|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 00:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, let me get this straight:
On Monday, my X-Type Armor Rep will do 30% more rep...
And then, this Winter, my Pally will also get a magic button that makes NPC EWAR not work on me...
And my Falloff will be out to around 115k...
And there'll be a 30% non-stacking EANM/DC...
And my rep will increase by a further 100 PERCENT...
AND there will be a cool animation associated will all of this ass kickery?
... Holy F**k. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 00:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Marc McIntyre Crendraven wrote:2 things this needs, a bigger bonus to the tractor beams, like 300% or more. 48 distance with tech 2 tractors just doesn't cut it. And a damage bonus for the bastion module, maybe like 25% or more. other than that it looks great. I second this suggestion. Now that we're talking about each Marauder being able to project, reliably, out to 100km... I think we need to be able to salvage out to that distance as well.
If you're feeling generous, please increase the speed of the tractors too.
Keep in mind that with the velocity nerf associated with these changes, burning to within range of the salvage isn't really practical anymore. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 00:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tzel Mayon wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Marc McIntyre Crendraven wrote:2 things this needs, a bigger bonus to the tractor beams, like 300% or more. 48 distance with tech 2 tractors just doesn't cut it. I second this suggestion. Now that we're talking about each Marauder being able to project, reliably, out to 100km... I think we need to be able to salvage out to that distance as well. If you're feeling generous, please increase the speed of the tractors too. Keep in mind that with the velocity nerf associated with these changes, burning to within range of the salvage isn't really practical anymore. EDIT: Removed the damage mod suggestion portion of the quote, as I do not support that. If anything, a buff to tracking/explosion velocity MAYBE. But I'm not going to beg for it. Not when you've just given me an indestructible transformer. Might as well increase the range of salvage drones too. This can be accomplished with modules. I can salvage at 65km, but I can only tractor at 48. It's not asking for much to extend that a little bit, especially when these changes make my speed 100 m/s and the mass renders AB's useless. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 00:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
I really wish MJD had a more variable jump range.
Like, just let me choose between 50km and 100km.... please? Most gates are 50km or less away... and 50km just became a looooong burn in these ships. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 00:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
BFE wrote:Aron Binchiette wrote:SkupojHren wrote:what?i dont even know where to start
Extends all large turret falloff and tracking by 25% Increases all large missile max velocity by 25%
why missiles dont get a second bonus?turrets get falloff and tracking.
also,why only 4 guns/marauder?with the extra slot gained and pg,you guys can increase the gun/missiles slot to 5 If no one answered your question already the missile velocity is like having a range and a tracking bonus because not only do they fly farther during the same flight time but now you can more effectively hit faster ships A tracking bonus also increases your damage to smaller ships. Simply boosting the missile velocity will not increase that.... The OP has been corrected. It isn't a tracking bonus, it's a bonus to Optimal and Falloff. Both bonuses are roughly congruent now. He said it was just a typo/misunderstanding. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 01:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Bastion mode should add DPS. Especially since they only have 4 turrets. If you could give them 10 effective turrets instead of 8 that would be awesome. 10 effective turrets... would be awesome.
The problem I see with it is they would be tempted to apply some sort of drawback to compensate, like a tracking debuff. That would be a no-go in missions. Hence why I think they chose to just buff projection.
Something that WOULD help DPS in bastion, without being massively OP to the point it needed a debuff, would be a tracking/exp velocity boost. That would tie in better with the "projection" theme without putting 1800 DPS boats on the table. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 01:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Just wondering on what the odds of these making decent anti-blap dread ships are.
Coast into Siege Bastion under prop (MWD or AB, whatever) while moving with semi-****** transversal, activate bastion, laugh as their attempts to web/paint you for the tracking dread overlords fail?
Of course there is the downside that you'll drift to the point that you've minimized transversal while still in range and die eventually... but if you haven't used your MJD, can you activate it during bastion (say, 10-30 seconds in) and jump out before you're in prime blapping range?
I wonder how these will work, and if you'll be able to MJD during it. That'll also make GTFOing real easy, unless you've got enemies waiting 100km in front of you.
I'm thinking these changes are pretty sweet. The range, tank and EWar immunity is awesome, but I'm just wondering how many ways there are to break things :) I think that Dreds would chew these things up, precisely because of the stationary thing being susceptible to BLAP. But they are going to be the default Sniper boat, methinks. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 01:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Aliventi wrote:Bastion mode should add DPS. Especially since they only have 4 turrets. If you could give them 10 effective turrets instead of 8 that would be awesome. 10 effective turrets... would be awesome. The problem I see with it is they would be tempted to apply some sort of drawback to compensate, like a tracking debuff. That would be a no-go in missions. Hence why I think they chose to just buff projection. Something that WOULD help DPS in bastion, without being massively OP to the point it needed a debuff, would be a tracking/exp velocity boost. That would tie in better with the "projection" theme without putting 1800 DPS boats on the table. You both do know that the Paladin has a 5% damage bonus (10 effective turrets at level V BS, so always 10 effective turrets), the Kronos has a 5% damage bonus (same as above) and the Vargur has a 5% RoF bonus (10.666 turrets). Just saying.
Derp. What my brain muscles were trying to say was:
12.5 effective turrets (DPS) / 13.3 effective turrets (ROF) = Ain't gonna happen without a debuff.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 03:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Rise Paladins! Our Capacitor will blot out the SUN! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 03:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
PALADIN
Signature radius: 420(-80) GOLEM Signature radius: 450(-125) KRONOS Signature radius: 420(-80)
VARGUR
Signature radius: 360(-65)
sig on the vargur.... im tired of winmatar online I though everyone got used to obvious : That Minmatar ships must be most versatile, fastest , most agile along with lowest signatue ... why ? Because we are Minmatars. What price we pay for this advantage ? We don't we are minmatars. It may sound like sarcasm , but actually i'm starting to live with it :<. I always though for some advantage there must be drawback but Minnies and gallente also are exception. Just advantages. Tho this balance pass is surprisingly good. Paladin cap will be retardely insane. So for first time i must say amarr ship will get it's own advantage. I will say even more i'm pleased with overral approach in this topic : Amarr GOT something NOONE got. Yeah i still don't believe i say this. Usually other factions get amarr stuff as free bonus . I would like to see one racial trait reversed, and I think some balance would return:
Scan Res: Switch Caldari and Minni scan res across every companion ship. Every. Single. One.
Caldari should have the best sensors, and Minni electronics should be ****. For some reason though, the high tech Caldari have the worst scan res every single time- to include Marauders.
I say this as an Amarr pilot. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 03:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:... its not good in L4s... Wat |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 03:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tzel Mayon wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:I've been mulling this around more. I can't see players running both a Bastion and salvage fit - but even so there should be a bit of a tradeoff. I think the class would be better served by instead allocating the extra high slot to a medium or low. The powergrid requirements for the Bastion module should also be in the 500-1000 range.
I'm not crazy about the idea of "siege light", so I would eliminate all speed restrictions and instead require heavy water to operate (200 units per cycle), leave the cycle at a flat 60 seconds and instead have the Bastion skill reduce heavy water consumption by 5% per skill level. I still like the idea of enhancing it with a +10% rate of fire and -10% reloading time per skill level, and offset this with a 120-second cooldown period (which could also be reduced by 5% per Bastion skill level).
