These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Should marauders have been T3 battleships?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#1 - 2016-03-30 04:27:00 UTC
So a fleeting thought.

Marauders as we know them already are pretty close to T3 as is. As a reconfigurable ship with spare highs and ewar bonuses they fot the bill. While I realise the topic is mostly moot as they won't be touched for a long time I still feel like it's a useful diversion for the public to mill over.

Key advantages would be:
No need to reinvent the wheel. Marauders as we know them are practically t3 as they are. No need for overhauls of their existing power level.
New models - give marauders a genuine distinguishing appearance from their base ships yet again.
Marauders gain a couple of bonuses fitting their existing power level specifically related to scanning and scan res.
Opportunity to expand on the underused inferno modules that were introduced back then.
A further scale for the t3 tree this practically completing the circle.

Just a thought.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2016-03-30 05:43:02 UTC
No, they should have been made to actually maraud though. Not be a Pocket Dread with no extra DPS and not enough EHP to afford being stuck in one spot.
T3's are also universally OP, and CCP has shown they are singly unable to handle balancing any T3 setup.
Iain Cariaba
#3 - 2016-03-30 06:01:55 UTC
Um, yeah... no.

Marauders are not reconfigurable. They have a module that works as a mini-siege mode, giving them extra tank and damage application. Two modes, on and off, does not make a reconfiguration.

Marauders have spare highs because of their intended role to be away from refitting areas for an extended duration. This was created before they release mobile depots.

The only marauder with an e-war bonus is the Golem, which needs it to be able to apply damage to targets smaller than planets. No other marauder has an e-war bonus.

For future reference, I'd highly suggest you get to know the topic you're discussing before suggesting changes to it.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-03-30 08:07:09 UTC
No but there is room for a T3 battleship if it uses the mode switching T3D's have.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Iain Cariaba
#5 - 2016-03-30 08:27:30 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
No but there is room for a T3 battleship if it uses the mode switching T3D's have.

Current t3 ships are utterly broken, and you want more broken ships?
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2016-03-30 08:43:58 UTC
They dont even have T2 resists and they are hard to die in bastion mode, imagine if you giving them T3 resists and buffer....
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#7 - 2016-03-30 08:48:55 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Um, yeah... no.

Marauders are not reconfigurable. They have a module that works as a mini-siege mode, giving them extra tank and damage application. Two modes, on and off, does not make a reconfiguration.

Marauders have spare highs because of their intended role to be away from refitting areas for an extended duration. This was created before they release mobile depots.


I also said to expand on inferno modules which included an ewar type. Also more bastion modes, call them what you will. Bastion, Galley, Corvette mode.

Quote:

The only marauder with an e-war bonus is the Golem, which needs it to be able to apply damage to targets smaller than planets. No other marauder has an e-war bonus.

For future reference, I'd highly suggest you get to know the topic you're discussing before suggesting changes to it.


Do you feel like a big guy when you post that tripe? Yeah I know that only the golem gets a bonus to an EWAR. Historically at least the kronos did too. I'm a little hazy on the others, do feel free to give me your 2c (two cents).

So the game has changed since marauders were changed, with no T3 BS plans known or forthcoming and with marauders being so versatile as they are what I have suggested today is to reclassify them, retool them slightly and change the engagement profiles of them a bit.

That doesn't mean making them exactly like T3D. Or like T3C. Having multiple different highslot modules which alter the function of the ship is better than a mode switch. Forces harder choices. Overpowered concepts get noticed earlier and then all you do is tweak one variable instead of twiddling thumbs like CCP have on confessor/svipul issues.

Also anyone who still thinks T3C are OP are insane. They're pretty good and come with unique and significant drawbacks in addition to all their choice/variety having long bled away in to merely 2 configurations per ship and that's it.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-03-30 09:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
No but there is room for a T3 battleship if it uses the mode switching T3D's have.

Current t3 ships are utterly broken, and you want more broken ships?


They're not really. They actually work very well, it's just that so many people have been screaming about OP t3 for that long that people still think it's an issue.

They are easy to counter but what is not easy to counter are gang links and logi blobs. That is and always will be the issue until ccp do something.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Iain Cariaba
#9 - 2016-03-30 12:02:44 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Um, yeah... no.

