Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Viribus
Karan VIII Corp Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 11:58:00 -
[31] - Quote
I love it when people post that marauders aren't supposed to PVP because they have a low sensor strength, and they have a low sensor strength because they aren't supposed to PVP.
Features & Ideas Discussion at its finest. |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 12:10:00 -
[32] - Quote
The Vargur is by far the best incursion BS for VGs. Why, you ask? The range of the Mach, the tracking of the Vindi, and just about the same dps as a Mach (more if you figure in the ability to apply it). Now I'm not saying flying a Vargur will get you a fleet... alot of FCs are clueless to how good this ship is, but when you get a smart FC they will snatch you up like no other. This ship is also probably one of the best mission ships you can fly. |
m3talc0re X
SandStorm. The Babylon Consortium
57
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 14:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
I use mine for Angels. Unfortunately, I fly armor for incursions and Vargur isn't too good there :( |
Ager Agemo
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
36
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 15:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
I never understood, why marauders arent mean for pvp? they are even more expensive than faction battleships, yet PVP wise their perfomance is far below even navy battleships.
it just dosnt makes sense that the high technology ship has weaker sensors than their T1 counterpart.
that and **** it, why we need a ******* ship for pve? make it just like the other ships a ship with a purpose defined by the one flying it.
they should get their tractor and salvage bonuses removed all together and actually become a real battleship instead of a carebear toy.
i would propose they change something like this:
remove salvage/tractor beam stuff, add 1 high slot and 1 mid slot. simple as that, the ship will get a big increase of dps, and some tanking.
i mean a golem ******* costs 1 bill isk! yet a navy raven for half the price does MORE dps and has a sturdier tank.
they should actually become ships with a focus on nasty pvp. sort of like the Vindicator or bhaalgorn.
no one complains about those ships being OP, despite having MORE dps, tank, speed, than any marauder and being easier to fly. |
Hans Momaki
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 16:15:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:I never understood, why marauders arent mean for pvp? they are even more expensive than faction battleships, yet PVP wise their perfomance is far below even navy battleships.
it just dosnt makes sense that the high technology ship has weaker sensors than their T1 counterpart.
that and **** it, why we need a ******* ship for pve? make it just like the other ships a ship with a purpose defined by the one flying it.
they should get their tractor and salvage bonuses removed all together and actually become a real battleship instead of a carebear toy.
i would propose they change something like this:
remove salvage/tractor beam stuff, add 1 high slot and 1 mid slot. simple as that, the ship will get a big increase of dps, and some tanking.
i mean a golem ******* costs 1 bill isk! yet a navy raven for half the price does MORE dps and has a sturdier tank.
they should actually become ships with a focus on nasty pvp. sort of like the Vindicator or bhaalgorn.
no one complains about those ships being OP, despite having MORE dps, tank, speed, than any marauder and being easier to fly.
Marauders have a role allready. The problem is, they just suck in their given role, and they suck at PvE compared to other ships, which are less skill intensive and in atleast one case much cheaper.
Change active tank bonus to resistance bonus, and give them 100% bonusrange on short-range weapons so they can reach the range a mach is having. Incase of the golem, scratch TP bonus and change it to an explosion-radius bonus instead.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 17:46:00 -
[36] - Quote
People are having problems using both the T2 BS in PvP (except when dropping bazillion BO's)
Introduce a miniaturized siege module the T2 BS can use .. a module that is the same as the regular one but with all values cut by 50-66%. Could replace siege rep bonus with a quadrupling of EHP to make it "work", but should otherwise be perfect for them. Capital hunters extraordinaire (especially now that SCs are gimped vs. sub-caps) with only 2.5mins commit time, one being self-propelled with lower damage and the other having damage advantage but needing a 'regular' mode of transport. |
Xolve
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
779
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 17:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:People are having problems using both the T2 BS in PvP (except when dropping bazillion BO's)
Introduce a miniaturized siege module the T2 BS can use .. a module that is the same as the regular one but with all values cut by 50-66%. Could replace siege rep bonus with a quadrupling of EHP to make it "work", but should otherwise be perfect for them. Capital hunters extraordinaire (especially now that SCs are gimped vs. sub-caps) with only 2.5mins commit time, one being self-propelled with lower damage and the other having damage advantage but needing a 'regular' mode of transport.