It can't micro jump while in Bastion mode, there's a penalty on gate use - so without a jump drive it's not like it's going anywhere. This is why I believe CCP is essentially putting two ships into one. I can't see how to effectively fit for "both" ship modes at once. So why not just create a Command Battleship that has these awesome siege tank bonus features? Sure, give Mauraders a great Siege DPS bonus... but make another ship for Siege Tanking, (Command Battleships). By giving them command ship bonuses, you give them a nice big shiny target that justifies why they have all that tank in the first place! Because 2 million EHP bricks are not enough. We must have 8 million EHP bricks!! That tank like dreads! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 03:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote:... its not good in L4s... Wat its not higher damage, so it doesnt do L4s faster then current ships, so it has higher tank....which is unnecessary, so yeah, its not any better than current ships for L4s You're missing the part where it has 25-30% farther effective range, is immune to NPC EWAR and much of it's tank is now inherent to the Bastion module, freeing up a low/mid slot for targeting/damage mods. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 04:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tzel Mayon wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote:... its not good in L4s... Wat its not higher damage, so it doesnt do L4s faster then current ships, so it has higher tank....which is unnecessary, so yeah, its not any better than current ships for L4s You're missing the part where it has 25-30% farther effective range, is immune to NPC EWAR and much of it's tank is now inherent to the Bastion module, freeing up a low/mid slot for targeting/damage mods. I think the point was that the Marauder would effectively be replaced by Pirate Battleships for DPS. The Marauder would effectively be primarily used as a "brick" in space, with some support DPS. It appears that Pirate ships are slated to be the primary source of DPS in LVL IVs.... Please explain that to me in more detail.
Right now, using the Nightmare and Paladin as an example, the Nightmare has more applied DPS because of it's tracking bonus. However theoretical DPS of both ships is the same.
That isn't going to change. And now the Paladin will be immune to EWAR, vastly raising it's DPS over the Nightmare in certain missions- as well as making every mission feasible to run (I am looking at you, perma-jamming Gurista bastards.) The Paladin will now have unquestionably better range as well, not to mention that it will be indestructible to all but a large, expensive suicide gank squad. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 04:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote: And speaking of rare missions - any missions with GATES will make the new marauders just unusable. Anything with gates, really.
On this point we are in perfect agreement. The MJD needs to be altered in a way that allows some selection of jump distance, or else a gate 50km away is going to take over 8 minutes to get to. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 18:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote: And speaking of rare missions - any missions with GATES will make the new marauders just unusable. Anything with gates, really.
On this point we are in perfect agreement. The MJD needs to be altered in a way that allows some selection of jump distance, or else a gate 50km away is going to take over 8 minutes to get to. Or you could just fit a MWD or AB and burn to the next gate? Not seeing the issue here, all of these ships are going to have plenty of spare slots. You're forgetting the mass changes.
The doubling of these already high mass ships makes afterburners worthless, and MWD are not usable in 80% of missions.
Not to mention that they both require an extra midslot, which my Paladin does not have to spare.
I don't think it's being unreasonable to ask for a 50km/100km jump range selection. If it's 25k or less, I can grit my teeth and fly over. But 50km with this speed nerf/mass buff is simply going to be painful. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 18:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:How about mirroring the bonus to local reppers with the effectiveness of plates and extenders? This way you can choose between massive active or buffer tank. I think this would help for large fleets as it gives enough buffer maybe to coast out of cycle before reps land.
Ok this... this here is a good idea. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 19:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote: Who doesn't want a Bastion Rokh? Makes a lot more sense than trying to twist the Raven/Golem into it.
Golem with the Rokh hull? YOU HAVE MY VOTE! seriously, the Rokh needs a faction / Tech 2 hull. Scorpions and Ravens already have their multiple versions. blops rokh with kaalakiota colors is what we really need :| Transforming Abaddon hull Paladin...
It would take a bit getting used to. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 19:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Sekeris wrote:Veng3ance wrote:Honestly this is all pretty worthless without a damage increase from the bastion module.
They will just get blapped super fast by any sized fleet and the benefit of having extra range and tracking is NOT going to make it worth using. Considering that they lost a fair portion of thier drone dps some sort of dmg boost would be nice, it does not have to be times crazy like the dreads, but a 50, or 100% dmg boost would make this worth something. The dammage projection is very nice, as is the tank, but i needs something a little extra. I'd be happy with even a 25-50%(someone can run numbers if they want and tell me exactly how wrong I am for the goal as stated below). Just enough to put them at the same level or just above Pirate BS while in Bastion, but below them while out. Choosing RR/mobility or Damage. Again, I don't think a damage boost is warranted here. I'd be happy with a 25% Tracking/Explosion bonus. Same DPS, but more of it is applied. Fits the stated role rather well, I think.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 22:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
For the life of me I can't understand many of the complaints in here...
Yes, the 90% Web is going away. I'm willing to bet that during the Pirate re-balance it will go away there too, and for good reason: It's too damned powerful. In it's place you get incredible projection, incredible local tank, highly boosted buffer tank and EWAR immunity.
This is a more than a fair trade, folks. It's an incredible improvement. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 16:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ager Agemo wrote:look I will glady sacrifice half tracking if needed for 25% more DPS, I can live with that.
you still don't get it, so what if It can run a C88 wormhole by itself, tell me how much was your isk per click efficiency? that is the hard number marauder pilots care about for PVE, anything else is just things we do not care about. Are you familiar with "dread blapping"? What about if we take it in the other direction:
Bastion's range bonus makes blapping NPC's at range no problem, but what about closer NPC's that already have a little traversal built up?
I think Bastion should confer a 25-30% Tracking/Exp Velocity bonus as well. I think this fits the damage application theme, without turning it into a Dread Blapper.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 16:43:00 -
[22] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:nonsciolist wrote:Maximus Aerelius wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:BASTION MODULE
Provides 30% shield, armor and hull resistances when activated, which function on the same way than Damage Control modules (not stacking penalized) Do you mean that only one can be fitted per ship and I don't understand the (not stacking penalized) comment. Does this in fact mean that you could fit MOAR THAN ONE and activate two at the same time? *Cue wet pants*. I guess it means that bonus doesn't have a stacking penalty when used with a damage control. So the Bastion module gives 30% resists to shields, armor and hull? So if used with a damage controller (60% resists on hull), if it is not stacking penalized, you would have 90% omni hull resists? They seemed to add hull HP to most of them as well. I am thinking there could be some very interesting hull tanking fits for these new marauders. 1 high slot Bastion module, and 1 low slot damage controller, you got 90% resists, throw on a reinforced bulk heads or two, and some hull reps in the mids, that would leave you a lot of slots for damage/targeting mods. To bad it doesn't get a hull repairer bonus, or did I just miss it? 72%, not 90%.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 19:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:What about if we take it in the other direction:
Bastion's range bonus makes blapping NPC's at range no problem, but what about closer NPC's that already have a little traversal built up?
I think Bastion should confer a 25-30% Tracking/Exp Velocity bonus as well. I think this fits the damage application theme, without turning it into a Dread Blapper.
The risk there is putting too much damage application on a single module. I agree that the tank ability combine with a focus on long range combat has a bit of a dichotomy to it but I'm not sure I like the idea of a holy-trifecta of range/tank/tracking either. There are four points on the square, the last being damage modification. That is deliberately absent- and I think we can agree it should be. That absence means that an increase in application, not just projection, wouldn't be excessive. I'd argue that it would compliment the theme of this new ship beautifully.
The ship's theoretical maximum DPS would stay the same, but the ability to project and apply that DPS increases greatly in Bastion Mode. It makes sense, doesn't it? |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 00:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
I love the changes, with the exception of maybe adding a few points of CPU to the Paladin.
