EVE Search - does golem (and marauders) need a slight buff??

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

does golem (and marauders) need a slight buff??

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CMD IronHeart Hunters of capsuleers 0	Posted - 2012.04.30 11:21:00 - [1] - Quote what do others think of this? I haven't thought it all the way trough. but, the way I see it, golems are suppose to be king of the hill when it comes to mission running. but with the noctis as a salvager, and other ships matching and supersede the golem in DPS, plus all the disadvantages of the golem, it is far from KTH. Almost all missions has defender missile on NPC's, witch cutes down the dps on golem even further and it gets easily jammed. it does not feel like a T2 ship at all. and have been laging behind with introduction of competing ships. I dont know what would make it a fair rebalanced, but I would like to see a slight more DPS, or a 5th luncher hard point, it is still not a good pvp ship with it's low sensor strength.
Tarn Kugisa Space Mongolian Pinked 75	Posted - 2012.04.30 11:27:00 - [2] - Quote I don't like marauders. Why? I hate when my ship travels SLOOOOOWWWWWW Tengu is worth it. I Endorse this Product and/or Service [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580[/url]
Alara IonStorm 2050	Posted - 2012.04.30 11:28:00 - [3] - Quote Light Missiles 42 km Heavy Missiles 84km Cruise Missiles 168km Rockets 10km HAM's. 20km Torpedo's 20km Think I found the Golems problem. Give it the proper Missile Range so you can use those Rig Slots for Flares and it will get a lot better. Well that and ditching that stupid Sensor Strength problem now that the NPC ECM Formula is calculated off of Sensor Strength.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 47	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:00:00 - [4] - Quote I also think that marauders need to be looked at again to give them greater pvp viability, allowing that ecm will not be changed in my lifetime and that eccm will remain as ineffectual as it currently is.
CMD IronHeart Hunters of capsuleers 0	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:06:00 - [5] - Quote Nikuno wrote: I also think that marauders need to be looked at again to give them greater pvp viability, allowing that ecm will not be changed in my lifetime and that eccm will remain as ineffectual as it currently is. correct me if I'm wrong, but T2 ships are suppose to be specific ships, and not good at 2 things? I rather have a marauder specific and good at mission running, and another ship for PvP. This also justify buffing marauders, if they suddenly become KTH mission ship, AND dissent PvP ship, it will be over-powered
Sunviking The Shining Knights 39	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:09:00 - [6] - Quote The main thread discussing Marauders and the Golem is here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=793193#post793193 But I like it that there is now another one!!
Alara IonStorm 2050	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:16:00 - [7] - Quote CMD IronHeart wrote: correct me if I'm wrong, but T2 ships are suppose to be specific ships, and not good at 2 things? Flatly untrue. You can find multiple uses for most T2 Ships. Nothing says a T2 Ships has to such at PvP to be good at PvE. [quote=CMD IronHeart] I rather have a marauder specific and good at mission running, and another ship for PvP. This also justify buffing marauders, if they suddenly become KTH mission ship, AND dissent PvP ship, it will be over-powered No not really. Battleships are great mission runners and good at PvP. Pirate Faction Ships often blitz Missions faster then Marauders. This is the progression CCP wants. T1 > Faction > T2 > Pirate Faction. Even with better Sensor Strength Marauders won't be better then Pirate Faction at PvP. Mach will even still run Missions better then a Vargur. Giving them good Sensor strength won't make them over powered. Just fit them in properly with the progression.
CMD IronHeart Hunters of capsuleers 0	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:24:00 - [8] - Quote Quote: This is the progression CCP wants. T1 > Faction > T2 > Pirate Faction. And with raven,CNR,golem it looks more like: T1 > T2 > Faction > Pirate Faction. no? oh, and isn't the training time to pirate faction shorter than to marauder?
Alara IonStorm 2050	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:31:00 - [9] - Quote CMD IronHeart wrote: And with raven,CNR,golem it looks more like: T1 > T2 > Faction > Pirate Faction. no? Yes which is why I say they should increase Torp Range to 30 or 40km base, 45-60 with bonus so like the Raven and CNR it can use it's rigs for accuracy. That and give it Sensor Strength for Guristas Rats. [/quote] oh, and isn't the training time to pirate faction shorter than to marauder? [/quote] Yes.
