These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Marauder Overhaul, Carriers OP
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2016-09-16 19:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Agree with OP here, their build costs are much too high for what they offer. Rattler does everything in PVE better, except for a few WH sites as tank is almost never an issue in PVE. Their DPS is at t1 levels, which is the real issue for PVE, though I think that's fine as a balancing factor for PVP. Dreads perform the same role much better at similar overall costs if they're fit el cheapo, and carriers are stupid strong for what they cost.

I'd like to see their component cost changed to bring their final cost close to the relationship between HACs and pirate cruisers. They'd be a much more attractive option for PVP use at 5-600m a pop. Even if that were to take place, locking a subcap in place, even for 60s, is a tremendous drawback. I'd like to see most of them get another slot, a mid for the kronos, vargur and golem, and another low for the paladin, as well as cap warfare resistance bonus inherent to the bastion module would go a long way towards offsetting their somewhat anemic DPS. The golem needs to have it's target painter bonus replaced with a second missile application bonus instead of shoehorning the ship into sacrificing a mid slot. The paladin should have the capacitor bonus baked into the hull and get a tracking bonus instead.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#42 - 2016-09-22 02:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
FT Cold wrote:
I'd like to see their component cost changed to bring their final cost close to the relationship between HACs and pirate cruisers. They'd be a much more attractive option for PVP use at 5-600m a pop. Even if that were to take place, locking a subcap in place, even for 60s, is a tremendous drawback. I'd like to see most of them get another slot, a mid for the kronos, vargur and golem, and another low for the paladin, as well as cap warfare resistance bonus inherent to the bastion module would go a long way towards offsetting their somewhat anemic DPS. The golem needs to have it's target painter bonus replaced with a second missile application bonus instead of shoehorning the ship into sacrificing a mid slot. The paladin should have the capacitor bonus baked into the hull and get a tracking bonus instead.

Personally, I can't see it myself as the Navy battleship variants are also 500-600m in price. You really can't compare a 1.2b hull that's relatively safe in high-sec to a 1.2b hull that has to risk operating in low and null-sec. If anything I'd like to see a new class of battleships with superior performance specs in the 2b+ price range, because once you've mastered Marauders there's really nothing left to aspire to in high-sec except optimizing your ISK/hr.

Making ISK is relatively easy once you hit that point, so it's not like hard-core mission runners can't afford it, either.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Lelorn Chastot
Doomheim
#43 - 2016-09-24 08:17:40 UTC
coming on forums and whineing for nerfs just cause for whatrever reason something does not suit your opinion is bad form and should be ignored by CCP

Mauraders if you can use them are powerfull but there supposed to endure long trips into the unknown solo . and too me its just sour grapes to ***** about them
Arcott Rammathorn
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2016-09-29 16:50:41 UTC
I have to agree with the OP as well. From the stand point of a PVPer there is little to no reason to use this ship in majority situations. You still have significantly better options at 1.2b than using a marauder. There's really no incentive to use the ship in logo based fleets due to bastion mode, but this is where the ship really shines. It's unique that it has this ability, but it's pure uniqueness doesn't offer the risk vs reward factor that other ship offer in both Pvp and Pve. I feel a drastic cost reduction is the solution to this. But, you'd also have to do them for BLOPs - which while expensive for how paper thin they are, their utility makes them sit nicely in the balancing scheme of things right now.

I only see two possible solutions here:
1) lower costs for the marauders
2) give them something more to be desired at their price point. And to be frank, 1,500 dps + in bastion would do this..
aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#45 - 2016-09-29 18:10:45 UTC
Arcott Rammathorn wrote:
I have to agree with the OP as well. From the stand point of a PVPer there is little to no reason to use this ship in majority situations. You still have significantly better options at 1.2b than using a marauder. There's really no incentive to use the ship in logo based fleets due to bastion mode, but this is where the ship really shines. It's unique that it has this ability, but it's pure uniqueness doesn't offer the risk vs reward factor that other ship offer in both Pvp and Pve. I feel a drastic cost reduction is the solution to this. But, you'd also have to do them for BLOPs - which while expensive for how paper thin they are, their utility makes them sit nicely in the balancing scheme of things right now.

I only see two possible solutions here:
1) lower costs for the marauders
2) give them something more to be desired at their price point. And to be frank, 1,500 dps + in bastion would do this..


CCP doesn't control the cost of this. You are able to make them for far less yourself if you manufactured every component. You paying for convenience for someone else doing the work. Same principle as in RL with coffee shops, etc.
aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#46 - 2016-09-29 18:16:19 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Numbers don't lie, but people do ;)

An explanation for such numbers is this: zkill has recorded efficiency through the last 5-6 years where carriers have been used in large fleet doctrines within null sec. They were extremely successful and hence their high efficiency.