But I'm still going to dig in my heels and request an application buff to pair with the projection buff. I want to effectively engage close targets as well. The prospect, as was earlier described, of jumping into an NPC Swarm is pretty cool... but for a Tach Pali requires a bit more tracking. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 01:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Battle Cube wrote:imo.... give us t2 version of maelstrom, abaddon, etc. Do what you will with marauders, but give us something.... Black-Ops are due to be split and there have been more requests than I can count for a KK paint-job Rokh. I would bet you'll get your wish, just not from Marauders =P Finally a Khanid Abbadon... |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 02:04:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.
Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.
I was thinking about this earlier, and I think this might silence the lore critics AND make lowsec missioning more viable:
Role Bonus: +2 Warp Stability.
It wouldn't be gamebreaking power creep to make these things a little harder to lock down. It would fit the established description, the name, and the idea of a mission boat with enhanced jumping capabilities. I think this would work awesome... |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 02:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
"behind enemy lines" implies "not in hisec empire space" - this is the singular area in which marauders spectacularly fail their PVE audience, and the one area not addressed in this proposal. Bastion mode does not get you "behind enemy lines". It gets you killed behind enemy lines.
Rather than redefine what a marauder is, let's design a marauder that can actually maraud.
I was thinking about this earlier, and I think this might silence the lore critics AND make lowsec missioning more viable: Role Bonus: +2 Warp Stability. It wouldn't be gamebreaking power creep to make these things a little harder to lock down. It would fit the established description, the name, and the idea of a mission boat with enhanced jumping capabilities. I think this would work awesome... I didn't go that far in a previous proposal. I suggested that the ship could be immune to webs and the effects of scrams on the MWD. This would mean that the ship could run back to gates and stay mobile enough to burn away from warp disruption bubbles, even while tackled. Couple that with the "anti-support" web bonus at least on the armour versions) and it has a fighting chance of evading a gank attempt - by no means a guarantee, but a chance. warp stability would of course be another feather in its cap, and this is a bonus that already exists on T1 mining ships as well as T2 haulers. Exactly, as it's a mechanic that already exists, specifically on ships designed for PvE/Hauling and is shown to be far from game-breaking, I thought it might have a remote chance of being implemented.
However, Scram immunity for any function or module I think WOULD be game-breaking in some applications...
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 14:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
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 was doing the math for how much EHP you could get out of a Paladin with Bastion activated, 2 Deadspace EANM, a DC II and a rack of HG Slaves.
It's pretty sweet. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 15:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: Marauders need:
t2 resists since they are "advanced battleship"
Marauders don't need:
More tank
Wat |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:22:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Time for another update.We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:
- Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.
- We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.
- Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.
I will change the OP to match the changes. Woah.
Uh, I kinda wanted that non-stacking 30% though. It would have been a huge F U to gankers. Tech II resists... damn. Uh, I'm not sure how I feel about this. In one fell swoop you just make these things way less tanky and ... replaced it with a web bonus...
This is going to make my Paladin slightly worse than it is now, won't it? I just... I need to evaluate these changes in depth and stop rambling.
My first reaction is NOT supportive though. Don't cave so easily to the haters. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
luredivino wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Battle Cube wrote:While the blue post is appreciated.... i cant be the only one disappointing in those vargur numbers comparing even to a current vargur, or to a pirate bs.....
Maybe its just me, but it shouldn't just "compare" to a pirate bs if it costs the same but take more skills
And ok so it can tank the first wave of a VG but with no benefit due to lost dps, so its just 'comparable' for doing L4s. Exciting.
"we are definitely not going to give any kind of damage bonus in Bastion mode"
well i think i'm done here.
i guess i'll play with one for like 20 minutes though, i guess. 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 The goal of Tech 2 hulls isn't to be necessarily better than other ships, but better in certain roles than other ships. Pirate battleships are better than marauders, do more damage, are faster, tankier, more turret dps, more dronebay/bandwidth. Why fly marauder at this point. Bastian mode should have a damage bonus. Nothing crazy like with dreads, but something small like a 10% bonus. Something that would give 1 effective turret and put them on par with their pirate battleship counterparts. A small tracking nerf to compensate would be fair. Yeah. Fine.
Now that my Pali's tank just got nerfed by 37.5%, I'm jumping right on this bandwagon.
There is no reason not to include a damage boost, or at bare minimum an application (tracking/exp velocity) boost, now that the bastion tank has been so massively scaled back. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Tech 2 resists are actually overall stronger than the proposed bastion module resists were. T2 resists give a 75% bonus to one resist and a 50% bonus to a second, for a total of 125%, while the module was only 120% total.
Vargurs just get more and more ridiculous for incursions. This is a threefold EHP and tanking increase for Vargurs against EM/Therm damage. You don't even need to bother with spider-tanking or ASBs anymore, you can just face tank it solo with a max gank setup. You need to pair that analysis with the 37.5% rep reduction.
Also the omni-taking nature of the first iteration mod lent it's self much better to mission running amongst different pirate factions. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:39:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:luredivino wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Battle Cube wrote:While the blue post is appreciated.... i cant be the only one disappointing in those vargur numbers comparing even to a current vargur, or to a pirate bs.....
Maybe its just me, but it shouldn't just "compare" to a pirate bs if it costs the same but take more skills
And ok so it can tank the first wave of a VG but with no benefit due to lost dps, so its just 'comparable' for doing L4s. Exciting.
"we are definitely not going to give any kind of damage bonus in Bastion mode"
well i think i'm done here.
i guess i'll play with one for like 20 minutes though, i guess. 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 The goal of Tech 2 hulls isn't to be necessarily better than other ships, but better in certain roles than other ships. Pirate battleships are better than marauders, do more damage, are faster, tankier, more turret dps, more dronebay/bandwidth. Why fly marauder at this point. Bastian mode should have a damage bonus. Nothing crazy like with dreads, but something small like a 10% bonus. Something that would give 1 effective turret and put them on par with their pirate battleship counterparts. A small tracking nerf to compensate would be fair. Yeah. Fine. Now that my Pali's tank just got nerfed by 37.5%, I'm jumping right on this bandwagon. There is no reason not to include a damage boost, or at bare minimum an application (tracking/exp velocity) boost, now that the bastion tank has been so massively scaled back. Instead of defined roles, we just went right back into "Pirate Battleships are better in every way, cheaper and need fewer skills because lol." For the love of Gob, please bring back the first iteration. What nerF!? the paladin tank just went up a notch you got the 30% more overall resistances without fitting a single module now! which will stack with the bastion rep bonus when in bastion! 2 Pages. Go back. Read.
The 30% non-stacking resist is GONE. So is the Paladin's current 7.5% per level rep bonus. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:46:00 -
[34] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:These changes make every ship balanced for both PVE and PVP
Quote: Your rep power in Bastion mode is still greater than what they are now
It's 37.5% less out of Bastion. This translates to 45% boost over my current tank in Bastion.
Quote:Your resists will be higher than what they are now Significantly less than what they would have been, and EHP is essentially a wash due to HP reductions.
Quote:All turrets and missiles will be able to hit small npcs due to web bonus(this solves smaller drone bay) Slightly nerfed from what it currently is, and at the price of the Rep bonus.
Stop pretending this is a good deal for PvE players just because you finally got a ****** T2 PvP Battleship.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 16:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:You need to pair that analysis with the 37.5% rep reduction.
Also the omni-taking nature of the first iteration mod lent it's self much better to mission running amongst different pirate factions. Eh, just fit an AB and move around a bit. 400 m/sec movement is worth way more than 37.5% repping against terrible NPC tracking and 60 m/sec explosion velocity missiles. These ships now move 100 m/s. With AB they can go 250 m/s. And that's at the cost of fitting the MJD, unless you want to waste a mid.
