These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#1901 - 2013-09-04 08:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Spc One wrote:

That is true.
Also webs are limited to 10km (t-2) so i don't see this bonus as overpowered.
It was fine how many years now ?


14km with Faction webs and ~18.8 with max-bonused Skirmish links on top of that.

This does two things, pushes most ships out of scram range, in-fact an Interceptor with a faction-point and the same bonuses has just 130 meters where he's out of web range and in Scram range, meaning only the Gallente Recon Cruisers and the Proteus can scram from out of web range.

Spc One wrote:
It is, i can one shot destroyers with t-1 cruise missiles ( all level 5 skills including paining skills and marauders skills + missile skills).
And painter is not limited to 10km, but with falloff you get like 90km.

I also think that this change for marauders is wrong one.
Removing web bonuses is making these ships useless.
Web bonus is here so i can apply more damage to cruisers and battlecruisers, lasers on paladin don't have the tracking of kronos ( blasters track very good + you get bonus from the kronos ship itself + web bonus).

You also have to know that kronos and paladin are limited to damage types ( em/thermal // kinetic/themal ) so killing an angel frigate is not so easy with em lasers.


Are you referring to a mission destroyer? Because that's hardly a fair test. A player destroyer will be better tanked and can use a prop-mod to mitigate the damage from your missiles.

Against turrets though you would have to bloom his signature to 10 times the base level (I am fairly certain this is impossible) to get the same effect on hit quality as a 90% web.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

It's interesting that you mention this Cade, because on approx. page 40 of this thread, CCP Ytterbium specifically said that the web bonus "did not significantly increase your chance to hit frigates", which hardly sounds like he thinks it's OP.


I read the same thing you did and noted the lack of a response. I would not expect Ytterbium to drop what would amount to spoilers on a ship whose new stats have not been announced yet, especially one like the Vindi that is basically run for its web bonus (without it the Navy Mega is better in some respects). Confirming that the Vindi is losing its bonus would just send people off on an uninformed rant about CCP ruining their fun and/or favorite ship.

MC, as for your claim that the majority of people want something different I would say it's about split with a slight margin toward the people who like it because they tend to post and walk away, the people who dislike and critique things tend to stick around which causes what seems like a torrent of negative feedback. If you read back through the Command Ships and HACs threads I'm sure the majority of posts would be negative.

I definitely think the idea needs some tweaking and a lot of testing but I don't think it's necessary to completely abandon the Bastion concept. Personally I'm looking forward to Fortress Kronos.

I have my own thoughts on why Burn Jita happened but this is neither the time nor the place for them.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#1902 - 2013-09-04 08:35:48 UTC
Burn Jita was pretty simple. The players very obviously wanted game mechanics fixed while CCP was obsessed with Dust and space dolls.

After the revolution, CCP correctly focussed on Eve again. The result is the very welcome past 18 months of intensive work to make Eve a better spaceship game. Hillmar's new era of humility (mandated by the major shareholder) rescued the company and increased the subscriber base.

I think that's worth remembering.


Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#1903 - 2013-09-04 08:38:37 UTC
Bastion module for all battleships!!!!
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#1904 - 2013-09-04 08:40:35 UTC
Hi All,

I hope I haven't set the tone in some small way for this thread from my first ever first on the front page. I said I didn't see this helping me in PvE because I don't think this Marauder hull design is going to help me do what I do better, I have an alt and mobility in missions is important for what I do.

There is a lot of nagative stuff in this thread but there are also a lot of posts, esspecially earlier on, where people's first reaction was that of, "Wow cool". I think it's nice that CCP are putting stuff into the game that is a bit different.

As I've said in other Features and Ideas threads that were trying to predict what the Marauder update would consist of is that my current navy faction battleships give almost as high DPS and higher tank whilst being faster than the old Marauders. Now the Marauders can have high tank but zero mobility - but I like to use spider tank setups - which is the origin of my initial comment.

HOWEVER

My old beloved Mega Navy Issue does 556 at 39.6Km+36Km and tanks 905DPS travels at 499 m/s (I don't drone)
My potential new Kronos will do 600 at 39.6Km+54Km and tanks 941DPS travels at 439 m/s (I still won't drone)

The Tank is augmented by my on-field CS but it needs to be good to start with in case the CS has an accident like what happened once.

I won't use the Bastion module because I like to Spider Tank.
I won't use the tractor beams or salvagers because I Noctis.

HOWEVER!!!!! I now get to fit three Large Armour Repair Systems - Which DOES help my Spider tank setup - and I can Dump the Web for another Booster! And I'll have a MASSIVE cargo hold for my booster charges! Yay.