Nalha Saldana Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 244	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:33:00 - [10] - Quote CMD IronHeart wrote: Quote: This is the progression CCP wants. T1 > Faction > T2 > Pirate Faction. And with raven,CNR,golem it looks more like: T1 > T2 > Faction > Pirate Faction. no? oh, and isn't the training time to pirate faction shorter than to marauder? http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

Jack Miton Bite Me inc Exhale. 225	Posted - 2012.04.30 12:54:00 - [11] - Quote Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders. TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed.
Alara IonStorm 2050	Posted - 2012.04.30 13:05:00 - [12] - Quote Nalha Saldana wrote: So yes, the pirate ships are supposed to be better but Marauders are supposed to be specialized. What this specialization is supposed to be im not sure of because its ship descriptions are about pvp while everything on it points towards pve but i guess the tractor beam bonus and free highs is it which is pretty underwhelming. The thing about Marauders is that everything that makes them good at PvP makes them good at PvE and vice versa. So unless they remove ECM from Guristas they can't do there job effectively. I think Marauders should be good active tanked combat ships and the free high slots for NOS helps support that. A Tractor Beam Bonus tagged on for policing of Loot of destroyed ships plays to there combat role. Everything about them plays into the name Marauder. Marauders are meant to work in small numbers hence the active tank and bonuses that forgo support and the tractor beam and cargo hold for policing of loot. All that plays into PvE as well because PvE is all about a good solo combat ship with looting capabilities. Better then Faction because they are more specialized in Looting and Active Tanking, while Pirate Faction Ships have multiple advantages. Reversing the Sensor Strength is good idea all around. As for buffing them the Golems problems are 100% a problem with its weapon system. Sensor Strength is all they need.
stoicfaux 982	Posted - 2012.04.30 13:28:00 - [13] - Quote CMD IronHeart wrote: what do others think of this? I haven't thought it all the way trough. but, the way I see it, golems are suppose to be king of the hill when it comes to mission running. but with the noctis as a salvager, and other ships matching and supersede the golem in DPS, plus all the disadvantages of the golem, it is far from KTH. Way ahead of you: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=749712 =) Quote: Almost all missions has defender missile on NPC's, witch cutes down the dps on golem even further and it gets easily jammed. NPC defenders cannot kill a torpedo, except for the extreme, few, rare NPCs with a huge missile damage multiplier. Quote: I dont know what would make it a fair rebalanced, but I would like to see a slight more DPS, or a 5th luncher hard point, it is still not a good pvp ship with it's low sensor strength. Sensor strength would be a good starting point. You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
stoicfaux 982	Posted - 2012.04.30 13:32:00 - [14] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: Well that and ditching that stupid Sensor Strength problem now that the NPC ECM Formula is calculated off of Sensor Strength. NPC ECM has always been based on the target's sensor strength. The problem was that NPCs were not trying to jam every 20 seconds. There could be minutes between jam attempts. When CCP fixed the auto-repeat on NPC ECM is when jamming became intolerable in any missions with multiple jamming NPCs. You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
Cedo Nulli Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 138	Posted - 2012.04.30 15:55:00 - [15] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders. TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed. How is that even relevant ? You cant buff 2 shiptypes the same time ? Is it about you wanting your toy polished up first and not the ones others play with ? Golem is the worst off from the marauders due to its crippling torpedo-weaponsystem. CNR is better in 90% of the missions. Marauders in general are in a wierd position .. needing a big load of SP to be poured into to get a worse ship then pirate ones that can be flown with no V skills. Not to mention .. why do they have to be artificially crippled in terms of PVP ... pirate ships are allready better then them. Maras have the same price ticket to NM,Mach,Vindi anyway. Maybe tiercide will fix this sillyness from years and years back.
