These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Marauder Capacitor balance -SOLVED
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#21 - 2016-05-31 20:11:29 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Quote:
I understand clearly why the Paladin has more capacitor amount but in the case of marauders, the paladin is still far and away more cap stable...


Quote:
the paladin is still far and away more cap stable...


Quote:
cap stable...


I think I have found the problem.

OP... have you considered that maybe you shouldn't make a ship "cap stable?"
Or that some ships sre not exactly designed around being cap stable?
Or that some ships have no need to be cap stable?

I mean... hell... the Vargur and Golem both have access to weapons and tanking mods that don't use any capacitor power (if timed right).

Why don't you try running said sites not cap stable then get back to me on how it goes for you? You want to run a C5 site with ancilliary shield boosters or cap boosters? I'd truly love to see how that works for you.

Marauders are designed to shine in these environments, not PVP, and while they all do work, the paladin is really the only decent one.
Cyrus Tybalt
Blap n Pew
#22 - 2016-05-31 20:18:32 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Quote:
I understand clearly why the Paladin has more capacitor amount but in the case of marauders, the paladin is still far and away more cap stable...


Quote:
the paladin is still far and away more cap stable...


Quote:
cap stable...


I think I have found the problem.

OP... have you considered that maybe you shouldn't make a ship "cap stable?"
Or that some ships sre not exactly designed around being cap stable?
Or that some ships have no need to be cap stable?

I mean... hell... the Vargur and Golem both have access to weapons and tanking mods that don't use any capacitor power (if timed right).

Why don't you try running said sites not cap stable then get back to me on how it goes for you? You want to run a C5 site with ancilliary shield boosters or cap boosters? I'd truly love to see how that works for you.

Marauders are designed to shine in these environments, not PVP, and while they all do work, the paladin is really the only decent one.


Actually, using a Marauder for C5 or C6 is pushing your luck.

C5 and C6 combat sites is a game for fleets and even capitals. Marauders just aren't enough, nor were they intended to be in relation to C5 and C6
Cyrus Tybalt
Blap n Pew
#23 - 2016-05-31 20:19:48 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:
[quote=Jessie McPewpew][quote=Serendipity Lost]

What specifically can't you do in the other marauders that you can do in the paladin?
Quote:
.

Compared to other battleship classes, the marauder class has the amarr ship having better base capacitor and recharge rate. Other races tend to have equal or lower capacitor recharge rate compared to the amarr variant which tends to have a higher base cap mount.

In tbe case of marauders, This allows the paladin to be decent while the others struggle a lot, especially with really heavy neuting by sleepers, despite the paladins much heavier cap usage. It's not a huge change, it just allows other marauders to perform at an acceptable level for a marauder in highend wh PVE while the paladin still reigns supreme in cap management as it should be.

This allows for more flexibility in ship choices for highend wh pvp. All marauders should excel at highend PVE. This is what they are made for but at the moment only the paladin performs acceptably hence why it's used the most.


Does it look like this Vargur is "struggling"?

http://youtu.be/KbN4RY1vHvM

Seems to me that you're simply not fitting your other Marauders right, if you feel that they're "struggling" against neut sleepers.

C4 is not high end PVE. All marauders can run in C4 holes even with negative wormhole effects to their tank. Properly fit pirate battleships will breeze through it as well. This is not the same for C5s, the neuting forces other rauders to fit more cap mods when their damage application is already worse. The paladin is not phased by any of this understandably but a little tweak goes a long way in helping other rauders compete.


What gave you the impression that marauders were intended to be enough for C5 and C6?
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#24 - 2016-05-31 20:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie McPewpew
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:

What gave you the impression that marauders were intended to be enough for C5 and C6?

If you are asking me that question then you have absolutely no idea of what I'm talking about.
Roenok Baalnorn
Baalnorn Heavy Industries
#25 - 2016-05-31 20:40:38 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:


Also, I'm pretty sure, I said high end PVE not PVP. This change doesn't affect that since most will be using cap boosters regardless.


You mentioned sleepers neuting you. I also see no reason to give other marauders more cap when they require less cap to run overall.

Quote:
You can check the majority of marauder kills in wh space and I can assure you the paladin makes up for 90% of all of them.


