These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#1561 - 2013-09-02 21:20:37 UTC
Zoe Israfil wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
Zoe Israfil wrote:
I would like to reiterate my strong support of these new ships. I'd also like to address a few recurring topics.

Drones:
Many people are saying that their reduced drone bay (not bandwidth) is going to be harsh. I'm assuming that they are referring resupplying in hostile space (not your sov 0.0 or maybe even npc sov). I personally don't see the major issue with this as you have a fairly large cargo bay. While this would not solve the issue if you are in space you can not dock in, I find it rather unlikely you will have one of these ships in undockable space without carrier support.

Damage:
Please read EVE UNI's turret damage wiki article before continuing. I keep seeing people talk about how these monsters are going to lose damage and be over tanked. I think that as they are they appear extremely balanced and well thought out. Why? Projection and stationary.

Projection is a complicated issue, and is poorly understood by many within the EVE community. Because it is hidden, and because the formula is balls complicated, many people pass it off as something that can be ignored and decide to focus on raw paper dps instead. This is a horrible, horrible mistake. I am a minnie pilot and have spent a considerable amount of time reading about projection, and while I don't proclaim to be an expert, I can say with conviction that projection bonuses are vastly superior to damage bonuses in my opinion (on battleships). Just as we have EHP/ raw HP we have Applied DPS/ raw DPS.

It is fairly well understood that at "max falloff" (optimal plus falloff) you are doing 50% of paper dps. As a GENERALIZATION this scales almost linearly throughout falloff (so at half of falloff you are getting -25% of paper dps). What is often not accounted for is the SAME APPLIES TO TRACKING. This means that the target is moving at half of your max tracking you are also getting another -25% to applied damage. How often as pilots are you orbiting a target at ~50% of max falloff? For me it's pretty often. Under these "normal" conditions we can expect almost a 50% reduction in paper dps. The bonuses proposed on these new ships are absolutely amazing in my opinion as they help to mitigate such a loss.

Tank:
While many people are concerned about the ridiculous tanks that will be fielded by these guys, I'd just like to challenge everyone to sit still in their next 7/10 - 9/10. Don't move, just tank. You don't even have to shoot anything. Speed/sig tanking may not be the primary form of tanking on battleships by a huge margin, but I assure you it has a Significant impact.

Stationary:
I don't really have the space to address this in this post, as this is a huge and fantastic change. I will suffice to say that this will have a huge impact on pve/pvp doctrines and will reshape the current way of thinking. I think this is one of the most fantastic changes to happen since I've been playing. I completely support these awesome ships and think they will be a great addition. Please feel free to challenge anything I'm proposing, as I definitely feel strongly about these ships and would like to be involved in the community that may ultimately shape them.


drones: resupply of drones is irritating but yeah not really detrimental
damage: higher 'paper' dps means the higher dps you CAN apply if conditions are right. You may be able to apply more damage with better application via projection, tracking, but in best case scenarios you will do less dps. And i believe that opt+ 1/2 falloff is more like 85% than 75%

now for stationary... here you have 2 options:
1 - MOVE but have less projection - through moving you can get into the range where you can project and do more dps - even more dps

1- stay still.... but project further. It might be easier to apply damage this way, but your damage cap is lower. And as soon as you move you are either going to be slow, or you are going to MJD out of your effective range, OR you could move quickly with mwd, but then you are dualproping and gimping tracking/opt/tank, or why not just use a ship with just an mwd, and move into range where you have higher possible dps?

Both are.... viable. But many prefer the ability to output more dps


I'm just going to post a copy of the table here, because obviously people arn't looking at it...

Percent of
Tracking or Falloff | Hit chance | DPS reduction
0% 100% 0.0%
25% 95.8% −6.1%
33.3% 92.6% −10.6%
50% 84.1% −22.1%
84.8% 60.8% −50.0%
100% 50.0% −61.1%
150% 21.0% −85.2%
200% 6.25% −94.3%
300% 0.20% −99.4%

Projection is better than raw deeps. factor in hit chance with dps drop....


yes, but if you MOVE then you can PROJECT your damage, instead of being immobile. You see how if you have a higehr damage ship, and you move into position, you still do more dps
Jedediah Arndtz
Jedediah Arndtz Corporation
#1562 - 2013-09-02 21:21:02 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    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.