Sunviking The Shining Knights 39	Posted - 2012.04.30 16:41:00 - [16] - Quote Cedo Nulli wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders. TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed. How is that even relevant ? You cant buff 2 shiptypes the same time ? Is it about you wanting your toy polished up first and not the ones others play with ? Golem is the worst off from the marauders due to its crippling torpedo-weaponsystem. CNR is better in 90% of the missions. Marauders in general are in a wierd position .. needing a big load of SP to be poured into to get a worse ship then pirate ones that can be flown with no V skills. Not to mention .. why do they have to be artificially crippled in terms of PVP ... pirate ships are allready better then them. Maras have the same price ticket to NM,Mach,Vindi anyway. Maybe tiercide will fix this sillyness from years and years back. Glad there are a people out there who agree with me that Torpedoes have severe weaknesses at the moment.
Heun zero Reliant Tactical Operations 39	Posted - 2012.04.30 17:45:00 - [17] - Quote personally I'd be happy if the golem got a small range buff, enough to keep up with the new t2 tractor beams (48km)
Skorpynekomimi Omega Vector 180	Posted - 2012.04.30 19:35:00 - [18] - Quote TBH, they don't seem to need a buff, so much as a rethink. If they're meant to be mission-running boats, they've been obsoleted by T3 cruisers, pirate BSes, and the Noctis. They need something to distinguish them, and give you a reason to use the things. Maybe losing the bonus to tractor beams, and adding a bonus to some other PvE utility highslot module? I don't think they need to be made 'better', just DIFFERENT. Unique, compared to other ships. More than just half ammo usage and a bit more damage, and a bonus to something you have a whole other ship for.
Demon Azrakel Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 84	Posted - 2012.04.30 20:04:00 - [19] - Quote Basically, the sensor strength has to be fixed (an extra low or mid slot would not hurt either). Torps have bad range? So do blasters (I love the whines about HAM range more though, spoiled brats with heavy missiles...) If sensor strength was fixed, they might get some use in PvP (nice active tank), but they would not outshine the pirate BS. Hell, would you really fly a Kronos over a Vindicator, given that the Vindicator has 5 mids to the Kronos's 4? The Golen's DPS problem comes from the fact that a CNR has an extra weapon slot over a Raven, while the other faction BS just get an extra mid or low.
Alara IonStorm 2055	Posted - 2012.04.30 20:31:00 - [20] - Quote Demon Azrakel wrote: Torps have bad range? So do blasters (I love the whines about HAM range more though, spoiled brats with heavy missiles...) Torps do have bad range, same range as HAM but being a size smaller that range is fine for a medium weapon. Torps are the only weapon that don't get a range buff by size. There lack luster use in both PvE and PvP prove this. The only place they are commonly used is Stealth Bombers which get a 10% Flight Time and 20% Velocity Bonus per lvl... for this fine ranged weapon... Difference between Large Blasters on a Battleship and Torpedo's on a Battleship... The Blasters are common in PvP. If High Damage and Accurate is good for the brawl race, medium range and inaccurate would be a good complimenting weapon system. Demon Azrakel wrote: The Golen's DPS problem comes from the fact that a CNR has an extra weapon slot over a Raven, while the other faction BS just get an extra mid or low. No it has one more effective slot and no damage bonus. But that isn't a problem unless you want CCP to turn it into another cookie cutter PvE Cruise boat instead of the Torp Boat they tried and failed to make. I would rather they make Torps work.

Jack Miton Bite Me inc Exhale. 225	Posted - 2012.04.30 20:58:00 - [21] - Quote Sunviking wrote: Cedo Nulli wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Black ops need a buff WAAAAYYYYY before marauders. TBH, marauders are fine as is apart from the sensor strength which should be fixed. How is that even relevant ? You cant buff 2 shiptypes the same time ? Is it about you wanting your toy polished up first and not the ones others play with ? Golem is the worst off from the marauders due to its crippling torpedo-weaponsystem. CNR is better in 90% of the missions. Marauders in general are in a wierd position .. needing a big load of SP to be poured into to get a worse ship then pirate ones that can be flown with no V skills. Not to mention .. why do they have to be artificially crippled in terms of PVP ... pirate ships are allready better then them. Maras have the same price ticket to NM,Mach,Vindi anyway. Maybe tiercide will fix this sillyness from years and years back. Glad there are a people out there who agree with me that Torpedoes have severe weaknesses at the moment. you people MUST be high.... torp golem has been one of the top tier mission runners since forever. nothing about that has changed recently. im assuming you just don't know how to fit it, go look up some of the 3 TP fits on BC.