So the Marauders are now better for me - simply because they get a Falloff bonus. And they may be worth the price tag too.
Aaron Kyoto
Frozen Silver.
Arkhos Core
#1905 - 2013-09-04 09:39:27 UTC
So, did CCP just inadvertantly the anti-gank ship?

Example:

Some plucky carebear decides to transport alot of shinies in his marauder, because it has a big enough cargo hold. AFK autopilot while he plays solitaire, etc. Soon, some bloodthirsty ganker spots him and gets his friends together to attempt it. Warning beeps cause the marauder to look at his screen. Shields at 20%?! Bastion mode. Engage.

Tank until Concord saves the day.
Cade Windstalker
#1906 - 2013-09-04 09:45:03 UTC
Aaron Kyoto wrote:
So, did CCP just inadvertantly the anti-gank ship?

Example:

Some plucky carebear decides to transport alot of shinies in his marauder, because it has a big enough cargo hold. AFK autopilot while he plays solitaire, etc. Soon, some bloodthirsty ganker spots him and gets his friends together to attempt it. Warning beeps cause the marauder to look at his screen. Shields at 20%?! Bastion mode. Engage.

Tank until Concord saves the day.


Lol, more like squad of Tornadoes and he's in his pod instantly. You'd have to factor in Bastion for the gank in-case he's paying attention though.

At best I'd call it a very expensive way to troll gankers if used how you're suggesting.

Props for one of the most inventive and plausible niche uses proposed so far though!
m3talc0re X
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1907 - 2013-09-04 09:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: m3talc0re X
I thought one of the dev's comments about using drones on frigs was funny. Who uses drones on frigs anymore? XD As soon as you launch them these days, it seems one or two are already dead...

Edit: I would also like to mention CCP, that with my Paladin using pulses, mf's and a tc with tracking script, I can web a frig and hit it. I may have to fly with the frig, but I can hit it.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1908 - 2013-09-04 09:59:35 UTC
And thats why we need an urgent Drone overhaul... both Drones stats and UI wise.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#1909 - 2013-09-04 10:08:02 UTC
m3talc0re X wrote:
I thought one of the dev's comments about using drones on frigs was funny. Who uses drones on frigs anymore? XD As soon as you launch them these days, it seems one or two are already dead...

That's true, that's why i don't use drones anymore.
Optimo Sebiestor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1910 - 2013-09-04 10:16:14 UTC
Dear CCP, Please just buff the current marauders so that they are in line with the pirate faction battleships. The whole consept of mini dreads sounds to me as a new tier 2 marauder. I may even be so bold and ask if it can be based on the tier 3 battleship design. Alot of people love their marauders the way they are. I fear changing it to a mini dread, alters it too much from its current use. Forcing people to go for the pirate faction battleships, leaves alot of grumpy people considering the amount of specialisation that goes into training for this type of ship. This doesnt really feel like balancing, it feels more like a new game feature, and I think it should be treated as such. Personally I will train for one, because it just sounds awsome. But it doesnt feel so awsome it should come at the expense of an already good ship class.
Lorna Sicling
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1911 - 2013-09-04 10:25:37 UTC
Very intersting changes.

As somebody who regularly builds this class of ship, can you indicate whether you plan to alter the manufacturing requirements or if you'll just leave them as is.

Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.

Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1912 - 2013-09-04 10:40:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
I am terribly sorry for posting this insignificant thing in this thread full of insightful analysis and all, but I really wanted to rant about how Amarr ship is getting effectively one less bonus (pretty much static 25% cap bonus from ship prerequisites). I hope that there will be uses to Paladin's mighty (compared to other marauders, 30% more than closest pursuer, plus slightly faster recharge) capacitor that can justify this design (as long as any benefits from that aren't eaten by lasers).
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#1913 - 2013-09-04 10:56:23 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
I am terribly sorry for posting this insignificant thing in this thread full of insightful analysis and all, but I really wanted to rant about how Amarr ship is getting effectively one less bonus (pretty much static 25% cap bonus from ship prerequisites). I hope that there will be uses to Paladin's mighty (compared to other marauders, 30% more than closest pursuer, plus slightly faster recharge) capacitor that can justify this design (as long as any benefits from that aren't eaten by lasers).


Funny, time and time again I read posts from amarr pilots that complain about amarr battleship cap issues and not being able to fire all their guns without running dry on cap (I can only imagine how this feels as I am using a golem most of the time) and now you get one ship that can do exactly that and what do I read again... complaints. -..-

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 Djego
Hellequin Inc.
Mean Coalition
#1914 - 2013-09-04 11:03:40 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
It totally breaks PvE, and I wonder what happens if you use this in the next AT....