Zkillboards:

Paladin: Killed =19394, Lost = 4469, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th = 5
Kronos: Killed=21855, Lost= 3164, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th= 1
Golem: Killed =23954,Lost =7320, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th= 5
Vargur: Killed = 30693, Lost= 4412, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th=1

What this data tells me is that the golem and paladin are the most popular for WH PVE, that the vargur is the most popular for pvp, and that the kronos is the least popular ship which is no surprise. I definitely know that the paladin does not make up 90% of marauder kills in WH space.

Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#26 - 2016-05-31 21:05:40 UTC
Roenok Baalnorn wrote:
Jessie McPewpew wrote:


Also, I'm pretty sure, I said high end PVE not PVP. This change doesn't affect that since most will be using cap boosters regardless.


You mentioned sleepers neuting you. I also see no reason to give other marauders more cap when they require less cap to run overall.

Quote:
You can check the majority of marauder kills in wh space and I can assure you the paladin makes up for 90% of all of them.


Zkillboards:

Paladin: Killed =19394, Lost = 4469, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th = 5
Kronos: Killed=21855, Lost= 3164, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th= 1
Golem: Killed =23954,Lost =7320, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th= 5
Vargur: Killed = 30693, Lost= 4412, Lost to sleepers only since may 20th=1

What this data tells me is that the golem and paladin are the most popular for WH PVE, that the vargur is the most popular for pvp, and that the kronos is the least popular ship which is no surprise. I definitely know that the paladin does not make up 90% of marauder kills in WH space.


Ok, I did overexaggerate. Obviously, the golem is going to be more popular in lower class whs. It's the next step up from a RNI. Your veteran highsec mission runner venturing into wormholes probably flys a golem for various reasons I hope I don't have to explain but the dynamics changes considerably in whs.

Also, it would be nice if you actually have some experience with said ships before giving me a lame arse excuse like "I also see no reason to give other marauders more cap when they require less cap to run overall." Do me a favor and try all 4 in a basic C5 site on sisi and tell me how that works for you.

I appreciate the effort but I need people with experience commenting on this not keyboard warriors.


Iain Cariaba
#27 - 2016-05-31 22:41:48 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:

What gave you the impression that marauders were intended to be enough for C5 and C6?

If you are asking me that question then you have absolutely no idea of what I'm talking about.

I know what you're talking about, and Cyrus is right. C5 and C6 sites were not intended to be run solo, regardless of whether or not a couple instances of a ship introduced after wormholes make them so. The fact that these sites stress the tank of most of the class of high end PvE ships demonstrates this to be true. Marauders don't need a capacitor buff to enable them to solo sites that CCP didn't intend to be soloed.
Roenok Baalnorn
Baalnorn Heavy Industries
#28 - 2016-05-31 23:21:54 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:

Also, it would be nice if you actually have some experience with said ships before giving me a lame arse excuse like "I also see no reason to give other marauders more cap when they require less cap to run overall." Do me a favor and try all 4 in a basic C5 site on sisi and tell me how that works for you.

I appreciate the effort but I need people with experience commenting on this not keyboard warriors.



I can fly every sub capital class of ship and have flown most if not all of them including pirate faction ships, which i prefer. Dont assume because i disagree with you that something needs a boost, that i dont have experience with it.

Quote:
I know what you're talking about, and Cyrus is right. C5 and C6 sites were not intended to be run solo, regardless of whether or not a couple instances of a ship introduced after wormholes make them so. The fact that these sites stress the tank of most of the class of high end PvE ships demonstrates this to be true. Marauders don't need a capacitor buff to enable them to solo sites that CCP didn't intend to be soloed.


This is accurate. I remember when WHs came out. Level 1 and 2 was meant to be soloed if you had decent skills in a decent ship with a decent fit. Level 3 and 4 were meant to need a buddy or 2, Level 5 and 6 were meant to need a gang. This was, of course, before everyone stuck faction and deadspace gear on there stuff.

