that in empire.

Sweet
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#1275 - 2013-09-01 10:12:19 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Meyr wrote:
I'm thinking that a few Carriers and Dreads at all IV, and able to be fully insured, will be preferable to an equal number of Marauders (even at all V), in the eyes of most 0.0 alliance leaders or FC's.

Honestly, I'm not sure why CCP feels the need to go in this direction. There has been ample need for a higher-end PVE ship for years, as evidenced by the way these ships are used. There are any number of hulls that are very good at PVP, but absolutely suck rocks at PVE. If you're okay with that, it stands to reason that you should be equally happy with a bare few ships that are too expensive for true PVP, but work well as a PVE investment.

If you want a way for your Goon buddies to grief hisec carebears, how about simply creating a new hull category, like you did with Tier 3 BC's, and leave what had been a marginally successful hull series focused upon its original purpose - turning rats into ISK.

Unless you're going to revamp the gate-to-gate footprint of half of the mission maps, your proposed changes are worse than useless. Micro Jump Drives will put you 40 kilometers PAST the gate, decreased mobility makes getting to the next gate an even more lengthy proposition (but I'm guessing you're okay with that, since it gives the mission gankers more time to scan down and kill those evil mission runners), you take away the drone bays (REALLY? ONE flight of Medium Drones for a Gallente battleship? At long last, have you no shame?), no added CPU (meaning that your gankers will still get sexy drops), and you expect the mission-running player base to be happy?

The only ones happy with this are your true target audience - Goons, and those like them, who hate everyone they refer to as 'carebears', and who go out of their way to grief them. You've given them the perfect platform with which to grief small, non-aligned, 2 & 3-man industrial corps doing T2 invention in a hisec POS.

The Law of Unintended Consequences - look it up.


Meyr, it is a waste of time even discussing this.
The pandemic legion guy is involved in wrecking this ship class, and he HATES PvE.
He is used to massive moon goo as income, and has zero use for anyone who grinds to pay for anything. (This is the same guy who said on the forums that anyone who did not vote in the CSM elections he does not have to listen to)
This is the same guy who wrecked small and heavy drones in missions, and ignored over 100 pages of people screaming how bad an idea it was, (and still is). He will ignore any feedback on this, just as he does about any PvE mechanic.

I use a Paladin in Incursions, and it is losing about 8% DPS(120 DPS lost from going from 3 Garde II"s to 1), its ability to web frigates in close (2 webs at 90% effectiveness slowed down a ship to 1% of its base speed, now it will be 16%, a 16 fold drop in effectiveness). The improvement in optimal range? Who ******* cares? I was already shooting stuff in optimal at 20 km with a properly fit Paladin. Further, it will be impossible to micromanage the timing on that bastion module (60-64 seconds minimum timer) to have it time out the precise moment the incursion finishes, so we will have entire fleets sitting their holding their manparts, while all the timers run out, before moving to the next site, hence another big loss in ISK/hour.

When you factor in the 30 plus % nerf to armour bonuses , and the 30 plus % nerf to web range bonuses next week, and THEN the loss of the OGB (which the pandemic legion guy has guaranteed is happening soon), anyone using a Paladin or Kronos in an Incursion is righteously screwed in armour incursion fleets.

This was another premeditated attack on high sec income, since the null sec cartels apparently can't make enough money now, and need to drive more serfs into null for the cartels to maintain their income stream. (btw, listen to the Crossing Zebra's industry podcast near the end where one of the goon CSM members says that the moon goo drop in prices is a temporary thing)

Some one slap him, he's hysterical. Its a rebalancing man, calm down

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Danica Fox
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1276 - 2013-09-01 10:25:34 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Meyr wrote:
I'm thinking that a few Carriers and Dreads at all IV, and able to be fully insured, will be preferable to an equal number of Marauders (even at all V), in the eyes of most 0.0 alliance leaders or FC's.

Honestly, I'm not sure why CCP feels the need to go in this direction. There has been ample need for a higher-end PVE ship for years, as evidenced by the way these ships are used. There are any number of hulls that are very good at PVP, but absolutely suck rocks at PVE. If you're okay with that, it stands to reason that you should be equally happy with a bare few ships that are too expensive for true PVP, but work well as a PVE investment.

If you want a way for your Goon buddies to grief hisec carebears, how about simply creating a new hull category, like you did with Tier 3 BC's, and leave what had been a marginally successful hull series focused upon its original purpose - turning rats into ISK.