Yeah, just look at all the people running around solo and small gang in Vindicators, they must need more options from the basic billion isk battleships that people are losing left and right.

All that's going to happen is that L4 runners have an easier time, from both the bastion tank and the 15% increase in boosters. Where's the love for passive tank, by the way? Rattlesnake's already bad enough, without the stealth nerf.
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#1563 - 2013-09-02 21:21:56 UTC
Mmm... They are already slow enough, why even slower?
But in general sounds good, although I'd like drone bays like 60 m3 instead (5 hobgoblins 5 salvagers 2 armor bots, or 6-5-1 respectively - need some spare drones anyway)
Cade Windstalker
#1564 - 2013-09-02 21:29:59 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
just want to point out that feedback is also telling you that this is a bad idea,
gj selectively hearing.

and when it hits tq and its a bad idea,

i aint sayin i told you so, but ..


Feedback is also saying this is an awesome idea, so which feedback are they supposed to listen to? If they only listened to negative feedback the game would be in an utterly horrible state. If you have a reason this is a horrible idea then support it with evidence, otherwise just saying "this is a horrible idea" doesn't carry much weight.

Jedediah Arndtz wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    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.


Yeah, just look at all the people running around solo and small gang in Vindicators, they must need more options from the basic billion isk battleships that people are losing left and right.

All that's going to happen is that L4 runners have an easier time, from both the bastion tank and the 15% increase in boosters. Where's the love for passive tank, by the way? Rattlesnake's already bad enough, without the stealth nerf.


If you missed it Pirate Battleships are next on the rebalance queue along with Black-Ops.
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
#1565 - 2013-09-02 21:36:52 UTC
I think this is a great idea. I think it will add to meaningful gameplay choices. I'm definitely excited about pve, but I'm even more excited if the changes could make it a viable choice in pvp. I love having different choices to make, it makes pvp a lot more interesting.

Please keep up the good work guys.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1566 - 2013-09-02 21:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Alright, ran some more tests on our internal servers with suggested changes. [...]

surprisingly enough, your tests confirm word for word what i have been saying 40 pages ago:
- new marauder level 4 performance outclasses everything else, including pirate BS.
- the tank bonus is so strong, it allows you to actually tank vanguards.

ytterbium, please reconsider adding this module to the current marauder hulls. the mjd bonus, together with slight tweaks to their EHP, sensor strength, scan resolution and mobility should be more than enough to make them an interesting option in pvp while keeping their pve role intact. you can see them as T2 'attack' battleships if you like.

the bastion module is a cool idea but it just doesn't fit the current marauder class as well as you seem to think it does. if you want to introduce it (and i think you should), consider adding a third set of T2 battleships, the 'combat' marauders. those will be what the abaddon and rokh already are: beefy but less mobile siege tanks complete with eight turret slots and siege mode for pos bashes, gate camps, blob warfare and other shenanigans where it's all about hurt.

edit: another idea that would go well with the marauder role as well as the 'attack' role would be baseline bonus warp strength. this would make a mjd or dualprop fitted marauder a slippery hit and run boat.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Daishan Auergni
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1567 - 2013-09-02 21:38:47 UTC
I've seen a bunch of ppl complain that the MJD isn't suited for lvl4 gates because the gates aren't exactly 100KM off...

May I introduce the concept of the TRIANGLE? 3-sided shape. Should be familiar. Pick an acute angle such that jumping BACK will make the 3rd leg of the triangle whatever distance you need? I know. Takes some reckoning skill but surely it's better than doing 6KM/minute (~100m/s). With some practice jumping twice will land you on a gate or wreck or whatever in 2 minutes.

ALSO. For PVP, I think MJD and Bastion will introduce some exciting new game mechanics. Imagine a pair of marauders MJD'ing in different directions, but landing close enough that with long guns one can pick off frigs trying to point the other. Scale up two groups of marauders for the same effect. EW immune, Bastioned up, the tanks would be a pain in the ass to deal with.