No to Mini-Siege, Mini-Capitals, or any of this other 'Mini' **** you publords want.
Cease this faggotry immediately. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
73
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 18:07:00 -
[38] - Quote
Hans Momaki wrote:m3talc0re X wrote:I want the tractor bonus, but I want it improved. Give the marauders the same tractor bonus as the noctis then give them a bonus to cut salvager cycle time in half. That would fix the marauder vs noctis problem.
And the "Marauder vs faction BS" - problem?
This.
CS was that last "real" T2 ship. After that they weren't given the T2 resists and they took from tank to excuse the additional "features". Everyone went Nightmare and machariel, they didn't have thier stats punished for thier role bonus. Ships that were supposed to be rare were farmed to standard issue. Better ships because thier Bonus system was based on T1, not T2 with T1 stats.
For me, Nightmare or Paladin. Nighmare has more structure, Armor, shield and better tanking overall.
I can fly both but I'd pick a Nightmare over a Paladin any day. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
58
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 19:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
How about tracking speed? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Xolve
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
782
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 19:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
The root cause of Marauders being so terrible at their given role, is simply because we have T3's now, as before we didn't and they just happen to be better at shooting at things then the T2 battleships intended for PvE.
They've been outclassed, and are just something for bitter vets that actually trained Marauder V to whine about. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
58
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:15:00 -
[41] - Quote
Do I need to mention tracking speed again? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Xolve
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
782
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Do I need to mention tracking speed again?
You should probably mention tracking speed again
I'm sure every golem (most flown Marauder, still) pilot in New Eden would rejoice with your terrible amazing idea to add tracking speed to Marauders, which you know- will make them entirely more desirable then Strategic Cruisers. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
m3talc0re X
SandStorm. The Babylon Consortium
60
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:44:00 -
[43] - Quote
Actually, yes, it would. Kronos gets a tracking bonus, but it's the same based on pretty much all mega hulls. The Vargur gets a tracking bonus, too. WHY the f*** the Paladin doesn't get one is beyond me. Another CCP member dropped the ball I think.
Paladin vs Nightmare. Nightmare has more tank, more damage and better tracking. The ONLY thing the Paladin (or any marauder really) offers over the preferred faction BS's is the tractor bonus. Not to mention the gimped powergrid. Vargur can't fit arties, you can forget it. And a Paladin with tach's can't fit anything better than an Imperial Navy LAR.
Ocih kinda hit it head on, too. The marauders are completely out classed. And I do think the whole gimped for pvp thing is bulls***. This may have been a good idea back in the day, but now with faction ships becoming much more common, this needs to be fixed and ungimp our damn T2 ships that we have to train so much for. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
60
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:57:00 -
[44] - Quote
Xolve wrote:...with your terrible amazing idea... I saw that!
For the Golem, easy, we replace the Tracking Speed Bonus with an Agility and Radius Bonus. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
186
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Marauder's are somewhat underwhelming... especially compared to faction BS's.
I think a review of the sihp class, and a readjusting of their stats is reasonable.
1.) Maintain their focus... They are meant to be a quality PvE boat, with bonuses related to that. They currently work well as a missioning boat, even if they aren't the "best" option. Given that the lucrative PvE opportunities have signficantly changed since Marauders were introduced, its more than reasonable to adjust their bonuses and roles to be inline.