The fact that you cannot solo a level 5 or 6 site means the game is working as intended.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#29 - 2016-05-31 23:27:43 UTC
Are you trying to solo C5 sites?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#30 - 2016-05-31 23:29:06 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:

Ok, I did overexaggerate. Obviously, the golem is going to be more popular in lower class whs. It's the next step up from a RNI. Your veteran highsec mission runner venturing into wormholes probably flys a golem for various reasons...


You are funny!

Yes I am a highsec mission runner who ventured into w-space and I am not sorry to tell you that I fly the end of progression. A marauder class vessel is not the end of progression.

And rest assured I fly them for a long time now.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#31 - 2016-06-01 00:20:07 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:

What gave you the impression that marauders were intended to be enough for C5 and C6?

If you are asking me that question then you have absolutely no idea of what I'm talking about.

I know what you're talking about, and Cyrus is right. C5 and C6 sites were not intended to be run solo, regardless of whether or not a couple instances of a ship introduced after wormholes make them so. The fact that these sites stress the tank of most of the class of high end PvE ships demonstrates this to be true. Marauders don't need a capacitor buff to enable them to solo sites that CCP didn't intend to be soloed.

If it's not intended then CCP will take even more harsh measures to prevent the sites from being done solo by either a marauder or single dread, which is more than capable of killing the drifter by itself.
Iain Cariaba
#32 - 2016-06-01 00:24:34 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
Cyrus Tybalt wrote:

What gave you the impression that marauders were intended to be enough for C5 and C6?

If you are asking me that question then you have absolutely no idea of what I'm talking about.

I know what you're talking about, and Cyrus is right. C5 and C6 sites were not intended to be run solo, regardless of whether or not a couple instances of a ship introduced after wormholes make them so. The fact that these sites stress the tank of most of the class of high end PvE ships demonstrates this to be true. Marauders don't need a capacitor buff to enable them to solo sites that CCP didn't intend to be soloed.

If it's not intended then CCP will take even more harsh measures to prevent the sites from being done solo by either a marauder or single dread, which is more than capable of killing the drifter by itself.

No, it's emergent gameplay. CCP won't nerf it unless it becomes a problem. On the other hand, they won't buff it to make it easier either.
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#33 - 2016-06-01 02:55:47 UTC
Nvm, can confirm that moar cap batteries go a long way in making this situation much more manageable. Thanks for the comments guys.
Iain Cariaba
#34 - 2016-06-01 03:01:03 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
Nvm, can confirm that moar cap batteries go a long way in making this situation much more manageable. Thanks for the comments guys.

So, you basically used the tools already provided, and discovered that they worked just fine?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#35 - 2016-06-01 05:59:12 UTC
Iain remember where you are ppl come here to whine and complain B4 they look into things not after

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2016-06-01 06:43:08 UTC
The bastion module should give 25% neut resistance or cap recharge.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Lugh Crow-Slave
#37 - 2016-06-01 06:47:50 UTC
no it should not neuts are generally the only counter to these things in pvp

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2016-06-01 08:04:09 UTC
True. I just think the armour based marauders need something to balance their dependants on cap. Their guns are heavily reliant on cap and unlike ancillary shield boosters, ancillary armour repairers still require cap, for so reason.

It all results in there only being a couple viable fits for each ship, which is boring IMO.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Lugh Crow-Slave
#39 - 2016-06-02 06:37:21 UTC
Armor tanks in general require less cap and not only do the armor Marauders have an easier time fitting better capacitor modules but they have a better base cap

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#40 - 2016-06-02 07:00:42 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
True. I just think the armour based marauders need something to balance their dependants on cap. Their guns are heavily reliant on cap and unlike ancillary shield boosters, ancillary armour repairers still require cap, for so reason.

It all results in there only being a couple viable fits for each ship, which is boring IMO.

The reason stated for not making AAR work without Cap is that they didn't like the fact that the ASB was immune to hostile player disruption. So they didn't let you have more than one AAR, and they made sure it always used Cap so it could be Neuted.

Now, the better question is why didn't they go back and change the ASB to meet those same standards, having already come out and said that the way it behaved was not something they wanted to happen?

I will agree that Cap dependency is a harsh mistress when you consider being locked in place by Bastion mode. I think it should end immediately upon your capacitor hitting zero, maybe. At least then you can run if not tackled.
Previous page123Next page