Cedo Nulli Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 138	Posted - 2012.04.30 22:26:00 - [22] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: you people MUST be high.... torp golem has been one of the top tier mission runners since forever. nothing about that has changed recently. im assuming you just don't know how to fit it, go look up some of the 3 TP fits on BC. I get the distinct feeling that you dont / havent flown a golem in a looong time. My golem has 3 republic fleet TPs with proper painting skills to complement them ... still it doesent change the fact its terribly micromanagement heavy ship ... slow ... fitting is restricted to the only viable "range rigs + 3 tp" to even make it work. And by working I mean "making it usable" ... not making it great .. or awesome ... or superb ... or even same line with other turret marauders .. not to even wasting time comparing to pirate BS that just absolutely devastate it. Surely on the missions where the rats get in your face from the getgo you can feel like a king and blast away ... but if you were in any of the alternatives you would feel the same. Nothing unique there. For the skill investment / isk .. you get very lackluster payback. Compare how usable are T2 torpedoes (mandatory) as weapon system for other purposes and ships. Stealthbombers ... mm ok. Then look at turret ships ... yeap.
11eyes War Trident Trifectas Syndicate 0	Posted - 2012.05.04 03:24:00 - [23] - Quote CMD IronHeart wrote: Nikuno wrote: I also think that marauders need to be looked at again to give them greater pvp viability, allowing that ecm will not be changed in my lifetime and that eccm will remain as ineffectual as it currently is. correct me if I'm wrong, but T2 ships are suppose to be specific ships, and not good at 2 things? I rather have a marauder specific and good at mission running, and another ship for PvP. This also justify buffing marauders, if they suddenly become KTH mission ship, AND dissent PvP ship, it will be over-powered have you flown a drake lately?
PavlikX Shadows of the Day 1	Posted - 2012.05.04 03:46:00 - [24] - Quote Agree that entrie class of marauders must be slightly buffed. Looking forward on CCP rebalancing plans, i hope that they will return all classes to their roles.
Kalli Brixzat 20	Posted - 2012.05.04 07:25:00 - [25] - Quote Skorpynekomimi wrote: TBH, they don't seem to need a buff, so much as a rethink. If they're meant to be mission-running boats, they've been obsoleted by T3 cruisers, pirate BSes, and the Noctis. They need something to distinguish them, and give you a reason to use the things. Maybe losing the bonus to tractor beams, and adding a bonus to some other PvE utility highslot module? I don't think they need to be made 'better', just DIFFERENT. Unique, compared to other ships. More than just half ammo usage and a bit more damage, and a bonus to something you have a whole other ship for. The tractor bonus plus ability to fit said tractors and a salvage is what makes marauders unique. An all in one PvE package. The concept is great, the execution for all but the Vargur (and to a less degree, the Paladin) is what lacks. For the Golem, the issue starts and stops with the weapon system of choice. Torpedoes are in desperate need of adjustment that I don't see in the near future. Until that gets done, the Golem will simply be an overpriced mission boat that can be outdone by nearly any pirate BS in the game - for the same price and lesser training requirements.
Sunviking The Shining Knights 46	Posted - 2012.05.04 07:28:00 - [26] - Quote Kalli Brixzat wrote: Skorpynekomimi wrote: TBH, they don't seem to need a buff, so much as a rethink. If they're meant to be mission-running boats, they've been obsoleted by T3 cruisers, pirate BSes, and the Noctis. They need something to distinguish them, and give you a reason to use the things. Maybe losing the bonus to tractor beams, and adding a bonus to some other PvE utility highslot module? I don't think they need to be made 'better', just DIFFERENT. Unique, compared to other ships. More than just half ammo usage and a bit more damage, and a bonus to something you have a whole other ship for. The tractor bonus plus ability to fit said tractors and a salvage is what makes marauders unique. An all in one PvE package. The concept is great, the execution for all but the Vargur (and to a less degree, the Paladin) is what lacks. For the Golem, the issue starts and stops with the weapon system of choice. Torpedoes are in desperate need of adjustment that I don't see in the near future. Until that gets done, the Golem will simply be an overpriced mission boat that can be outdone by nearly any pirate BS in the game - for the same price and lesser training requirements. This. To make Torpedoes even usable in the Golem, you need Maxed out Missile support skills and Tech2 Missile rigging. Compare that to the Paladin with Pulse Lasers OR Tachyon Beams.