For incursions, leave them w/out bastion for Assault and HQ sites. 4 free hi-slots make for incredible utility and marauder resists are good enough with sufficient buffer. For Vanguards, I've been playing with some blinged up fits that might be sustainable under local rep. 100% local rep bonus and 30% resists, non-stacking? Add in dead space invuln/EANM, DCII, command links bonus... I'd think they can stand at least for a minute until the bastion can be cycled off. Armor might be a bit squeaky...

The web nerfs for Palidan and Kronos, at least in Incurions, isn't the end of the world. Vanguard squads are going to need Lokis or Bhaals to long point things once again. 3x 60% webs will do the job. The increased range for Scorch or Null will make killing frigate spawns at range easier since sebo'd or re-sebo'd Pallys can stand with Nightmare lock times. No more gimped marauder sensor rez, yay!

I'm excited. Ultimately, these proposed changes will increase marauder utility, adding new and exciting possibilities. New and exciting, isn't that what expansions are all about?

Dear CCP. Can we get these on SiSi soonest? Kthanxbai.
Nano Quantum
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1568 - 2013-09-02 21:39:14 UTC
Shade Alidiana wrote:
Mmm... They are already slow enough, why even slower?
But in general sounds good, although I'd like drone bays like 60 m3 instead (5 hobgoblins 5 salvagers 2 armor bots, or 6-5-1 respectively - need some spare drones anyway)

I'm not sure about the drone bay nerf myself. I can see where they would have issues with sentries via the bandwidth nerf that solves that issue, but it's not like they are adding a 10% tracking bonus to all drones on these ships for them to be an issue.
Zoe Israfil
#1569 - 2013-09-02 21:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Zoe Israfil
I understand that many people are upset over the lack of dps these guys might be able to put out; people are concerned over pvp applications.

I think these guys are going to an absolute amazing addition to pvp in SMALL GANGS. What we are seeing is a battleship class that gets bonuses to projection. If we look at the golem in particular we see a +25% bonus to explosion velocity and 50% to target painters.... a dual tp golem SHOULD get very respectable projection against battlecruisers/cruiser classes. I've not done the math with any certainty but please some check me on it. We might even see a ship class that does not fear frigates if they have web support (loki anybody?). To me these ships seem like super accurate medium caliber sniper rifles.... They are highly accurate and their dps (while maybe not on par with some of the other monsters) can be put on some real small targets. This makes me very very excited. I personally can not wait to see some of these in the hands of creative pvp'ers....
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#1570 - 2013-09-02 21:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Battle Cube
Daishan Auergni wrote:
I've seen a bunch of ppl complain that the MJD isn't suited for lvl4 gates because the gates aren't exactly 100KM off...

May I introduce the concept of the TRIANGLE? 3-sided shape. Should be familiar. Pick an acute angle such that jumping BACK will make the 3rd leg of the triangle whatever distance you need? I know. Takes some reckoning skill but surely it's better than doing 6KM/minute (~100m/s). With some practice jumping twice will land you on a gate or wreck or whatever in 2 minutes.

ALSO. For PVP, I think MJD and Bastion will introduce some exciting new game mechanics. Imagine a pair of marauders MJD'ing in different directions, but landing close enough that with long guns one can pick off frigs trying to point the other. Scale up two groups of marauders for the same effect. EW immune, Bastioned up, the tanks would be a pain in the ass to deal with.

For incursions, leave them w/out bastion for Assault and HQ sites. 4 free hi-slots make for incredible utility and marauder resists are good enough with sufficient buffer. For Vanguards, I've been playing with some blinged up fits that might be sustainable under local rep. 100% local rep bonus and 30% resists, non-stacking? Add in dead space invuln/EANM, DCII, command links bonus... I'd think they can stand at least for a minute until the bastion can be cycled off. Armor might be a bit squeaky...

The web nerfs for Palidan and Kronos, at least in Incurions, isn't the end of the world. Vanguard squads are going to need Lokis or Bhaals to long point things once again. 3x 60% webs will do the job. The increased range for Scorch or Null will make killing frigate spawns at range easier since sebo'd or re-sebo'd Pallys can stand with Nightmare lock times. No more gimped marauder sensor rez, yay!

I'm excited. Ultimately, these proposed changes will increase marauder utility, adding new and exciting possibilities. New and exciting, isn't that what expansions are all about?