Oh, spare me.
A web to apply damage within 12 km, when my main weapon system has an optimal/falloff out to 100 km.
Incursion whining killed what would have been an amazing change to Marauders. Bring back the original iteration, please! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:03:00 -
[36] - Quote
Edora Madullier wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Time for another update. We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes: -1. THESE SUCK. These changes have gone full r e t a r d. ROFL. Another capsuleer expresses himself with eloquent reasoned argument. Well it seems to work, since the first iteration has been destroyed because of such posts from whiners. Gotta use the weapons you know are effective. ^ This |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
*Cracks Knuckles*
Zeus Maximo wrote: Your tank will be greater than what it is now as the bastion bonus is huge. Therefore you will be able to fend off more when the time comes.
45% more active tank (over current amounts), zero buffer tank for going into bastion. That is paltry against PvP gangs and Gank squads.
Quote: Most pirate bs's are 1 billion isk whereas the marauders are much cheaper. Your resists will be greater than what they are now and the new web bonus will allow you to make up for your smaller drone bay. 80% web bonus, or whatever it is, will allow most guns to track and any size drone to hit perfectly. We are talking about applied dps here.
Pirate BS's range from 450 million to 1 billion. Marauders are around 1.25 billion each. And how why should I have to wait until something is 12km away before I can track it. Putting on my (admittedly rather shabby) PvP had, how the hell am I supposed to get within 12km of anything when my base speed is 100m/s?
Quote:You still get the tracking and range bonus with the bastion mode. If you don't want to use the web bonus for PVE then don't put a web on your ship. Silly complaint here. PVPers WILL use the web bonus. The range bonus will be great when in bastion mode so you can shoot stuff that your gang has tackled a few k away outside of point/web range. There is no tracking bonus in Bastion. There SHOULD be, especially now. But there isn't.
Quote:The new t2 resists are pretty big EHP buff. Not. Big EHP buff against explosive damage. Nothing against EM or Thermal. Hey! Guess what the rats I always fight use?
And don't forget the HP reductions each ship is getting.
These changes suck. The failure of your best attempt to justify them is a testament to that.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:15:00 -
[38] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:PVE people need to understand that these new changes Balance the marauder update to fit PVPers too.
The first update only helped PVE engagements.
This second one now benefits PVPers and still gives PVErs a boost. These (new) changes are huge nerf to the PvE capabilities of this ship. There is simply no way around pointing that out.
Not only are Pirate Battleships now indisputably superior (much higher DPS, base speed, almost exact same tank) but many Navy Battleships are too. All for EWAR immunity that frankly I only need once ever five or six missions if that.
If these changes go through as currently proposed, I'll be flying a Nightmare instead of a Paladin. It will hit harder, tank more, move faster and have more drones.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:isn't it great that CCP don't even ask us if we would like such drastic changes they just make them I'm going to be fair to CCP: They asked for feedback, and well over half of it was people bitching about their incursion webs and T2 Resists.
Many of us who supported the changes just tipped the hat and walked away from the thread. You can't blame them for thinking this change was going to be popular.
But seriously, CCP: The first idea was way, way better. Bring back the old Bastion. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:32:00 -
[40] - Quote
Quote:Your "buffer" is better than it was with the 1.0 version, as rep bonuses don't count as buffer and 125% T2 resists are better than 120% buffer. Someone is forgetting the loss of the 30% omni resists of 1.0...
Quote:Ok, and you're also forgetting the optimal range bonus, the gigantic capacitor bonus, (Paladin has 12,500 capacitor!) fitting bonuses, and the fact that you can actually field a superb tank without rooting yourself, thus allowing the ship to be used in null and wormholes with the same degree of safety as every other ship, except it can salvage and loot the sites while running them AND has an MJD for added safety so it's immune to ganking if the ganker doesn't have a scram.
Yes, it can finally project damage just as well as an Apocalypse. And yes, the new cap is boss. I like MJD's. I even wrote a guide on how to triangulate using them. However:
In return: It's mobility and tank have both been significantly nerfed. As a direct consequence, it's survivability and Isk/Hour have been nerfed. To me, a PvE mission runner, these changes are much worse than the original iteration.
An immobile tank I wouldn't need if you weren't gimping my current one, and lacking any true burst survivability (read: ganks) paired with an absolutely pointless web bonus. It just... sucks. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:35:00 -
[41] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Comparing the old PVE marauders to these changes: what is worse?
smaller drone bay? 37.5% tank nerf. 50% drone bandwidth nerf. 25% speed nerf. 50% mass nerf. 10% HP nerf. 25% web nerf. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:02:00 -
[42] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: fit propulsion
...
Fill the resist hole like you would with any other ship..... Buy modules
The new Marauders are better because we can fit modules to compensate for the nerfs... With all those extra slots they didn't give us.
The Version 1 Bastion was great because it allowed you to use more lows for tracking/damage mods without hurting survivability. Now we need to fit MORE tank in the lows (to compensate for 37.5% tank nerf) and more prop in the mid (just to make these ships flyable.) Both of these mods will come at the expense of Tracking, Projection and Damage mods. Slowing down mission running, just to get the ship up to it's current survivability. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:03:00 -
[43] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Time for another update.We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:
- Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.
- We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.
- Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.
I will change the OP to match the changes. Welp, apparently I shouldn't play poker. I'm going to love playing around with these bonuses but I think it's a bit OP. Well, except for the mass penalty being removed, was kinda figuring the Bump-Battleship from hell wasn't going to last given the ability to instantly crash a C6 with ~3-4 of these. If it had gone live it would have been removed the first time someone sent a Freighter flying 100km off the 4-4 undock. Read back a few pages. I think I make a compelling case for these changes being rather abysmal.
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:People, stop talking about level 4 missions. These are not for level 4 missions. Yes. They. Are. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:14:00 -
[45] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Silvetica Dian wrote:some of us liked the 1st iteration more :( the new version is almost identical to the original - the bastion mode still behaves the same still having high resists and great local tank. Only now, the regular mode isn't nerfed to compensate. Furthermore, in situations where you would attempt to leave bastion mode in order to get reped, your resists don't go down, meaning its a whole lot more possible to accept reps. Before, pre-bastion your tank was the exact same as it is now. Same mods=same stats. Post bastion you got a flat 30% resist and 100% tank boost.
Now, pre-bastion you get a 37.5% tank reduction, with a very modest (and situationally useless) EHP boost. In bastion the tank is boosted to 45% higher than the current non-bastion amount.
That's a significant difference. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
73
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:32:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote:Silvetica Dian wrote:some of us liked the 1st iteration more :( the new version is almost identical to the original - the bastion mode still behaves the same still having high resists and great local tank. Only now, the regular mode isn't nerfed to compensate. Furthermore, in situations where you would attempt to leave bastion mode in order to get reped, your resists don't go down, meaning its a whole lot more possible to accept reps. Before, pre-bastion your tank was the exact same as it is now. Same mods=same stats. Post bastion you got a flat 30% resist and 100% tank boost. Now, pre-bastion you get a 37.5% tank reduction, with a very modest (and situationally useless) EHP boost. In bastion the tank is boosted to 45% higher than the current non-bastion amount. That's a significant difference. To be fair, the increase in native resists somewhat makes up for the on-hull tanking nerf, given that the old T2 resists for it were 25%/12.5%, and the new ones are going to be 50/25 or 75/50 or something like that. That's going to give the Vargur and the Paladin really entertaining resist profiles. @CCP Ytterbium: can you post the new resist profiles for the Marauders? The new resists on the Paladin:
Armor EM Damage Resistance : 50% Armor Explosive Damage Resistance : 80% Armor Kinetic Damage Resistance : 62.5% Armor Thermal Damage Resistance : 35%
Note that EM and Thermal are remaining the exact same as current. The Kin helps slightly with Gurista. Exp helps significantly with Angels. But that's all she wrote.