Marauders are not reconfigurable. They have a module that works as a mini-siege mode, giving them extra tank and damage application. Two modes, on and off, does not make a reconfiguration.

Marauders have spare highs because of their intended role to be away from refitting areas for an extended duration. This was created before they release mobile depots.


I also said to expand on inferno modules which included an ewar type. Also more bastion modes, call them what you will. Bastion, Galley, Corvette mode.

Quote:

The only marauder with an e-war bonus is the Golem, which needs it to be able to apply damage to targets smaller than planets. No other marauder has an e-war bonus.

For future reference, I'd highly suggest you get to know the topic you're discussing before suggesting changes to it.


Do you feel like a big guy when you post that tripe? Yeah I know that only the golem gets a bonus to an EWAR. Historically at least the kronos did too. I'm a little hazy on the others, do feel free to give me your 2c (two cents).

So the game has changed since marauders were changed, with no T3 BS plans known or forthcoming and with marauders being so versatile as they are what I have suggested today is to reclassify them, retool them slightly and change the engagement profiles of them a bit.

That doesn't mean making them exactly like T3D. Or like T3C. Having multiple different highslot modules which alter the function of the ship is better than a mode switch. Forces harder choices. Overpowered concepts get noticed earlier and then all you do is tweak one variable instead of twiddling thumbs like CCP have on confessor/svipul issues.

Also anyone who still thinks T3C are OP are insane. They're pretty good and come with unique and significant drawbacks in addition to all their choice/variety having long bled away in to merely 2 configurations per ship and that's it.

You based your arguments on the presumption that something that isn't broken needs to be fixed. I merely called you on it. If you cannot take the criticism of your arguments, either properly research them, or don't post them in the first place.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#10 - 2016-03-30 12:13:26 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

You based your arguments on the presumption that something that isn't broken needs to be fixed. I merely called you on it. If you cannot take the criticism of your arguments, either properly research them, or don't post them in the first place.


Lolwut

I didn't say they were broken.

Please quote me from the OP where I said that. Thanks.
Iain Cariaba
#11 - 2016-03-30 12:29:53 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

You based your arguments on the presumption that something that isn't broken needs to be fixed. I merely called you on it. If you cannot take the criticism of your arguments, either properly research them, or don't post them in the first place.


Lolwut

I didn't say they were broken.

Please quote me from the OP where I said that. Thanks.

You state they need to be changed, ergo they are broken. Obviously, if they weren't broken, they wouldn't need to be changed.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#12 - 2016-03-30 12:52:54 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

You based your arguments on the presumption that something that isn't broken needs to be fixed. I merely called you on it. If you cannot take the criticism of your arguments, either properly research them, or don't post them in the first place.


Lolwut

I didn't say they were broken.

Please quote me from the OP where I said that. Thanks.

You state they need to be changed, ergo they are broken. Obviously, if they weren't broken, they wouldn't need to be changed.


No I didn't say that. I didn't say the need to be changed. Try again.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2016-03-30 13:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Rek Seven wrote:
If they were designed using the same model as the t3 destroyers, t3 battleships could work.

Since marauders were buffed and bastion added, it is becoming more popular for people to use them to solo some of the high-level sites in wormhole space. However, due to the extreme neuting pressure and the high dps, there are only a couple ships that can do it and only if they use refitting (which is apparently being remove).

Here are some quick ideas about how it could work:-

Defensive mode: 33% to resistances, greatly increased shield recharge rate or reduction in signature radius and a high resistance to neuts and e-war.

Offensive mode: increased weapon tracking speed / explosion velocity and scan resolution

Mobility mode: increased warp speed and reduced mass


With some carful planning of the basic stats, these could work out to be balanced and fun ships to fly. Defensive mode would allow them to effectively run harder PVE sites aswell as the obvious enough benefits to pvp. The offensive mode allows them to engage cruisers effectively and the mobility mode removes the annoying slow warp of battleships and has some interesting implications for wormhole space.