Dear CCP. Can we get these on SiSi soonest? Kthanxbai.


as for incursions, the 4 utility slots are irrelevent unless you want them to spider tank.
if you need other ships than marauder they need logies - unless you want the marauders to rep them
and if you use spider tanking you are losing their 'damage' bonus (range)

its not that its impossible, its that it doesnt make sense.


Meh. Im ok with being proved wrong. I hope there are changes to this before it comes out, but if it hits the test server as is i will try it out. I will try to make it viable because goddamnit i want to fly a marauder because they are cool. And a transofrming mode will make them really cool.
Cade Windstalker
#1571 - 2013-09-02 21:51:48 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:

surprisingly enough, your tests confirm word for word what i have been saying 40 pages ago:
- new marauder level 4 performance outclasses everything else, including pirate BS.
- the tank bonus is so strong, it allows you to actually tank vanguards.

ytterbium, please reconsider adding this module to the current marauder hulls. the mjd bonus, together with slight tweaks to their EHP, sensor strength, scan resolution and mobility should be more than enough to make them an interesting option in pvp while keeping their pve role intact. you can see them as T2 'attack' battleships if you like.

the bastion module is a cool idea but it just doesn't fit the current marauder class as well as you seem to think it does. if you want to introduce it (and i think you should), consider adding a third set of T2 battleships, the 'combat' marauders. those will be what the abaddon and rokh already are: beefy but less mobile siege tanks complete with siege mode for pos bashes, gate camps, blob warfare and other shenanigans where it's all about hurt.


Attack Battleships would have more speed and gank but less tank. High end Attack Battleships is more likely to be the Pirate Battleships.

The only thing the current marauders have going for them is tank. The Pirate Battleships have more gank and speed, the navy ships have more of either one depending.

The Marauders are and always have been good for tanking and fittings, two things that these new Marauders are still going to be fantastic at.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1572 - 2013-09-02 22:08:38 UTC
The rage from the pve crowd is hilarious in here.
quigibow
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1573 - 2013-09-02 22:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: quigibow
MeBiatch wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

As such we are definitely not going to give any kind of damage bonus in Bastion mode - if we ever did, it would be by severely penalizing turret tracking / missile explosion velocity when in Bastion mode, which would severally limit their use in PvE.


what if you guys made a script then?

one optimal/falloff range the other tracking nerf but damage increase...

that way you can either choose damage projection or increased damage but can not have both.


that would be a good way to make it more similar to a mini-dread concept and would make it viable in incursions, even with the RR problem if the possible dps was enough, then players would find a way. (yay high risk high reward) A lot like how the vindi's applied dps due to range is absurd, but its very popular in incursions.


this is what i am thinking

so script one:
Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 25%
Increases all large missile max velocity by 25%

Script two:
Increases all large turret damage by 25%
Increases all large missile damage by 25%
Decreases all large turret tracking by 50%
Decreases all large missile explosion velocity and increase to explosion radius by 25%

without a script:
Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 12.5%
Increases all large missile max velocity by 12.5%
Increases all large turret damage by 12.5%
Increases all large missile damage by 12.5%
Decreases all large turret tracking by 25%
Decreases all large missile explosion velocity and increase to explosion radius by 12.5%


this
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1574 - 2013-09-02 22:13:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Attack Battleships would have more speed and gank but less tank. High end Attack Battleships is more likely to be the Pirate Battleships.

The only thing the current marauders have going for them is tank. The Pirate Battleships have more gank and speed, the navy ships have more of either one depending.

The Marauders are and always have been good for tanking and fittings, two things that these new Marauders are still going to be fantastic at.

the paladin has the same dps as the nightmare. the golem has the same dps as the navy raven. the vargur has slightly less dps than the machariel but better projection with similar fits. the kronos... is bad and deserves a buff.

the marauders' EHP is not exceptional other than the slightly higher base resists and their active tank bonuses would fit an attack battleship just as well. notice also the huge mobility upgrade that is a reduced mjd cooldown.

pirate battleships are radically different from one another. for example, the nightmare goes 300 with afterburner on whereas the mach is at almost 1k. you would be best advised to not push them into the 'attack' role whereas the marauders with their new common bonus fit this role very well.

also, 'attack' does not have to mean increased dps, it can just as well mean additional combat utility such as EWAR which three of the marauder hulls already bring.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#1575 - 2013-09-02 22:17:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The rage from the pve crowd is hilarious in here.