Well over 50% of missions in Amarr space are Blood or Sansha, and this helps **** all. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
73
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:36:00 -
[47] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:
But with bastion mode you now get a 100% tank BUFF
100% is greater than 37.5%
If you want a better tank, use bastion mode.
Out of Bastion, my tank is 37.5% weaker. In Bastion it is 45% stronger, but with a host of penalties.
Under the old changes, my pre-Bastion tank was the same as now. In Bastion my tank was 140% stronger. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:38:00 -
[48] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote:Silvetica Dian wrote:some of us liked the 1st iteration more :( the new version is almost identical to the original - the bastion mode still behaves the same still having high resists and great local tank. Only now, the regular mode isn't nerfed to compensate. Furthermore, in situations where you would attempt to leave bastion mode in order to get reped, your resists don't go down, meaning its a whole lot more possible to accept reps. Before, pre-bastion your tank was the exact same as it is now. Same mods=same stats. Post bastion you got a flat 30% resist and 100% tank boost. Now, pre-bastion you get a 37.5% tank reduction, with a very modest (and situationally useless) EHP boost. In bastion the tank is boosted to 45% higher than the current non-bastion amount. That's a significant difference. It hurts the tank a bit more than you think. Tank modules 1x LAAR DC RAH 1x ENAM II Large Auxiliary Nano Pump I Old Bastion Module Rep = 1873.35 EHP/s New Bastion Module Rep = 1241.48 EHP/s Not to mention the huge EHP hit the Pally is taking. Old Bastion with slaves and DCII would have meant almost 200k EHP. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:41:00 -
[49] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The marauder as it stands is now better at hisec PVE
How? How is a Paladin made better by these changes? The tank has been massively reduced by over a third, and it's mobility cut by over a quarter. It's EHP against the only damage type that matters in Amarr space is the exact same. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 18:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
I'll deal with all three of you at once:
Battle Cube wrote:
Now you get tank reduction? But doesn't it get a higher tank due to t2 resists?
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Why do you claim that it's tank has been reduced by a third? It now has T2 resistances. Resistances contribute to local tank just like local rep bonuses.
That's just simple mathematics.
Ager Agemo wrote:people don't understand that Native T2 resist affect indirectly the efficiency of repair modules, why are this kind of players even allowed to post?
Here it is fellas:
Amarr T1 Resists: Thermal: 35% EM: 50%
Amarr T2 Resists: Thermal: 35% EM: 50%
Guess what type of damage Amarr mission runners tank. Go on, guess.
Tech II resists are almost completely worthless in Amarr space. They increase our tank against NPC Minnies and Angels, neither of which should be engaged because they are hyper tanked against our EM/Therm lasers.
So, when I say that these changes nerf my tank by 37.5%, it's because that's exactly what it does.
EDIT: And Cade beat me to it. Again. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
82
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:02:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:One minute the forums are full of whining that missiles and blasters can't hit small ships that move fast.
Now you have a web that will slow them down so you can clean them off without having to MJD away and play contrived tracking games.
Only someone who has never fired a large blaster at an orbiting frigate or a torpedo at any frigate would claim that the web bonus is a bad thing.
When it comes at the expense of 37.5% of my tank it is most certainly a bad thing. Otherwise it would simply be useless, but the latest substitution just makes it bad. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:07:00 -
[52] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:One minute the forums are full of whining that incursions are impossible to run without a 90% Web...
Fixed. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:28:00 -
[53] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:I still can't believe people are complaining about level fours. If you need T2 resists to tank level fours, I don't know how to fix what's wrong with you.
BTW, the Paladin is still far far superior to any turret ship for Amarr space because bastion mode makes you immune to tracking disruptors. It isn't about tanking the mission. The mission can be tanked with a battlecruiser ffs.
It's about a high EHP, evenly distributed resist profile that discourages ganking, or at least makes organizing a successful one much more difficult.
Because the best way to go through more level IV's in less time, and thus make more isk/hr, is to bling on damage. Faction/Officer Tracking Comps, Heatsinks and even Officer Guns. Right now, doing such is considered a fail fit, because the EHP of the ship is so abysmally low that a five man gang can gank you and make a profit.
However, if you DON'T, then a Nightmare easily out isk/hr a Pally, and for less isk in mods and hull.
The changes, as originally proposed, made a bling fit Pally a moderately responsible choice.
Now the EHP is not only right back to square one, or slightly reduced, but the Active tank is gimped as well. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Zeus Maximo wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Battle Cube wrote: Old Bastion Module Rep = 1873.35 EHP/s New Bastion Module Rep = 1241.48 EHP/s
Just for fun
Without Bastion Module on (old) 655.67 EHP/s Without Bastion Module on (new) 620.74 EHP/s
"Buff," isn't it Zeus? Without Bastion Module on (old) 655.67 EHP/s New Bastion Module Rep = 1241.48 EHP/s Yep, double the repping power heh i think you did your quote wrong cause i never said that
Someone's forum-fu is weak... |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
96
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
The more I think about it, the more I think this requires two different ship types.
A ship that is good for incursions just seems to be very different from one that is optimized for missions. The newly proposed changes clearly benefit the former, but they've gimped the latter.
Advocates of v2 are trying, weakly, to attest that the changes don't actually hurt mission running or (more honestly) that this ship isn't designed to do missions at all. Yesterday, the roles were reversed. I would argue that in this conflict, mission running should win, as that is what the hull is predominately used for/designed for currently. But that only reveals my bias as a mission runner.
I think the two roles (missions and incursions) are in direct conflict with each other, and trying to make a hull that does both will end in either disaster, or the most OP ship in Eve.
The entire concept of an all in one PvE ship needs much more thought on the part of CCP. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
96
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:44:00 -
[56] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think this requires two different ship types.
A ship that is good for incursions just seems to be very different from one that is optimized for missions. The newly proposed changes clearly benefit the former, but they've gimped the latter.
Advocates of v2 are trying, weakly, to attest that the changes don't actually hurt mission running or (more honestly) that this ship isn't designed to do missions at all. Yesterday, the roles were reversed. I would argue that in this conflict, mission running should win, as that is what the hull is predominately used for/designed for currently. But that only reveals my bias as a mission runner.
I think the two roles (missions and incursions) are in direct conflict with each other, and trying to make a hull that does both will end in either disaster, or the most OP ship in Eve.
The entire concept of an all in one PvE ship needs much more thought on the part of CCP. the 'new' version is very similar to the last, the non-bastion mode has higher tank for rr, while the bastion mode has slightly less tank. Either way its got plenty of tank v1 offered a 30% strait resist buff with a 100% tank buff over current. v2 offers a 45% tank buff over current. Out of Bastion, there is a 37.5% tank nerf.
I and several others have already articulated why the T2 resists are pointless. The web is pointless, and comes at a huge price. The speed nerf in conjunction with all of this is terrible.
These changes make the ship worse at running most missions. Only high EWAR missions see improved performance. That is fewer than one in five. To ice the cake, the ship is now more susceptible to ganking. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
96
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:53:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Time for another update.We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes:
- Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode.
- We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time.
- Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes.