This was my opinion the last time is subject was raised, and i still stand by it.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Iain Cariaba
#14 - 2016-03-30 13:48:15 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

You based your arguments on the presumption that something that isn't broken needs to be fixed. I merely called you on it. If you cannot take the criticism of your arguments, either properly research them, or don't post them in the first place.


Lolwut

I didn't say they were broken.

Please quote me from the OP where I said that. Thanks.

You state they need to be changed, ergo they are broken. Obviously, if they weren't broken, they wouldn't need to be changed.


No I didn't say that. I didn't say the need to be changed. Try again.

If you didn't feel there was a need for this change, then what? Did you post it simply to read words you've typed in a forum thread? You obviously thought the need was there, whether you expressed it in those exact words or not.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#15 - 2016-03-30 13:59:18 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

If you didn't feel there was a need for this change, then what? Did you post it simply to read words you've typed in a forum thread? You obviously thought the need was there, whether you expressed it in those exact words or not.


I think you're projecting hard and have been this whole time.

No I think that if people want T3 battleships, marauders already fit the bill. A couple of small changes and they're T3. Done.

And they really are a few small changes. Modules that change their functionality. No bullshit inherent abilities that get completely broken with **** like triple XLASB kronos with web/scram and 4 faction magstabs so it can crank and tank like a dreadnought in or out of bastion?

While I can appreciate Rek Sevens point of view I think the active mode switching has already demonstrated how much more unbalanced T3D are relative to other destroyers compared to T3C vs other cruisers. Since T3C can only refit to change how it works they're balanced against 'something' when they undock, as compared to a T3D which can modify its behaviour on the fly to always have the greatest advantage which is where it becomes unbalanced because you essentially remove any flaws.
Iain Cariaba
#16 - 2016-03-30 15:24:34 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I think you're projecting hard and have been this whole time.

Really? How do you come to this conclusion? The general concensus of thought behind submitting an idea for discussion by others is a need for the idea to become reality. You submitted the idea, therefore you must have thought there was a need for your idea. You now state that there is no need for it, so why did you submit it in the first place?

This is not projecting, it is pointing out the flaws in your thought process. Projecting is an entirely different animal.

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
No I think that if people want T3 battleships, marauders already fit the bill. A couple of small changes and they're T3. Done.

After the debacle of the last two introductions of t3 ships, no one with any sense wants t3 battleships. Not one of the many people I know that flies marauders wants them to undergo repeated smacks by the nerf bat in order to compensate for the changes you suggest. Marauders are in a very nice place at the moment, a place that your idea would put them in very real danger of losing.

Marauders are one of the better balanced ships in the game. We should leave them precisely where they are until there is a definite need for them to be adjusted.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#17 - 2016-03-30 16:08:30 UTC
No more t3 anything until the current t3 ships are balanced.
Iain Cariaba
#18 - 2016-03-30 16:18:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
No more t3 anything until the current t3 ships are balanced.

You should've stopped after the fourth word. Smile
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#19 - 2016-03-30 19:18:33 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
No more t3 anything until the current t3 ships are balanced.

You should've stopped after the fourth word. Smile



Or even after the first! Big smile

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#20 - 2016-03-30 22:11:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
T3's are one part of Eve that should probably be removed at some point or never implemented, not added to and further developed. I'm still stumped on the reasoning CCP had with T3D's. My only thought is that T3D's were an experiment to see if CCP could find a simple alternative to slaving over some massive yet likely hopeless T3 Cruiser re-balance. If you want an excuse to propose a second line of or further iteration on current Marauders, proposing battleships -- let alone Marauders -- built as T3's is hardly the ideal place to start, friend.

Quite simply, to answer the question in your title...nothing in fact should be T3, Marauders especially. The concept of a T3, be it a cruiser or destroyer or any other class in Eve is not a bad one, nor even an unrealistic one, just highly unbalanced and prone to being forever that way.

It's why our Air Force has been keen on adopting aircraft with "multi-role, multi-function" designs since the late 60's...being able to perform several missions effectively with one aircraft beats having said aircraft only really able to perform one role even if at superb ability. Makes it a good case in RL, but also a bad one for a game where CCP doesn't actually want ships to be obviously far better at several missions than any other. The other issue is that nerfing or reducing that kind of diminishes the whole point to T3's actually.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
12Next page