|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Oberus MacKenzie
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
15
   |
Posted - 2013.08.30 01:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nerfing the cap recharge on ships that require shield boosters because of their nonexistent buffer is questionable.
I do think that if you're not going to give the paladin a tracking bonus of some kind then they need better drones to deal with close targets. Having to be far away from your target sort of defeats the purpose of having a massive active tank.
I like the minidread idea, though. Looking forward to the hit-and-run tactics that will follow. Giving them a bonus to spectrum breakers would be really cool.
Edit: the golem needs a big bonus to painter range if it wants to use them with cruise missiles. |
Oberus MacKenzie
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 05:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:You know that this will massively boost the desirability for the Vindicator (a pirate BS) yes?
The only remaining battleship with a 90% web.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
This ^
Also, please fix the sensor strength. It is the most stupid and contrived weakness ever and doesn't make sense in relation to the ship's stated purpose. What self respecting starship company would design a battleship with advanced weapons, propulsion systems and damage defenses, but fill the electronics suite with a bunch of f***ing tater tots? Answer: NONE
Fix it. |
Oberus MacKenzie
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 23:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
I really liked what CCP was trying to do in the first place. Make a T2 battleship, which is supposed to be awesome, that is only PvE oriented into something that also has PvP applications. The original concept for the bastion module was on the right track, in my opinion. It gave the marauder solo PvP potential and increased it's application in wormholes, plexes and level 5's at the cost of being forced to commit to one position for 60+ seconds and a hypervulnerability when not in bastion mode.
The revised bastion stats require about the same number of defensive fitting slots for PvE as is required now, the tank is a little better than the status quo but not by enough to make it worth the ISK risk in PvP or higher end PvE, it leaves the ship even more vulnerable when not in bastion mode than the first iteration and the hull has an extremely questionable web bonus where it could have something else. In PvE, nothing bigger than a frigate gets within 20km of a marauder and drones typically deal with the frigates.
I can pretty safely say that with the new stats I would never even think about putting a marauder into PvP. We're talking about a 1b ISK hull (not including mods) that requires a lot of extra training, doesn't work well in a fleet, is highly susceptible to alpha and has to be locked in place for a relatively long time in order to operate at its full capacity. Using a marauder to solo rather than something like a hyperion or maelstrom would be on par with using a freighter rather than a shuttle to fly to the back end of Syndicate.
Lastly, I don't think it makes sense for the bastion mod to not use fuel. Marauders already have a giant cargo bay that can accomodate a little fuel. Or hell, maybe even give them a small fuel bay to store the bastion fuel as well as the LO they will need for the cyno they will inevitably be wearing.
Besides, there is an excessive supply of heavy water and almost no demand for it, so making it a fuel used by mission runners would go a long way to helping it become a profitable resource and indirectly influence the cost of other ice products (increased profitability -> more miners -> more market competition -> lower/more stable isotope prices).
The original bastion idea had benefits that matched or outweighed the drawbacks. The new bastion idea has drawbacks which greatly outweigh the benefits. If the changes on the table are implemented I will be seriously considering whether to sell my marauder and, according to CCP's ship progression, "downgrade" to a navy battleship to get a better tool for PvE. Something about that doesn't seem right...
My griping about changes without making suggestions is about as useless as the paladin's capacitor bonus (cap boosters: we use them), so if I was king for a day I would:
- get rid of the web bonus in favor of some variation of a defense bonus (or if that's not an option at least change golem/vargur to web range for variety)
- change the paladin's capacitor bonus to a damage application bonus (tracking or ROF)
- swap the golem's TP bonus for a built-in explosion radius bonus (5% or so) and drop one mid for one low
- apply T2 resists
- give the bastion mod a mild damage application bonus (20% to tracking, 10% to explosion vel+rad)
- make the bastion module use 25 heavy water per cycle |
Oberus MacKenzie
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
19
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 04:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Oberus MacKenzie wrote:- get rid of the web bonus in favor of some variation of a defense bonus (or if that's not an option at least change golem/vargur to web range for variety)
- change the paladin's capacitor bonus to a damage application bonus (tracking or ROF) to mirror the kronos and vargur
- swap the golem's TP bonus for a built-in explosion radius bonus (5% per level or so) and drop one mid slot for one low slot
- apply T2 resists
- give the bastion mod a mild damage application bonus (20% to tracking, 10% to explosion vel+rad)
- make the bastion module use 25 heavy water per cycle
I'd like to make an addendum or two:
- someone mentioned a probe strength bonus and ability to fit expanded probe launcher, which is a fantastic idea
- get rid of the MJD bonus (great idea for the blackops revision, though!) and make it able to warp out of bubbles (like T3's with an interdiction nullifier)
|
Oberus MacKenzie
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
20
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 02:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Whatever you do, please be very explicit about the purpose behind the ships' next iteration bonuses... that is to say, what roles it will play and why its huge isk and sp cost is warranted.
Having it applicable for a wide range of applications.... does lead to balance concerns. If it has wide enough range to be readily compared to pirate, then the marauders sp requirement is not being taken into account. Personally, i would be happy with marauders being generally, if not always, slightly better than pirate. (it seems to me that sp should be more important than isk, this coming from someone who has enough isk)
Otherwise they need to be REALLY good at something. We need to have a reason to use a marauder over using a pirate ship as it seems the pirate will still be generally better for most applications....
Agreed |
|
|
| |
|