Marauders were all but useless until the addition of bastion, almost no one flew them in pvp and most kill mails involving one is them being ganked


So yes, numbers don't lie. But the person presenting them with no context to attempt to reinforce a poor argument sure is.


Month of August:

Golem 29.55%
Kronos 39.7%
Vargur 52.7%
Paladin 33.7%


Thanatos 73.3%
Chimera 67.8%
Archon 87.1%
Nidhoggur 58.9% (which this would be a story in itself, having dropped 20% in isk efficiency in august from the previous three months 80% average)

All of these ships show steady numbers near what's listed here. Vargu looks ok sitting around an average of 45%-50%, but the Nidhoggur sits around 70% usually.

Either way, marauder sux.




Its good to know that its the ship that's bad and not the pilot. I should as per the"numbers which don't lie" get an archon and go PVP and win 87% of the time. garmon, kil2.. I'm coming for you....
Arcott Rammathorn
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2016-09-29 19:57:21 UTC
aldhura wrote:
Arcott Rammathorn wrote:
I have to agree with the OP as well. From the stand point of a PVPer there is little to no reason to use this ship in majority situations. You still have significantly better options at 1.2b than using a marauder. There's really no incentive to use the ship in logo based fleets due to bastion mode, but this is where the ship really shines. It's unique that it has this ability, but it's pure uniqueness doesn't offer the risk vs reward factor that other ship offer in both Pvp and Pve. I feel a drastic cost reduction is the solution to this. But, you'd also have to do them for BLOPs - which while expensive for how paper thin they are, their utility makes them sit nicely in the balancing scheme of things right now.

I only see two possible solutions here:
1) lower costs for the marauders
2) give them something more to be desired at their price point. And to be frank, 1,500 dps + in bastion would do this..


CCP doesn't control the cost of this. You are able to make them for far less yourself if you manufactured every component. You paying for convenience for someone else doing the work. Same principle as in RL with coffee shops, etc.


they are 90% in control of what the prices of the item are by switching build costs/invention costs. 10% is the variation in prices done by the player market. For example: t1 ships. When tiericide hit battleships their production costs skyrocketed - they're all about 200m, where tier 1 battleships were roughly 70m before the balance pass.
Xander Det89
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#48 - 2016-10-16 22:58:19 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
...If anything I'd like to see a new class of battleships with superior performance specs in the 2b+ price range, because once you've mastered Marauders there's really nothing left to aspire to in high-sec except optimizing your ISK/hr.

Making ISK is relatively easy once you hit that point, so it's not like hard-core mission runners can't afford it, either.


Stealth request for Tech 3 Battleships :P.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2016-10-16 23:50:50 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
I love my Marauders. They are the most perfectly balanced ships in the game. Each one is pretty much perfect in it's own right. Keep your ****ing hands off them.


Hahaha...hahhahahahaha...hahaha.

Oh wait, you're serious. A ship that is seriously dangerous to run nullsec ratting anomalies in, because a dread might spawn and volley you into a capsule before you can pull out of bastion is perfect/well balanced, when that ship is supposed to be the pinnacle of pve ability, and no other sub capital or carrier has this same weakness?

Dream on.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2016-10-17 12:07:07 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
A ship that is seriously dangerous to run nullsec ratting anomalies in

Which is any ship, and especially anything larger than a cruiser.

Quote:
because a dread might spawn

From what I understand capital spawns are a recent development. Marauders were here years ago, and not built or balanced for an NPC that wouldn't exist for years yet to come.

Quote:
and volley you into a capsule before you can pull out of bastion

You're bringing an active rep ship to a buffer fight?

Quote:
is perfect/well balanced, when that ship is supposed to be the pinnacle of pve ability, and no other sub capital or carrier has this same weakness?

I saw another thread on the forums where someone was complaining that their carrier wasn't powerful enough to solo a dread spawn. The recurring reply there from dozens of other forum regulars was, "Radio for backup, you won't be killing it solo". Now, you want highsec ships that can surpass that?

If you're ratting in nullsec, you have the full width and breadth of EvE's arsenal of tools at your disposal. There are ships or tactics that fit your needs, and Marauders aren't it. I don't care how nice they are, if they don't suit your needs, find a tool that does.

Marauders ARE perfectly balanced as ships. Maybe they don't suit your needs, but that just means you need to bark up a different tree to find what you're looking for.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Kilarya Amarri
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
#51 - 2016-10-17 17:59:46 UTC
Would like to see assault versions of bastion module more suitable for marauder name mobility (warp and impulse) and dps burst oriented so the ships can hunt other classes of hulls besede battleships.