I will change the OP to match the changes. Wow, So you take ships that were at least pretty good for PVE, even if they kind of stunk for PVP, and now made them so they suck for both. How do you figure? Seems the resist increases make up for the loss of the rep bonus and they all get web bonuses. Granted the 2 that had them got their bonus reduced, but the effect is still very significant. Outside of drone capabilities most of the ships have only gained. The resist bonuses are worthless for 75% of the missions you would try to run, and in exchange for them the ships gave up 37.5% of their tank, 25% of their speed, gained 20% more mass and lost 10% HP. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 21:02:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nam Dnilb wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:Note that EM and Thermal are remaining the exact same as current. The Kin helps slightly with Gurista. Exp helps significantly with Angels. But that's all she wrote. Imma shootin' Guristas and Angels with mah Lazors! (said nobody, ever) Exactly. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 21:04:00 -
[59] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:I kind of feel like marauders are being pushed into so many different directions here to try to fill roles that either other ships fill better, or don't really exist in the first place. I know CCP is trying, but it all seems so screwed up right now.
Instead of concentrating so hard on making marauders wildly different from pirate battleships and other parts of the ship line-up why don't they follow the rest of the t2 lineup, and make what changes are needed to keep them on course.
For instance, to separate them from pirate battleships look at what pirate battleships do well. All of the pirate ships have great dps, most are fairly fast (with the machariel being very fast) and three of them have fantastic ewar bonuses. Why not keep this to pirate battleships? If they need to be reworked a little then do so during the pirate rebalance, but keep things like 90% webs, web range, a neuts to pirate battleships.
Whats left over now for marauders? Well why not follow the assault ship/command ship lineup. Keep the marauder's dps about the same, but emphasize their tank and application, but do so without utterly pidgeonholeing the class. Get rid of all of all of the ewar bonuses. ALL of them. No bonus to webs, none to target painters. Just drop them. If we want them, we'll fit them, just don't make us feel like we have to in order to optimize the ship. When you think about ship bonuses realize that people are going to use long and short range weapons on the ship. Keep this in mind. A web bonus is less of a help to people using long range weapons than it is to someone who uses short range ones.
Here's a sample of something that makes sense.
GOLEM
GÇó Role Bonus: 100% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo damage. 70% reduction in Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay. Can fit Bastion modules.
GÇó Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity 5% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo explosion velocity per level
GÇó Marauders Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to the cruise missile and torpedo explosion velocity per level 4% bonus to shield resistances per level
GÇó Slot layout: 6H, 7M, 5L; 0 turrets, 4 launchers GÇó Fittings: 8500 PWG, 715 CPU GÇó Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8000 / 6100 / 7000 GÇó Shield resists: 0% EM / 50% EX / 70% KIN / 80% THERM GÇó Armor resists: 50% EM / 10% EX / 62.5% KIN / 86.25% THERM GÇó Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 6325 / 1150s / 5.5 cap/s GÇó Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 85 m/s / .12 / 114195000 / 19s GÇó Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50 GÇó Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 95km / 105 / 10 GÇó Sensor strength: 28 Gravimetric GÇó Signature radius: 450
And a bastion module that makes sense.
BASTION MODULE
GÇó Increases shield and armor repair amount by 25% GÇó Increases shield, armor and hull by 25% GÇó Extends all large turret falloff and optimal by 25% GÇó Increases all large missile max velocity by 25% GÇó Increases damage from large missiles and turrets by 25% GÇó When activated, the bastion module repairs the marauder for 25% of its maximum capacitor, armor, shield, and hull hp. GÇó Has a cycle time of 60 seconds. GÇó When in bastion mode, Marauder is immune to EW but cannot be remote assisted in any way GÇó When in bastion mode, Marauder speed is set to 0 m/s, mass is increased by a factor of 10, cannot warp. Also
When its activated, we're parked. We commit. When we turn this thing on its either win or die, so it better be worth it.
Its useful with the bastion module. Its useful without it. It has enough slots to make good fitting choices. It can be buffer tanked or active tanked. It has good application, which can be made better with TPs or webs, but it doesn't NEED to fit them. Ooooh, I like this idea. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 21:08:00 -
[60] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:10% HP isn't going to affect my PvE performance at all.
It makes the ship 10% cheaper to gank.
Quote:The tank loss is actually made up in part by the resist increase,
No, it isn't. Because....
Quote:more if you're tanking against your racial resist strength.
Most of the time, you aren't. If you're Amarr, you NEVER are.
Quote:Add bastion and you're tanking 2x what you were prior. 1.45x, and it isn't worth it.
Quote:Also using a bastion+some of the new bonuses expands effective range to the point that mobility is far less of a concern. Burning to gates is a huge isk/hr concern. As much as I love them, MJD make that very difficult, even with trig.
|
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
102
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 21:53:00 -
[61] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Quoting this because oh gods so true. Seriously people: Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Some one slap him, he's hysterical. Its a rebalancing man, calm down This, with a wet fish, to this entire bloody thread. We have over four months to hack each other to pieces, lets not litter the floor with missing limbs just yet people Why procrastinate?
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
111
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 22:40:00 -
[62] - Quote
Cael Autumn wrote:I, Cael Autumn, would like to formally dissent to these changes proposed herein.
I would further like to formally refer to said changes as "non-emergent regressive quackery"
Hear hear! Tip of the hat, Sir. Good show, wot wot! Excellent form! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
111
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 22:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Complaints at losing tank in non bastion mode are entertaining. Everyone constantly bitches that armour/shield boost bonuses are terrible and that resist bonuses are better. So we get the T2 bonuses that from memory are about as strong if not better than a 4% resist bonus and people complain! RR Logi is going to be very strong on these ships now. This is a huge buff from before even ignoring the bastion module. PvPer's complain. Incursion runners complain.
The Rep boost bonus has always been what sets these ships apart from Pirate Battleships for mission running, and now it's been severely gimped. T2 resists are pointless in 80% of missions, or 100% if you're Amarr. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 00:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The ships still need a way to not become a 1b+ KM every time they enter low sec. Solve this and suddenly they'll sell like hot cakes... +2 Warp strength. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 00:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Darkwolf mate are you serious all you have to do is put 1x em hardener in to your mids and you've got like 60% global resist profile.....
Level 4 missions... if you fail so bad you need 80% resists on a TECH TWO RESISTS BATTLESHIP then you should just biomass, I'm not even joking. I run an RNI with 2x invul fields and have NEVER come close to losing it in a level 4.. because I don't suck at this game. So basically waste more slots on tank, which ruins the point of using a marauder. That was the draw of a tanking bonus, to use fewer slots for tank. If a change negates that, it's not a good change for the ship so far as PvE is concerned. Give this man a LIKE! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
129
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 02:20:00 -
[66] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Most EM weak rats also deal EM, which means that your damage comes pared with your tank in missions as well as anoms. On the Paladin those are opposed. You have no "choice." You are either not hitting the targets weakness or reenforcing your own. Yeah, I got it. Paladin is at disadvantage here. But the point I was making is that this ship's Amarrian resists make it omni tanker, which in general is an asset, not liability. You don't get boost against EM but this resist is already the highest on T1 and the rest is just bonus. Mostly unused bonus but still bonus. "In general" in this instance does not apply to "missions." Which are, you know, what the ship is supposed to be better at than anything else. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
130
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 03:04:00 -
[67] - Quote
I hope this chorus against the 7.5% rep nerf reaches the Dev's ears with the same clarity that the Incursion whiners did.
The original proposed changes were 90% of what was necessary. But I would rather you do nothing than do what is currently proposed. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 14:48:00 -
[68] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:To quote this other post. CCP Ytterbium wrote:We haven't decided on anything regarding Marauders yet regarding web bonuses, remember until release this is an open discussion we're having.