The only rage I'm seeing is from people who don't think these Marauders will have what it takes for PvP. They're going to be awkward and gimmicky, and probably not all that hard to kill (Just throw together a bunch of Tornadoes for maybe half the price), for a 1 billion ISK price tag.

In PvE? The only thing that really changes is that AB marauders are done forever. That's it. They become hilariously OP for missions.
Gwen Ambraelle
Last Train From Cadspugh
#1576 - 2013-09-02 22:20:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The rage from the pve crowd is hilarious in here.


Bat,

Don't go making such generaisations. I'm a Hi Sec mission runner (and WH'er), looong time Pally user and love these changes.

Ytterbium's post only confirms what I thought these things would be able to do. I must admit the idea of both a MWD and MJD never occurred to me (I thought for some reason you could only have one or the other fitted, live and learn), but that removes issues with gate to gate travel.

I'm already thinking/dreaming about my Tach Pally C3 Sleeper murder machine!!!!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1577 - 2013-09-02 22:20:25 UTC
Aglais wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The rage from the pve crowd is hilarious in here.


The only rage I'm seeing is from people who don't think these Marauders will have what it takes for PvP. They're going to be awkward and gimmicky, and probably not all that hard to kill (Just throw together a bunch of Tornadoes for maybe half the price), for a 1 billion ISK price tag.



Well I would expect a bunch of tornadoes to be a threat because there is a bunch of them. Price tags mean nothing in balance terms.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#1578 - 2013-09-02 22:21:27 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:



You have a bit less damage and less mobility, but better damage application, more tank, EW immunity, less ammunition consumption, more range on tractor beams, MJD reduction bonus. Apple and oranges. Again, point of Tech2 in the new scheme isn't to make them all better than other hulls Blink


Yeah - got that - no problem if they're not better (you did a pretty great job at not making any T2 ship better than T1, tbh), but what's the reasoning behind higher skill time, associated skillbook cost and higher hull cost then?

I have no problem with that on my noob alt - I just wont train any T2 ships on it - simple as that. At around 60 mill SP, training is done and that's that.

However you massively devalued my older chars. Two with all racial HAC V (which is now a useless skill), all racial CS V (not good before, still 'meh' after the changes) and now one with all racial Marauders V.

And what's that about how you can do L4's in them? Any complete moron can do them perfectly fine in almost any hull - for faster completion times, I'd still use an MWD mach because the MJD and bastion mod will just slow down my completion time.

If T2 hulls aren't better, just seed the BPOs on the open market, make them have the same build cost as T1, remove the T2 ship skills and add them to the T1 roster. You can keep my SP - at least my clones will be a lot cheaper.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1579 - 2013-09-02 22:22:38 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Please make the bolded changes to the kronos thank you

Quote:
KRONOS

Role Bonus: 100% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage, 100% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams, 70% reduction in Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay Target Spectrum Breaker signature resolution penalty reduced to 0

Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus:
7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage
10% bonus to large Hybrid Turret Falloff per level (instead of 10% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level)

Marauder Skill Bonus:
7.5% bonus to repair amount of armor repair systems
7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon tracking per level


Slot layout: 8H(+1), 4M, 7L; 4 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 14000 PWG (+2000), 580 CPU (+30)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6600(-200) / 7200(-100) / 8600(+400)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 6900(+1275) / 1150s (+226.1s) / 6 cap/s
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 92 m/s(-28) / .114(-0.0038) / 113160000(+11360000) / 17.8s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 50(-75)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+3km) / 120(+39) / 10
Sensor strength: 13 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 420(-80)

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#1580 - 2013-09-02 22:24:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aglais wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The rage from the pve crowd is hilarious in here.


The only rage I'm seeing is from people who don't think these Marauders will have what it takes for PvP. They're going to be awkward and gimmicky, and probably not all that hard to kill (Just throw together a bunch of Tornadoes for maybe half the price), for a 1 billion ISK price tag.



Well I would expect a bunch of tornadoes to be a threat because there is a bunch of them. Price tags mean nothing in balance terms.


price tag means nothing....

Excellent, pirate ships should be same as t1, GO