Unless you're going to revamp the gate-to-gate footprint of half of the mission maps, your proposed changes are worse than useless. Micro Jump Drives will put you 40 kilometers PAST the gate, decreased mobility makes getting to the next gate an even more lengthy proposition (but I'm guessing you're okay with that, since it gives the mission gankers more time to scan down and kill those evil mission runners), you take away the drone bays (REALLY? ONE flight of Medium Drones for a Gallente battleship? At long last, have you no shame?), no added CPU (meaning that your gankers will still get sexy drops), and you expect the mission-running player base to be happy?

The only ones happy with this are your true target audience - Goons, and those like them, who hate everyone they refer to as 'carebears', and who go out of their way to grief them. You've given them the perfect platform with which to grief small, non-aligned, 2 & 3-man industrial corps doing T2 invention in a hisec POS.

The Law of Unintended Consequences - look it up.


Meyr, it is a waste of time even discussing this.
The pandemic legion guy is involved in wrecking this ship class, and he HATES PvE.
He is used to massive moon goo as income, and has zero use for anyone who grinds to pay for anything. (This is the same guy who said on the forums that anyone who did not vote in the CSM elections he does not have to listen to)
This is the same guy who wrecked small and heavy drones in missions, and ignored over 100 pages of people screaming how bad an idea it was, (and still is). He will ignore any feedback on this, just as he does about any PvE mechanic.

I use a Paladin in Incursions, and it is losing about 8% DPS(120 DPS lost from going from 3 Garde II"s to 1), its ability to web frigates in close (2 webs at 90% effectiveness slowed down a ship to 1% of its base speed, now it will be 16%, a 16 fold drop in effectiveness). The improvement in optimal range? Who ******* cares? I was already shooting stuff in optimal at 20 km with a properly fit Paladin. Further, it will be impossible to micromanage the timing on that bastion module (60-64 seconds minimum timer) to have it time out the precise moment the incursion finishes, so we will have entire fleets sitting their holding their manparts, while all the timers run out, before moving to the next site, hence another big loss in ISK/hour.

When you factor in the 30 plus % nerf to armour bonuses , and the 30 plus % nerf to web range bonuses next week, and THEN the loss of the OGB (which the pandemic legion guy has guaranteed is happening soon), anyone using a Paladin or Kronos in an Incursion is righteously screwed in armour incursion fleets.

This was another premeditated attack on high sec income, since the null sec cartels apparently can't make enough money now, and need to drive more serfs into null for the cartels to maintain their income stream. (btw, listen to the Crossing Zebra's industry podcast near the end where one of the goon CSM members says that the moon goo drop in prices is a temporary thing)




he is so right
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1277 - 2013-09-01 10:29:43 UTC
Mc Cormeg wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Mc Cormeg wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
No they dont want to make them a PvP Ship just not completly useless like in the current form.



I think they had so much more possibilities to achieve this goal than introducing a poor mans siege for marauders where on top of this matter its totaly unclear if this will work out well if it hits the actual eve pvp environment.


Give me ONE.

Their goal isnt only to bring some Balance (which impossible) but also Fun and fresh mechanics.

Now its your Turn.



Improve sensor strength. Or dmg projection. Increase base resistence or give them a HeatDMG Bonus. There are alot of viable options here. Choose one or all of them if you wish. What ever you need to buff them significantly but at the same time prevent them from being overpowered.

You`re right with saying its nice to have some new mechanics to play with. But in my opinion it would be much tougher to introduce an new ship class for this experimental gameplay rather than messing around with this kind of established marauder gameplay.


You are getting improved sensor strength, damage projection and resists...
Frenghiz Khan
The Golden Marauder Horde
#1278 - 2013-09-01 10:36:48 UTC
Really doesn't make sense to reduce the drone bay space so drastically on these big ships.. it's nonsense, please don't do it, the reduction in drone bandwidth is just as ridiculous.
LoanWolf Tivianne
Ace's And 8's
#1279 - 2013-09-01 10:37:50 UTC
life in c2 and 3 just went to hell

yea my spelling sucks so do you go back to work school teacher your not wanted here
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1280 - 2013-09-01 10:47:49 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Null. We would fill at least two fleets with tengu (150 to 200 in each fleet not counting logi, booster, brave newbee rifters etc). We did this for years. T3 fleets are far from rare.


Color me somewhat skeptical. Got a battle-report or two to throw my way?

I also feel it's worth noting that T3s were at worst half the cost of Marauders and are currently running about 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost.

They're also being saved till last on the balancing chopping block which would indicate CCP find them to be a particularly thorny issue which is backed up by comments from CCP and the CSM.



I've seen both CFC and -A- fill multiple fleets with tengus..

...and yeah a normal fleet tengu runs right around 550mil