We will still be running internal tests on both proposed versions on the Marauder thread, as well as some other variations - so consider yourself warned if things evolve in the future. And by that we mean, Winter release is still quite some time away, we want to take our time to shape those things right, and see them on public testing before coming up with a final decision. Theory crafting is nice, but they also need to be put into practical situations. I like that approach. :) @F&I crowd: GUYS, WHINE MORE! AND LOUDER! WE NEED THAT 30% BONUS BACK! I'm right there with ya! And the 7.5% rep bonus back, too!
And to hell with the incursion bears ****** web. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:09:00 -
[69] - Quote
Xqpvqsvs Qr'atyuqink wrote:My proposal is to add two scripts to bastion module, so we could decide which characteristics of ship we want to boost. This include ability to move with bastion module on, just without ability to warp, dock and jump.
Script nr1 - For boosting EW abilities and movement (more pvp oriented) * 70% cooldown bonus on MJD * 50% reduction in MWD/MJD cap usage * 100% stasis web optimal range * 25% to scan resolution * 25% to agility * 25% to tracking and missile explosion velocity
Script nr2 - For boosting long range abilities, tank and dps (more pve oriented) * 25% to turret optimal/missile velocity and turret falloff/missile flight time * 25% to damage of large turrets, torpedoes and cruise missiles * 100% to shield and armor repair amount * 25% cap reduction of local armor reps and shield boosters * 150% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams and salvagers * 100% more cap usage of MWD (making them more like stationary/slow moving turret for balance reasons)
Both scripts: * Unable to warp, dock and jump with working bastion module * Unable to be remote assisted in any way with working bastion module
Marauders role bonus can be: * 100% to missile and turret damage * Immunity to EW and Defender Missiles (some hidden bonus adding HP to our missiles making them well protecred against defenders and smartbombs) I like this idea. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:10:00 -
[70] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: I think you are correct, I don't think that was ever the intention. Now for missions, anoms, and belts either iteration would make sense to one degree or another.
I do think you under rate the advantages of T2 resists though, I would not think 1 additional invul would come near to making up the difference in resists.
For mission running, as Amarr, T2 resists are worthless. That they are in exchange for the 37.5% tanking bonus makes them less than worthless. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
164
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:45:00 -
[71] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:maGz wrote:Haven't read the entire thread so maybe this has been suggested: Why not just make the Bastion module the equivalent to both Triage and Siege Modules and control it using scripts. Give us a proper stepping stone to both carriers and dreads (albeit a costful (SP-wise) stepping stone); Triage script with bonus to remote rep range etc., siege script with dmg bonus but tracking penalties etc.. Make the reload of scripts take 5 mins or something, so you have to commit to one or the other. There's probably a ton of flaws with such a module, but it'd be different from the current ambiguous version. Plus it may give us a proper anti-cap ship that isn't another cap.
Just an idea... here it is again, I'd be rather surprised if the next iteration isn't something along this line Frankly, that's the easiest way out of this mess for the Devs, and it is consistent with the way such modules work for caps:
Keep T2 Resists, Keep Web/TP bonus
Marauder Module:
Bastion Script: 100% Rep Boost, 20% Resist Boost (see what I did thar?), 25% Opt/Fal/Vel Boost, 25% Tracking/Exp Vel Boost, Remote Reps Blocked.
Assault Script: 100% Remote Rep Range Boost, 200% Web Range Boost, 25% RoF boost, Remote Reps ALLOWED
Boom, and every motherf**er in this thread is happy. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
166
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 20:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
Periapsis Retrograde Burn wrote:As I am currently in heavy theorycrafting mode, does anyone know if the Bastion bonuses to optimal and falloff are stacking penalized? The longer I look at the prospect of a 70ish km optimal on a Tachy-Paladin, the more I like it. Not at the expense of making it a glass cannon. I'll take a half loaf, but only if they aren't also stealing my cheese. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
197
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 17:24:00 -
[73] - Quote
Shantetha wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:This is my third post on the topic, so I'm going to sound like a broken record, but
1) Does anyone think the 5% cap bonus on Amarr Battleships for the Paladin is useful or should stay?
2) Can anyone think of why the Paladin should only have three bonuses?
And if you don't like it, and haven't said so, can you say so now? 1) 5% cap bonus / lvl should just be baked into the hull give a dps bonus instead. This is kinda duh at this point, which is prob why people haven't answered you. 2.) Might have originally be to counter the 1 sec crystal ammo changes that lasers can do. But no they should have 4 real bonuses like the other three marauders not 3 and " you will like a side of cap bonus with your armor repper?". The 1 sec crystal ammo change is offset by the fact that lasers can only deal EM/Therm damage. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
198
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 03:42:00 -
[74] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:I didn't really understand why the version 1 numbers were so amazing that they needed to be gutted until I started working the numbers for the shield tanked marauders. I'll post the same type of numbers for the Vargur after I finish them, but needless to say the shield numbers get quite rediculous. Shield tanking is why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Actually you could get some pretty silly numbers out of Armor Marauders too, if you really tried. The first gen numbers weren't bad, but people wanted full T2 resists for PvP and the resist bonus on Bastion would have been OP all by itself if combine with T2 resists so the resist bonus had to go if we wanted T2 resists. I think a fair compromise is to have T2 Resists, and then have Bastion give a further 20% unstacked bonus.
This simply replicates what many T2 ships have already: A 4% per level resistance bonus. However, this 20% would apply to shields, armor and hull at once.
T2 stays in place for incursions, but the EHP and more omni buff stays in place for Level 4 missions. And without introducing any ridiculous tank EFT-stats. Well, no more ridiculous than we see on current ships anyway. I do like the idea of this ship being the only one that can get >60% resists in hull though (my proposal would max out hull resists at 68%.) |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
198
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 03:58:00 -
[75] - Quote
Ravasta Helugo wrote: I think a fair compromise is to have T2 Resists, and then have Bastion give a further 20% unstacked bonus.
This simply replicates what many T2 ships have already: A 4% per level resistance bonus. However, this 20% would apply to shields, armor and hull at once.
T2 stays in place for incursions, but the EHP and more omni buff stays in place for Level 4 missions. And without introducing any ridiculous tank EFT-stats. Well, no more ridiculous than we see on current ships, anyway. I do like the idea of this ship being the only one that can get >60% resists in hull though (my proposal would max out hull resists at 68%.)
EDIT: And put back my damned 37.5% Rep boost!
To illustrate:
Paladin v2
Armor UnBast/Bast Therm: 35% / 48% Kin: 62.5% / 70% Exp: 80% / 84% EM: 50% / 60%
Shield UnBast/Bast: Therm: 20% / 36% Kin: 70% / 76% Exp: 87.5% / 90% EM: 0% / 20%
Hull UnBast/Bast: Therm: 0% / 20% Kin: 0% / 20% Exp: 0% / 20% EM: 0% / 20% |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
200
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 18:14:00 -
[76] - Quote
Wolfgang Achari wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Depends on the ship and the weapon systems. The greater the ship's innate ability to tank the more you can focus on other things like damage application and projection and the less tank you actually have to bring. Being able to perma-tank a mission is quite a nice luxury if you can't lower incoming DPS fast enough. Plus it's pretty fun watching ~1k of mission DPS splash off your tank with no red showing.
For reference if you fail to bring down incoming DPS there are Level 4 missions that do 1k DPS, give or take a little.
As for Level 5 missions, yes those are meant to be run by multiple people, however people figured out ages ago how to run them solo in a few select fits so they haven't really been serious multi-person content for years.