It's neither balanced, nor useful in PvP - which is what all ships in this PVP FOCUSED game should be based around.
Not working as intended.


It is not even useful for pve, at least for people that don't over tank every hull or use them for PVE with RR like WH or Incs.

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

To mare
Advanced Technology
#1915 - 2013-09-04 11:17:09 UTC
remove the rubbish bastion thing, give them full T2 resist, add 1 dps or damage application bonus.
not sure about keeping or leaving the mjd bonus
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#1916 - 2013-09-04 11:20:53 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Aaron Kyoto wrote:
So, did CCP just inadvertantly the anti-gank ship?

Example:

Some plucky carebear decides to transport alot of shinies in his marauder, because it has a big enough cargo hold. AFK autopilot while he plays solitaire, etc. Soon, some bloodthirsty ganker spots him and gets his friends together to attempt it. Warning beeps cause the marauder to look at his screen. Shields at 20%?! Bastion mode. Engage.

Tank until Concord saves the day.


Lol, more like squad of Tornadoes and he's in his pod instantly. You'd have to factor in Bastion for the gank in-case he's paying attention though.

At best I'd call it a very expensive way to troll gankers if used how you're suggesting.

Props for one of the most inventive and plausible niche uses proposed so far though!



I'm always happy when a carebear pays enough attention to ward off a gank. It means that us gankers have done our job and converted a bear into an EVE player.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1917 - 2013-09-04 11:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Cade Windstalker wrote:



Your argument here seems a touch disjointed.

For a start a Megathron may have been able to go faster back then, most things could and I'd be rather surprised if 1200m/s was the upper limit of speed on even an armor tanked mega with the right combo of effects. However comparing the post-nerf Megathron right now to other battleships it performs quite well.

A quick comparison of the Megathron hulls to Raven, Apocalypse, and Tempest hulls shows the Megathron based hulls with the lowest inertia modifier of any of them, beating out all three of the Minmattar ships. In velocity the Megahthron Navy Issue ties with the Tempest Fleet Issue and Vargur at 130m/s, followed by the Tempest at 127 m/s, then the Vindicator at 126, the Navy Raven at 123 and the Megathron at 122.

This is a very powerful combination of speed and agility and puts blaster boats in a very good position compared to where they were before these changes and, I would argue, even before the pre-nano nerf days.

Now, the bit where I kind of completely lose you is where you assert that it actually used to be *harder* to hold someone with webs back when you couldn't turn off their MWD and you sort of lose me when you say this justifies 90% webs when it is functionally impossible to escape them since the person webbing you can turn off your MWD or web you down to the point where you can't feasibly get away from them with an Afterburner with only a single module and a short-point.

If anything this would make them even stronger now than they used to be and this is born out by the popularity of hulls with these bonuses over comparable hulls without even when those other hulls have significant advantages and lack the drawbacks of the hull with the web bonus.

Throw the mechanics of "Dread-blapping" into the mix and you have a very solid case for removing these bonuses and replacing them with something else.

You make a decent argument with your frigate example, however this can be countered by two points. One, with a Federation Navy web the frigate can be grabbed on approach out at 14 km, which means it will be going ~100m/s by the time it hits 10km. Two, any of these ships can easily fit a second web which means that, for example in the case of a Vindicator with Neutron Blasters loaded with Void (horrible tracking) the Vindi is still able to apply a solid 1000 DPS aat 3000 meters without factoring in drones or that the Vindicator, even without a propulsion module, is now faster than the frigate with only one web on it. At two webs you're basically shooting at a small cargo container with guns on it.

As for your completely erroneous statement about 90% webs and Large Blasters, only two blaster ships have been able to fit them for the last 5 years. One is the undisputed DPS king of sub-caps and the other is a ship that, according to its other stats, should have zero PvP relevance at all and probably wouldn't if it didn't also have a 90% web bonus.

Plus both of these ships can still fit two webs without their bonus and get roughly the same effect as a single 90% web but for a more reasonable trade-off and without the hilariously broken situation of 2 90% webs on the same ship.

Don't get me wrong, I love when 90% webs are on my side, but I really fail to see a justification for their continued existence in the game when they are so ridiculously powerful.
I’ll keep it straightforward:

90% webs today cannot be viewed in the same light as pre 2008. Back then AB’s were rubbish (double digit % bonus meaning bugger all difference to speed), tracking disrupters were rubbish and the bit about MWD you have completely misunderstood – the blaster pilot could light his MWD to pull some range to get better hits – if the other pilot did the same the sig bloom would kill them. With MWD killing scrams you no longer have to worry about this, going toe-to-toe with a blaster battleship.

In my opinion 90% webs should have never been taken away from any blaster platforms. Period.