Kronos and varg would shine that way varg especially some ships got 100km opty but var got 1-2km falloff and got turned in fat immobile pig.
Songbird
#52 - 2016-10-17 19:30:10 UTC
Whatcha'talkin'bout - wtih t1 ammo I get like 60 km falloff, with t2 up to 80 km falloff with a Vargur.
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2016-10-18 11:27:53 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Marauders need a change. Their hulls cost roughly the same as a carrier, yet they're far less capable.

..


You are comparing apples and oranges, essentially two very different ship roles at two different tech levels. You can't really compare their price relative to their different stats.


Marauders were designed as top of the line Tech II mission boats purposely gimped at Pvp.
Carriers are designed as entry level Capital Ships with counter sub-cap and counter capital remote warfare capability.

You might as well be comparing the prices of toasters to drill presses.




Purposefully gimped at pvp?



Yes, sensor strength was purposely set low to allow them to be easily jammed, before Bastion Mode was added years after they were originally released. Bastion Mode changes that, at a cost of immobility while it is active.




Yes because ECCM isn't a thing. Roll Rather you are given the option of always being down a midslot to buffer your sensor or not.

Kilarya Amarri wrote:
Would like to see assault versions of bastion module more suitable for marauder name mobility (warp and impulse) and dps burst oriented so the ships can hunt other classes of hulls besede battleships.

Kronos and varg would shine that way varg especially some ships got 100km opty but var got 1-2km falloff and got turned in fat immobile pig.


... Or build the ship focused on that goal.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2016-10-19 19:13:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
A ship that is seriously dangerous to run nullsec ratting anomalies in

Which is any ship, and especially anything larger than a cruiser.

Quote:
because a dread might spawn

From what I understand capital spawns are a recent development. Marauders were here years ago, and not built or balanced for an NPC that wouldn't exist for years yet to come.

Quote:
and volley you into a capsule before you can pull out of bastion

You're bringing an active rep ship to a buffer fight?

Quote:
is perfect/well balanced, when that ship is supposed to be the pinnacle of pve ability, and no other sub capital or carrier has this same weakness?

I saw another thread on the forums where someone was complaining that their carrier wasn't powerful enough to solo a dread spawn. The recurring reply there from dozens of other forum regulars was, "Radio for backup, you won't be killing it solo". Now, you want highsec ships that can surpass that?

If you're ratting in nullsec, you have the full width and breadth of EvE's arsenal of tools at your disposal. There are ships or tactics that fit your needs, and Marauders aren't it. I don't care how nice they are, if they don't suit your needs, find a tool that does.

Marauders ARE perfectly balanced as ships. Maybe they don't suit your needs, but that just means you need to bark up a different tree to find what you're looking for.


You're missing the point I'm getting at, Marauders run anomalies like sanctums, because they're highly efficient at it, and were designed around just that, clearing relatively high end pve content, but if you get a dreadnaught spawn near the start of your next bastion cycle, you're dead. I'm not talking about bringing a marauder to kill a carrier, I'm not talking about trying to kill it solo, I'm talking about using the marauder for it's intended purpose, and getting alpha'd off the field because you're in siege, because you got unlucky with the spawn. No other ship faces this same penalty, for the task it is intended to run for. a rattlesnake can easily warp out, a vindicator can easily warp out, a raven can easily warp out. Only the marauder, which is designed for clearing missions/anoms specifically, rolls the dice every anom, with the risk of getting headshotted, if they dont turn off their bastion for the final wave.
Joseppi Luminari
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2016-10-27 14:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Joseppi Luminari
I dont know what all the haters are arguing about?

his point is simple and you just dont understand it. hes not comparing the marauder and a capital, hes comparing their cost to use ratio....
a capital ship is capable of impacting the game much much much more than a marauder is.

a marauder is a mission running/PVE ship and it costs 2-3 times more than every other mission running ship with arguably no benefit in its mission running capabilities. the fact that this mission running ship costs as much as a capital ship is the only comparison he made and a 100% valid irrefutable argument. a capital ship makes a much bigger impact to the game than a marauder can but they cost the same, that is the problem.

that being said, the only way to rectify that is to make the ship easier to make. has nothing to do with its capabilities. reducing the materials needed to make it would certainly do the trick unless every single person who makes these ships are in cahoots, it will absolutely drive the price down. plus, if theyre more reasonable to make, more people will make them. supply goes up, cost comes down, more people will buy them so demand will go up, it will level out.

They should cost between 400-600 million for what they're intended to be used for.
Previous page123