I fail to see why that's a compelling argument for retaining the rep bonus. Losing a little bit of tank against some NPC rats will not suddenly make these ships useless for PvE content. If anything it broadens the range of PvE content they can effectively be used for because of the overall increased resists. Retaining the current tanks for PvE just because a few people don't want to see any red on their tank during a site/mission/etc. isn't a good reason to retain it. Especially if it's at the expense of giving the ship greater usability overall. The issue with the "resists for rep" trade off is that it works as described for two ships, but two others (to include the Paladin) gain no resist bonus for their regionally prevalent rats to offset the 37.5% reduction in tank- resulting in the need to fit more modules to compensate. This reduces DPS, which reduces the amount of ISK you earn. This makes Pirate Battleships like the Nightmare that much more appealing, which defies the concept of a Tech 2 PvE focused Battleship. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
201
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 19:22:00 -
[77] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:The issue with the "resists for rep" trade off is that it works as described for two ships, but two others (to include the Paladin) gain no resist bonus for their regionally prevalent rats to offset the 37.5% reduction in tank- resulting in the need to fit more modules to compensate. This reduces DPS, which reduces the amount of ISK you earn. This makes Pirate Battleships like the Nightmare that much more appealing, which defies the concept of a Tech 2 PvE focused Battleship. Which is why the new marauders aren't suppose to be PvE focused battleships. Like every other ship in the game they're suppose to be ships that can be used in PvE, but giving them the PvE focus is what ruined them in the first place. And seriously, if you can't 3 slot tank (4 w/bastion) amarr rats with the paladin you fail pretty hard at this game. The PvE focus of these ships isn't what "ruined them."
What held them back, and continues to hold them back, is this conflict:
1. In Level 4 Missions, more DPS equals more ISK. A robust, sustained local tank, paired with high DPS, projection and application, is the ultimate mission runner.
2. Such a ship would obsolete many, many others in PvP, and would kill the soul of Tiericide for the Battleship class.
So the Marauder, as it currently exists, was an attempt to marry DPS, application (Web, TP), and durability while substantially reducing it's effectiveness in PvP. The reason this attempt was a failure was twofold:
1. Pirate (and some faction) Battleships are capable of dealing the same theoretical DPS, but their projection bonuses are stronger, their hulls are cheaper, and their velocity is faster. For this increased performance, you need only 1/4 the training time and 50-70% of the ISK.
2. Less significant, but relevant when you consider that Pirate BS's have stronger than average Sensor Strength, is that the way they chose to reduce Marauder PvP effectiveness (very low sensor strength,) makes these ships very vulnerable to NPC ECM as well.
Catering to PvE didn't break these ships. The dichotomy between catering to PvE without dominating PvP, combined with the superior performance of Pirate Battleships, did. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
202
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 19:50:00 -
[78] - Quote
Derp. Meant to edit. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
202
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 21:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:How about: Marauder hulls: as in current version
Paladin bonuses:
7.5% bonus to large energy turret optimal range 4% to all armor resistances 7.5% bonus to large energy turret tracking 5% bonus to large energy turret damage I like it.
Just make sure you add a bigger capacitor and I'm on board. Bastion would become an "oh ****" button for when I popped too many triggers or was jammed into the ground. I like it. CCP do this! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
209
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 16:55:00 -
[80] - Quote
Jacob Bok'Kila wrote:As an amarr, almost started the training for the paladin as i had the option now in skillplans... saw the changes-->glad that "almost" prevented that.
WIth a Nightmare i use the same mjd-tachsnipe tactics (alt/corpmate salvages) as the first iteration suggested. With the transform fun... With a laser boat, i just skip the missions what has any other factions than sansha/raiders. Whats the point of the t2 resists then? None. Incursions: resist are fine. But wait! We have the nightmare ingame? Yes. Armor fleets got nearly extinct. No point again. The palladin hull costs 50% more than the nightmare. No point again. The first iteration was definitely more enjoyable looking for missioning, and the latest iteration was most definitely catered to incursions at the expense of literally everything else.
Don't worry though, they're changing stuff around again. My advice: Most of the secondary skills for Marauders I are skills you should train up anyway. Keep the training plan going. I have faith in CCP to get this sorted out. |
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
224
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
Vrykolakasis wrote:I haven't been reading a ton of this and just checked in to see if there had been any devposts concerning the marauders balance, but I'd like to note that on the topic of t1 battleship hulls, I know that all of them can complete any L4 mission without warping out. I can think of several missions I've run recently where warping out would have been mandatory had I been in an Apocalypse vs. my Paladin. Unless I ran a 5-6 slot tank, that is, in which case mission completion time would have been 2-3x longer. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
229
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 05:59:00 -
[82] - Quote
Darkwolf wrote:This thread has gone places.
I'll be very interested to hear about your results, keep us posted!
It lost steam hard after it became apparent that CCP was going back to the drawing board.
That's good though. This forum did it's job. We're going to see a much more thought out product in their next offering, I'm sure of it. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 17:19:00 -
[83] - Quote
I support the idea of two separate bastion modules, rather than scripting. Make the pilot commit before undocking. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
240
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 23:17:00 -
[84] - Quote
52 Pages now... I'm hungry for something, anything.
People have just been posting some version of the same 3-4 ideas for the past 40 pages. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
241
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 17:59:00 -
[85] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:In the light of this thread I have tried some missions with an MJD and/or MWD fitted (in the past I often didn't fit a prop mod at all). On balance, the MWD is a great deal more useful for these reasons. 1. You are never in a position of having to travel 100km in a mission site. 2. An MWD will get you to a mid-range (say < 70km) position much faster than an MJD triangle. 3. It gives the ability to dictate range to rats precisely, maximising outgoing DPS while minimising incoming damage.
I would say that an MJD bonus on a marauder is un-necessary and could be more usefully replaced with something else (base speed, salvage chance, tractor beam range for example...)
I've leaned towards opposition to the MJD for missions as well.
Increase fittings to accommodate MWD fitting (which wasn't feasible when these ships were released because "deadspace.") |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
263
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 02:58:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey people, We've been away from this thread for a while to let things cool down a bit. With Rubicon coming to Singularity soon, we've decided to revert Marauders to the original design for now, as we want to see how they actually fare in practice within player hands before committing to the version 2 change. We will let you know if and when we move to version 2 again. WeGÇÖll most likely open a new thread when they appear on Singularity as this one has become quite convoluted. That means:
- Shield, armor and hull resists in Bastion Mode only
- Keep the 37.5% tank bonus on the Marauders, no web bonus
We are also aware this won't please everyone here - regarding their comparison with Pirate Battleships, especially the Machariel, please remember we have stated many times Pirate hulls were due for a rebalance, with Angel Cartel being on the front line for tuning changes. Thanks for your time. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU OH GOD THANK YOU!!! |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
269
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 19:44:00 -
[87] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:What's the point, really. There's been almost zero interaction from the devs and almost 6,000 odd posts later we're back at a slightly modified version of the first iteration. This has been the case for almost every rebalancing effort, ie: what you first see is more or less what you're going to end up with.
Which I'm fine with. But let's dispense with the guise that this actually provides an opportunity to have any kind of real input or interaction with CCP devs. This is a basically an announcement forum for changes that are more or less already carved in stone, with the "features and ideas" aspect basically here for us to entertain ourselves with.
This isn't our game - we're merely tourists. What was first suggested was superior. That's why it remains, with a few necessary tweaks.
Incursionbear's whinings over webs that have **** all to do with the rest of the hull were eventually ignored, and they should have been.
The feedback from this thread has gotten the speed increased, agility increased, a very sizable EHP bump, and the Drone bay back where it should be. And it got the disaster that was the 2nd version thrown into the trash heap. That's a justification of this thread's existence if I ever saw one. |
|
|
|