2.) They should have some drawbacks, but they should be semi-balanced around their concept. If they tank really well, put out top-quality dps, then they should have some drawbacks related to their use. Having them typically fit an ECCM when fighting guristas, a sensor booster when fighting serpentis, etc, is a good thing!
|
Hans Momaki
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 14:44:00 -
[46] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
2.) They should have some drawbacks, but they should be semi-balanced around their concept. If they tank really well, put out top-quality dps, then they should have some drawbacks related to their use. Having them typically fit an ECCM when fighting guristas, a sensor booster when fighting serpentis, etc, is a good thing!
no one is arguing against drawbacks. The Problem is, marauders aren't good enough to have drawbacks at the moment.
|
Viribus
Karan VIII Corp Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 17:09:00 -
[47] - Quote
Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp? |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 20:10:00 -
[48] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp?
Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals? |
m3talc0re X
SandStorm. The Babylon Consortium
60
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 20:12:00 -
[49] - Quote
The same ones who fly around in 1bill isk fit ungimped pirate faction bs's. The justification against marauders in pvp no longer exists imo. |
Pidgeon Saissore
Black Dagger Corp EDEN Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 04:26:00 -
[50] - Quote
The big issue with marauders is they are purely outclassed by pirate battleships. Their only advantage over them is sensor range. Pirates have about 20% more hp in all levels, one more total slot, double lock speed. In combat the tractor bonus means nothing. Since the cost is similar and marauders have significantly longer training required they should have the advantage. |
|
Kiroma Halandri
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 06:34:00 -
[51] - Quote
Pidgeon Saissore wrote:m3talc0re X wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:Viribus wrote:Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp? Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals? The same ones who fly around in 1bill isk fit ungimped pirate faction bs's. The justification against marauders in pvp no longer exists imo. The big issue with marauders is they are purely outclassed by pirate battleships. Their only advantage over them is sensor range. Pirates have about 20% more hp in all levels, one more total slot, double lock speed. In combat the tractor bonus means nothing. Since the cost is similar and marauders have significantly longer training required they should have the advantage. Why not just take away everyone's Marauders, give them a faction battleship of their choice, and reimburse their skill points? *snip* |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 07:59:00 -
[52] - Quote
Trying to justify changes to Marauders based on a comparison with pirate hulls is flawed .. the former is specifically designed for PvE while the latter is specifically designed for PvP. It is essentially a complaint that ones station-wagon can not outperform the neighbours two-seat boxster at the local traffic light.
Tractor bonus is hugely beneficial for anyone not multi-boxing when grinding ISK, wanting to maximize ISK/Hr and the exorbitant cargo capacity makes them immensely versatile both for looting and hauling.
Were they to be amped up to more proficient in PvP then it should be in a supportive capacity (read: it should not compromise the rather brilliant design paradigm behind them). |
Spugg Galdon
Mak Mining Corp
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 11:02:00 -
[53] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Trying to justify changes to Marauders based on a comparison with pirate hulls is flawed .. the former is specifically designed for PvE while the latter is specifically designed for PvP. Even if a pirate/navy battleship is designed purely for PvP why are they so good at PvE at the same time? This is the main issue really. If you gimp a ship to make it only for PvE you essentially relegate it to a second place hull. For a ship that requires a hell of a lot more SP in order to fly efficiently this idea that Marauders should be "second class" is a flawed view. Also, PvE has evolved so much now that the Marauder is outdated and needs to be brought back up to date.
Hirana Yoshida wrote:It is essentially a complaint that ones station-wagon can not outperform the neighbours two-seat boxster at the local traffic light. If my station wagon cost the same or more than the neihbours "two-seat boxster", required me to be a more skilled person to drive it and was considered to have more advanced technology powering it, then yes. I would expect my station wagon to outperform the boxster at the local traffic light, especially if that was the main purpose for my station wagon to exist.
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Tractor bonus is hugely beneficial for anyone not multi-boxing when grinding ISK, wanting to maximize ISK/Hr and the exorbitant cargo capacity makes them immensely versatile both for looting and hauling. Negative. You're far better off blitzing 3 or 4 missions and returning in a Noctis to salvage them all in one go. Salvaging on the go is inefficient and extremely taxing on the pilot. In order to retain long range tractors I suggested introducing medium and large varients.
