EVE Search - blitz marauders?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

blitz marauders?

» 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)
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 308	Posted - 2012.08.28 00:10:00 - [1] - Quote hello everyone. recently i was wonderinig: wouldn't it be nice to have a second tier of marauders that were specialized on blitzing? i understand that the role of the current marauder hulls is to salvage while you shoot. but not everyone is interested in salvaging, and without it, marauders (being designed as mission ships) are actually outperformed by at least two pirate BS hulls which do their job better and have only a minimally higher price tag. my proposal would be to introduce four new marauders that are aimed at finishing missions quickly rather than chewing up wrecks. their specific traits would include: - balanced around 8 turret hardpoints. no utility highs to make them less useful in w-space etc. - the tractor beam bonus is replaced by a warp speed and/or agility bonus for faster travel. - overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare. - maelstrom, abaddon and rokh hulls because thy look badass. dominx hull because potato. so what do you mission runners think? "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
Beta Stryker Trinity Operations Aurora Irae 12	Posted - 2012.08.28 00:46:00 - [2] - Quote If the Vargur (or class) gets any faster, I'm gonna be pissed.
Alara IonStorm 3057	Posted - 2012.08.28 02:07:00 - [3] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: so what do you mission runners think? I think they should fix the 3 kinda sh*tty Marauders and fix all their weakness to Guristas. Instead of wasting anymore hulls on PvE focused ships and give us real Tier 3 T2 Battleships.
Lord Drokoth The House Of Lords 19	Posted - 2012.08.28 02:52:00 - [4] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: so what do you mission runners think? I think they should fix the 3 kinda sh*tty Marauders and fix all their weakness to Guristas. Instead of wasting anymore hulls on PvE focused ships and give us real Tier 3 T2 Battleships. We don't even need tech II tier 2, personally I'd be happy if marauders were buffed to be useful in pvp aswell as pve. As it stands now the machariel is the best blitzing and ofc ont of the top pvp supcaps. T2 resists and a scan strength buff plz!
Matriarch Prime Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 9	Posted - 2012.08.28 02:53:00 - [5] - Quote Tech 3 battleships would make me drool. I am already considering dropping back down to do tech 3 cruiser as my main ship. I'm just so tired of being slow in my maelstrom. I'll have to just on test before I make a final decision though. Loki or vargur...choices, choices...
Hakaimono Seekers of a Silent Paradise 8	Posted - 2012.08.28 03:07:00 - [6] - Quote I mission in a Vargur and if I wanted to blitz missions, I'd get a Mach. Frankly I'd rather see a mini-marauder as a second class of t2 destroyer. Adds more tank and cargo space, but slightly less gank. Implemented after the racial skill split of course.
Agrippina State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.08.28 08:45:00 - [7] - Quote Pretty much what the guy above me said, high skilled Tengu pilots can go through missions at a fair old pace as well.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 30	Posted - 2012.08.28 09:05:00 - [8] - Quote If any changes are made to Marauders it should be to make them useful for pvp Not to make them better at farming LP.
Riot Girl State War Academy Caldari State 24	Posted - 2012.08.28 10:00:00 - [9] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: - overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare. I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have?
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 309	Posted - 2012.08.28 10:56:00 - [10] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: - overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare. I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have? overall performance is not the same as blitzing performance. if you had a ship that is slightly inferior to the mach in raw firepower, it could still be a better blitzer if it has faster align times, warp speed, better damage projection etc (see tengu). my overall problem with the current situation is that the ships that are supposed to be best at missions are exactly not that. mach has many other strengths, why not give it some more competition in mission running? aside from that, it makes me sad that you never see the rokh hull anymore... :( "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF

Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 31	Posted - 2012.08.28 16:41:00 - [11] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Riot Girl wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: - overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare. I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have? overall performance is not the same as blitzing performance. if you had a ship that is slightly inferior to the mach in raw firepower, it could still be a better blitzer if it has faster align times, warp speed, better damage projection etc (see tengu). my overall problem with the current situation is that the ships that are supposed to be best at missions are exactly not that. mach has many other strengths, why not give it some more competition in mission running? aside from that, it makes me sad that you never see the rokh hull anymore... :( Much better solution, remove the possibility of blitzing ^^ CCP Soundwave has stated that he does not like blitzing and would like to optimize pve so that its not possible.. So i guess you're going to be sad when that happens?
stoicfaux 1519	Posted - 2012.08.28 16:59:00 - [12] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Riot Girl wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: - overall mission performance close to but not higher than machariel or nightmare. I'm not sure I understand. You want new ships for running missions fast but you don't want them to be as good as the ships we already have? overall performance is not the same as blitzing performance. if you had a ship that is slightly inferior to the mach in raw firepower, it could still be a better blitzer if it has faster align times, warp speed, better damage projection etc (see tengu). my overall problem with the current situation is that the ships that are supposed to be best at missions are exactly not that. mach has many other strengths, why not give it some more competition in mission running? aside from that, it makes me sad that you never see the rokh hull anymore... :( Mach is already cruiser like in its agility, plus the Mach doesn't really have any weakness, so I don't think marauders that can match or outperform the Mach are a good idea. If anything, the Mach's agility needs a bit of a nerf (in the context of mission running.) And as Garviel mentioned, reworking missions is probably the better solution over buffing/nerfing individual ships. Randomizing missions would probably kill two birds with one stone by making blitzing less practical and by adding variety to missions. /cynical Of course what will really happen is that every mission will have multiple gates and all gates will unlock after all NPCs are killed. You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
Exploited Engineer Creatively Applied Violence Inc. 78	Posted - 2012.08.28 17:16:00 - [13] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Mach is already cruiser like in its agility, plus the Mach doesn't really have any weakness, T1 resists. However, if CCP follows the scheme of having one ship type in each size group that can "punch above its weight class", then BS-sized ships with capital sized weapons are missing from the lineup, not another type of marauder.
stoicfaux 1519	Posted - 2012.08.28 19:19:00 - [14] - Quote Exploited Engineer wrote: stoicfaux wrote: Mach is already cruiser like in its agility, plus the Mach doesn't really have any weakness, T1 resists. True, but the Mach has a pretty large buffer tank to compensate. Plus given the raw firepower (gank is tank,) the ability to speed tank, and the ability to switch between armor and shield tanking, T1 resists are not much of a drawback in the context of mission blitzing. Quote: However, if CCP follows the scheme of having one ship type in each size group that can "punch above its weight class", then BS-sized ships with capital sized weapons are missing from the lineup, not another type of marauder. Given how they nerfed tracking and lock on times for cap ships to prevent them from slaughtering sub-cap ships via tracking boosts and target painting, I don't think "battleships with cap-guns" will work too well unless they too are deliberately designed to be mostly ineffective against sub-caps. You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
Veryez Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 30	Posted - 2012.08.28 21:57:00 - [15] - Quote How about we fix Marauders instead, we really don't need different PvE battleships per race. They are suppose to be mission ships, but are beaten by (most) pirate ships, so a simple solution to put them back on top is to allow them to fit a fifth weapon (and increase their grid/CPU to fit it). As far as the guristas ecm issue, nerf their range down so they have to get close to jam you (same w/serps and their sensor damps). Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking.
Tor Gungnir Agenda Industries 394	Posted - 2012.08.29 01:25:00 - [16] - Quote Veryez wrote: How about we fix Marauders instead, we really don't need different PvE battleships per race. They are suppose to be mission ships, but are beaten by (most) pirate ships, so a simple solution to put them back on top is to allow them to fit a fifth weapon (and increase their grid/CPU to fit it). As far as the guristas ecm issue, nerf their range down so they have to get close to jam you (same w/serps and their sensor damps). Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking. Agreed. The comparison in training times for a Machariel vs. Vargur is stupid. Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Exploited Engineer Creatively Applied Violence Inc. 80	Posted - 2012.08.29 06:05:00 - [17] - Quote Veryez wrote: Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking. Actually, increasing torp rang in general would be appropriate. Torpedoes are pretty much the only case where a larger-sized weapon doesn't get a range increase over the next smaller one. Torps have the same range as HAMs.
Beta Stryker Trinity Operations Aurora Irae 13	Posted - 2012.08.29 23:53:00 - [18] - Quote Exploited Engineer wrote: Veryez wrote: Additionally, I would give more cap to the Kronus, add more grid to the Paladin and the Vargur, and increase torp range on the Golem by 50%. It won't happen, but wishful thinking. Actually, increasing torp rang in general would be appropriate. Torpedoes are pretty much the only case where a larger-sized weapon doesn't get a range increase over the next smaller one. Torps have the same range as HAMs. And on such a large ship, a little harder to apply DPS though.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 309	Posted - 2012.08.30 00:03:00 - [19] - Quote the more i think about this the more i realize that the mach just needs a nerf... "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
Dato Koppla Perkone Caldari State 56	Posted - 2012.08.30 00:10:00 - [20] - Quote I always thought it was abit ridiculous that the Mach breaks 600m/s so easily with an AB while even some cruisers struggle with that.

Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 309	Posted - 2012.08.30 00:17:00 - [21] - Quote Dato Koppla wrote: I always thought it was abit ridiculous that the Mach breaks 600m/s so easily with an AB while even some cruisers struggle with that. ...especially when the hull is almost as big as an orca ffs. "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
Exploited Engineer Creatively Applied Violence Inc. 82	Posted - 2012.08.30 06:16:00 - [22] - Quote Dato Koppla wrote: I always thought it was abit ridiculous that the Mach breaks 600m/s so easily with an AB while even some cruisers struggle with that. Oh, strap a 100MN AB on a cruiser and watch it go!
Dato Koppla Perkone Caldari State 56	Posted - 2012.08.30 10:06:00 - [23] - Quote Yeah the whole speed thing hit me (as well as the whole guns > missiles thing) when I first flew a mission mach after thinking the Tengu was badass. With it's epic speed/maneuverability + the way tracking works it's just craps all over the Tengu, instapopping frigates/cruisers/battlecruisers while getting a 100m3 bandwith, 1k dps at point blank, almost same speed, I never went back. The only time the Mach is outdone by a Tengu is when the rats spawn really far away like 100km or when loads of small ships spawn on you at point blank.
Lin-Young Borovskova Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 683	Posted - 2012.08.30 10:40:00 - [24] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: so what do you mission runners think? I think they should fix the 3 kinda sh*tty Marauders and fix all their weakness to Guristas. Instead of wasting anymore hulls on PvE focused ships and give us real Tier 3 T2 Battleships. Yep, get rid of these fake bonus and get inspired from pirate ships, add 1high gun hard point large size and able to fit capital guns 3(instead of 5 large) with ROF/tracking bonus, increase mobility with MWD bonus and reduce sign radius. Make them really really NASTY !!! brb
John Ratcliffe Sausy Sausages 4	Posted - 2012.08.30 10:45:00 - [25] - Quote As a new player I find all this T1, T2, T3, Tech 2, Faction & Pirate stuff a garbled mess. IMHO they need to sort it out and make it more simple. Something like: T1 T2 (To include the current Tech 2 and T3 ships) Faction Pirate The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?
Lin-Young Borovskova Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 684	Posted - 2012.08.30 10:48:00 - [26] - Quote John Ratcliffe wrote: As a new player I find all this T1, T2, T3, Tech 2, Faction & Pirate stuff a garbled mess. IMHO they need to sort it out and make it more simple. Something like: T1 T2 (To include the current Tech 2 and T3 ships) Pirate Tier system is about to go down the toilets and become exactly that brb
John Ratcliffe Sausy Sausages 4	Posted - 2012.08.30 11:23:00 - [27] - Quote Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: Tier system is about to go down the toilets and become exactly that Oh, well that's good news then. Have you any more information about what they are planning, or when they might implement? The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 309	Posted - 2012.08.30 12:37:00 - [28] - Quote John Ratcliffe wrote: As a new player I find all this T1, T2, T3, Tech 2, Faction & Pirate stuff a garbled mess. IMHO they need to sort it out and make it more simple. Something like: T1 T2 (To include the current Tech 2 and T3 ships) Faction Pirate god forbid EVE keeps its flavor of complexity. if WoW is watering down mechanics, everyone must follow. wouldn't want to cater to anybody but idiots would we? "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
John Ratcliffe Sausy Sausages 4	Posted - 2012.08.30 15:25:00 - [29] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: god forbid EVE keeps its flavor of complexity. if WoW is watering down mechanics, everyone must follow. wouldn't want to cater to anybody but idiots would we? I feel sorry for you if you can't grasp the distinction I've made. I'm suggesting creating logical order out of a mess, not catering to idiots. It's not 'complex' it's stupid and needs sorting out. A bit like your attitude The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?
Riot Girl State War Academy Caldari State 37	Posted - 2012.08.30 15:33:00 - [30] - Quote It's not really that much of a mess. Tech 1 - No triangle Navy Faction - Green triangle. Pirate Faction - Green triangle but better. Tech 2 - Orange triangle. Tech 3 - Red triangle, one ship for each race. The T3 you mentioned was probably in relation to tier 3 Battlecruisers which need to be distinguished from the other types of Battlecruisers because they are quite different.



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.