I did point out back at the time ( http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834365&page=15#424) the absurdity of removing 90% webs from the slow platforms with sub 10km optimal range and how this equated to a 400% increase in target transversal – in that particular test a zero fit stabber (no modules) orbiting a Ion II Megathron with impunity – with no corresponding increase in tracking. Fundamentally this is down to a flaw in the tracking formula (doesn’t account for actual target size up close) but that is never going to get fixed.

As to my Frigate example, you completely forgot a crucial variable; scan resolution – by the time the Battleship has the frigate locked up from a typical gate encounter, if it is appropriately AB fit to counter said blaster Battleship it will be sufficiently close to mitigate the speed drop. If he has double webs? (Vindi - 5 mids, doesn’t help Kronos) Well don’t fight him on his terms, it’s really quite straightforward….

Fundamentally Battleship-sized blaster platforms were shafted by the 2008 speed changes and have never recovered and I speak as someone who has roughly half his career kills flying a blaster Megathron solo. CCP momentarily recognised this when they re-worked Serpentis hulls back in 2009, getting rid of the MWD cap bonus for the only blaster related bonus to make sense *drum roll*…. 90% webs.

Don’t take it off the last viable solo/very small gang pure Gallente blaster Battleship.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1918 - 2013-09-04 11:44:59 UTC
The Djego wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
It totally breaks PvE, and I wonder what happens if you use this in the next AT....

It's neither balanced, nor useful in PvP - which is what all ships in this PVP FOCUSED game should be based around.
Not working as intended.


It is not even useful for pve, at least for people that don't over tank every hull or use them for PVE with RR like WH or Incs.

I think there being designed as an easy mode for those environments. Which is dumb.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1919 - 2013-09-04 11:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Debora Tsung wrote:
Funny, time and time again I read posts from amarr pilots that complain about amarr battleship cap issues and not being able to fire all their guns without running dry on cap (I can only imagine how this feels as I am using a golem most of the time) and now you get one ship that can do exactly that and what do I read again... complaints. -..-

Well, I admit, that wasn't totally right. I'm well aware on how powerful Paladin's cap is at this point. I just wonder if ability to fully benefit from lasers' projection and that cap will be enough to make up for lack of selectable damage type (and that "bonus slot") on such kind of ship.

That said, it probably won't be a drawback in many cases. And then there is an option to shut guns down to keep tank going when other ships can't while waiting for corpmates in case of things getting hairy. So I actually think that this Paladin suffers from that "Amarr syndrome" the least (not completely free of it as, say, rigged NM with 13k cap and similar recharge rate isn't the thing that doesn't struggle to run everything, and so Paladin will), but it was funny to see again Smile

On something different: are marauders going to keep their partial T2 resistance profile?
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#1920 - 2013-09-04 11:53:35 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
Funny, time and time again I read posts from amarr pilots that complain about amarr battleship cap issues and not being able to fire all their guns without running dry on cap (I can only imagine how this feels as I am using a golem most of the time) and now you get one ship that can do exactly that and what do I read again... complaints. -..-

Well, I admit, that wasn't totally right. I'm well aware on how powerful Paladin's cap is at this point. I just wonder if ability to fully benefit from lasers' projection and that cap will be enough to make up for lack of selectable damage type (and that "bonus slot") on such kind of ship.

That said, it probably won't be a drawback in many cases. And then there is an option to shut guns down to keep tank going when other ships can't while waiting for corpmates in case of things getting hairy. So I actually think that this Paladin suffers from that "Amarr syndrome" the least, but it was funny to see again Smile

On something different: are marauders going to keep their partial T2 resistance profile?


Haven't lasers already got the best tracking of all guns? Just curious as I don't use guns much and therefore don't know much about how good which gun type tracks.

About the partial T2 resists, I think something about that was mentinoned in one of Ytterbiums posts in this thread, I just can't remember exactly what he said as my brain turned all that awesome marauder transformer thingie into

"When we first saw the flock, we were surrounded, caught in a spectacle of stimuli. Brilliant colors, dancing lights, beautiful cacophonies, wafting ambrosia. Those birds surrounded us, each one a different shape, an altered species, a new wonder. I tried to follow a single bird, but my efforts were futile: Transformation is natural to their existence. Imagine it: an undulating mass, a changing mob, all those beasts partaking in wonderful transmogrification.

These were our augurs, our deliverers, our saviors. Standing amidst the flock, we should have feared their glory; instead, we drew hope. This moment is the first time I understood what it meant to be Caldari: Divinity in the flock, delivery in flux, one being, many changes."


Not entirely appropriate as it's from the Tengu description but I couldn't help it.

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.