Jacob Holland Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found 34	Posted - 2012.05.07 14:30:00 - [27] - Quote You think Torps have it bad? Try flying a Blaster Kronos Similar paper DPS but you spend 2/3 of a mission flying round trying to apply it... And the alternative is Rails...
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 3686	Posted - 2012.05.07 17:32:00 - [28] - Quote Golem is fine; short range missiles need a buff (Let's imagine that Motion Prediction skill didn't apply to Blasters, Pulse Lasers and Autocannons) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Sunviking The Shining Knights 48	Posted - 2012.05.07 19:04:00 - [29] - Quote Jacob Holland wrote: You think Torps have it bad? Try flying a Blaster Kronos Similar paper DPS but you spend 2/3 of a mission flying round trying to apply it... And the alternative is Rails... True, but Blasters are supposed to have the worst range of weapons, that's price they pay for having the best DPS. And last time I checked, Kronos had superior DPS to Torpedoes....
Kyle Blade Kestrel Security Company 0	Posted - 2012.05.07 19:35:00 - [30] - Quote The micromanagement issues on the Golem are hideous, and they do lead to significant inefficiencies. Those inefficiencies are aggravated by the issues with Torps but just fixing Torps won't solve the inefficiencies. Torp damage projection is certainly short of where I'd like it; I have maxed skills in both Missiles and the Golem and yet, even with a 152% painter there's still a significant loss of damage on Battleships due to their orbit speed. This is particularly true with Angels but having run a few missions last night with a friend along in a Loki I realise how much it's true even on Mercs. I know I can two volley a Merc Overlord, the one in Silence the Informant moves obligingly slowly, but once they get up to speed they're a three volley kill. They're the size of a small moon with my painter on them but still they avoid almost one third of my damage unwebbed. It may sound odd but I didn't really realise just how much I was losing until I was getting targets webbed well in advance and with a chance to slow down before I engaged them. The painter itself is another issue, as someone else has already said, with a ten second cycle time on seven second launchers plus flight time you end up needing to cycle ahead with your painters. personally I'd like painters to end cycle immediately they no longer had a target, you'd still have to manage them but at least it would happen at the same time as you're switching launchers onto the new target. Then there's the necessity of being relatively static. You make a "bait ball" of wrecks around you and tractor them in when you have a moment but I'm almost always killing quicker than my tractors will bring in the wrecks and again there's the wait for them to finish cycle and then for the salvager to free itself up. This is a significant problem on some missions and again I had the perfect example last night. Serpentis Admirals as the trigger in The Blockade... Serp Admirals like to orbit at 51km and they're the only rats in the mission I can't reach with T1 or Navy Torps so it's a ten second reload to launch four volleys and then another ten second reload to go back to the shorter range ships. If they weren't the trigger I'd leave them to last and blow them all up on a single reload... On the other hand if I weren't constrained by the "bait ball" I'd be in a position to burn a bit and bring them into range. But it's the EWar effects which waste the most time. TDs don't effect me yet but as I understand it I'm soon going to hate Sansha missions as much as I do Serp and Gurista missions now. Since Guristas started permajamming (yes, I know they used standard jamming maths before despite what the patch notes said) the Eliminator who once got a twenty second reprieve from my attentions now gets so many jams that I've had to call in a friend to kill jammers for me it was taking so long. And ECCM doesn't make all that much of a difference, after one such event I brought in an alt I was training on a Guristas Assault and fitted his Myrm with two top named remote ECCMs. The sheer number of jam attempts meant I still spent a good twenty minutes unable to engage with anything but drones. Serps are almost as bad with their damping cruisers mostly orbitting outside the measly lock range they've nailed me down to... That is perhaps a question of mission rebalancing rather than the weaknesses of the Golem but certainly its low sensor strength is a significant factor. One thing that's always struck me though is that all of the marauders are short a highslot. If you fit two tractors and a salvager you're forever waiting on the salvager, two salvagers and a tractor and your salvagers are idle most of the time waiting for wrecks.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.