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Were they to be amped up to more proficient in PvP then it should be in a supportive capacity (read: it should not compromise the rather brilliant design paradigm behind them). To be honest, I think Marauders should be very good at both PvE and PvP. They should be considered "Premium" battleships as they are very expensive and require so many SP to fly them. I don't think that they should be the next FOTM but I do believe that they should have a "pressence" on the PvP battlefield. |
Viribus
Karan VIII Corp Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 13:06:00 -
[54] - Quote
Rocky Deadshot wrote:Viribus wrote:Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp? Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals?
Have you seriously never seen anyone PVP in a 2b+ battleship?
Since you're obviously living in the year 2005, could you please let scotland yard know about the 7/7 bombings? |
m3talc0re X
SandStorm. The Babylon Consortium
61
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 20:35:00 -
[55] - Quote
Lets do this car analogy.
This is more like comparing a Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG (marauder) to a Ford Mustang (navy bs). Only, CCP has decided to leave the parking brake engaged on the ML63 and cut the lines for the power steering and removed a spark plug or two. That would be a more accurate analogy. |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 01:36:00 -
[56] - Quote
I would give em same range as Noctis and would buff with shield or armor hp that mach piwate ships,that's a start i would buff align more not speed if i want to fly mach over varg il do it i dont want mach with different name and shape to it.
As specific ship go i would like for Varg to use 1400mm w/o fitting mods with tracking that it have it would completely over shadow mach in using the same and make it staple war vessel when long range artillery is in use,also 100(125) drone bay as standard with 75(100)mb control for anyone that doesn't have it.
How did i go? |
Sasori michi
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 04:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
From a Golem info ;
Role: Marauder
Geared toward versatility and prolonged deployment in hostile environments, Marauders represent the cutting edge in todayGÇÖs warship technology. While especially effective at support suppression and wreckage salvaging, they possess comparatively weak sensor strength and may find themselves at increased risk of sensor jamming. Nevertheless, these thick-skinned, hard-hitting monsters are the perfect ships to take on long trips behind enemy lines.
And i see people saying "Marauder's are not mean for pvp". Role description seems to say otherwise.
As to Op. not so sure on EW immunity, but some improvement is needed. Especially on torp/cruise damage application across all Battleship missle platforms. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
67
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 09:19:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kiroma Halandri wrote:Pidgeon Saissore wrote:m3talc0re X wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:Viribus wrote:Can anyone actually come up with a gameplay justification for not making marauders viable for pvp? Whos gonna pay around 1bil isk to fit a t2 BS for pvp that will die in a flash to capitals? The same ones who fly around in 1bill isk fit ungimped pirate faction bs's. The justification against marauders in pvp no longer exists imo. The big issue with marauders is they are purely outclassed by pirate battleships. Their only advantage over them is sensor range. Pirates have about 20% more hp in all levels, one more total slot, double lock speed. In combat the tractor bonus means nothing. Since the cost is similar and marauders have significantly longer training required they should have the advantage. Why not just take away everyone's Marauders, give them a faction battleship of their choice, and reimburse their skill points? Now now, at least give them the choice.
Also, why not give each Marauder that uses turrets one missile hardpoint and the golem one turret hardpoint? This wouldn't be a replacement, it would just allow some extra diversity and some extra DPS.
Hell, we may as well make Marauders the BS equivalent of Assault Ships, assuming that isn't already what they are suppossed to be. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 10:13:00 -
[59] - Quote
*snaps fingers* How about not bonuses against E-War, but bonuses TO E-War. Who would like to buy a melon?Madame, would you like to buy a--...oh. I see you've already got some.Who would like to buy a melon? |
Spugg Galdon
Mak Mining Corp
74
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 12:14:00 -
[60] - Quote
Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius wrote:*snaps fingers* How about not bonuses against E-War, but bonuses TO E-War.
are you tollin'?
Bonuses to web effectiveness and target painter effectiveness are EWAR bonuses |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |