EVE Search - Marauders - Why so pointed?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Marauders - Why so pointed?

» 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)
Siigari Kitawa Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:03:00 - [1] I was taking a look at the differences between a Kronos and a Megathron today. After skills, I have come to some very interesting conclusions as well as startling realizations. First let me start by saying I believe that EVE is a game where every ship has a myriad of options for use in a variety of roles. Some ships fill a role better than other roles that same ship can fill, while others are typically relegated to one use. But why the hate with tech 2 battleships? To me it seems that CCP stepped away from the boomstick idea and is now looking at created a more "well-rounded" EVE. But herein lies the problem: Tech 2 Battleships should be involved in all aspects of the game, because they are Battleships. So we take for example the Kronos. It is indeed a fairly reasonable ship... it comes with some nice base resistances and a slightly better base cap recharge rate than the Megathron. But what does it lack? Oh so much. Compared side by side: Stat Megathron Kronos Scan Res 118.8mm 101.3mm Targeting Range 90.63km 108.75km Sensor Strength 21 str 13 str Recharge Peak 20.3c/s 25.4c/s Base EHP 32,382 HP 37,940 EHP Bandwidth 125mb 75mb Grid 19375 MW 15000 MW Slots 7/4/8 7/4/7 Okay so here we have some basic comparisons between the Megathron and the Kronos. Some of those should stand right out and scream "whoa" at you, such as the Bandwidth, Sensor Strength and EHP. Why so little EHP? This doesn't make any sense to me :( As a tech 2 battleship, shouldn't it have considerably stronger HP than the tech 1 counterpart? It is receiving a 17% base HP bonus... and that's not that much. 13 Sensor Strength? Talk about relegating a ship to one role. This is a battleship with the sensor strength of a destroyer. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A ship this large surely has room to smash on some upgraded sensor equipment, but instead it is gimped totally unreasonably, making it a liability in PVP. How about the fitting layout; it LOST a slot to its tech 1 counterpart? Really, what's going on here? There should be more slots on a tech 2 ship than less, or more slots in focused areas. And you can't say "well it has double the guns for half the slots" because a slot is a slot. It should have either another midslot, making it a real threat in PVP situations (this, really) or an extra lowslot making it a tanking God. Then there's the issue of the grid. This isn't so much a big deal but it has 30% less grid than the Megathron. This makes fitting a full tank/gank setup somewhat difficult. It's possible - don't get me wrong - but you have to sacrifice something here. Throwing on an additional bucket of grid would be nice. Even 1000 more grid would make it ideal for a full neutron, double rep, mwd/cap booster setup. Then there's the issue of the black ops, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. They basically came out pre-nerfed and CCP does not seem to "care" a whole bunch about actively boosting the SHIP ITSELF. I am worried that if this is what we see from tech 2 battleships that the new tech 3 ships are going to be paltry in comparison. CCP is trying so hard to avoid the "solopwnmobile" that they are giving ridiculously expensive and exotic ships the ability to be used in multiple roles. Which blows. I'm not even going to start about the bonuses, because the Kronos has a very good bonus set. But the bonuses reflect a ship that should be capable of tank and gank when in fact it struggles to find that role. For now, the ship is relegated to PVE situations with 4 guns and 2 tractor beams in the highs. But let me ask this -- when was the last time you fitted out a Kronos for salvaging? In my opinion, you could drop the tractor beam role bonus, throw it on a new dessie hull, and give the Kronos a weapon signature reduction. Badass. www.siigarikitawa.com ò www.quafeultra.com
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:07:00 - [2] You're probably right that Marauders aren't optimal for very many situations, but remember that when CCP first introduced these ships they specifically said that they weren't BS-sized HACs. Maybe they should have been (although I think at the time I said "good" to CCP's announcement), but I don't really see them getting a meaningful buff any faster than Black Ops will, and we all know that doesn't seem to be in the works.
Sphynx Stormlord Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:08:00 - [3] Dont Megathrons only have 7 lows? I distinctly remember that the Navy Issue ones had an extra low, and would probably have noticed if that brought them up to 9.
Siigari Kitawa Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:10:00 - [4] Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 15/01/2009 00:09:14 Dont Megathrons only have 7 lows? I distinctly remember that the Navy Issue ones had an extra low, and would probably have noticed if that brought them up to 9. Edit: For some reason you are listing slots Low/Med/High, rather than the other way around. Dont realy see why you would complain that 7 slots with 4 of them double strength is less than 8 normal strength ones. low/mid/high, did I do it backwards?
Clair Bear Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:12:00 - [5] Why stop there? Do the Vargur next. And then the Paladin and Golem. The real problem is: marauders were intended to be high sec mission running machines. Unfortuantely the Megathron and Tempest are NOT the mission running battleships of their racial lines -- Domi and Phoon are. The t2 battleships were pre-nerfed (some much more so than others) to avoid them being overpowered battleship-sized HAC for PvP. Combine that with two of those ships being lackluster in PvE and you have the real cause for your concern.
Dred 'Morte New European Regiment R.U.R.	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:18:00 - [6] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 15/01/2009 00:09:14 Dont Megathrons only have 7 lows? I distinctly remember that the Navy Issue ones had an extra low, and would probably have noticed if that brought them up to 9. Edit: For some reason you are listing slots Low/Med/High, rather than the other way around. Dont realy see why you would complain that 7 slots with 4 of them double strength is less than 8 normal strength ones. low/mid/high, did I do it backwards? You have. Long story short story: Marauders are meant for PvE only. The low sensor strenght makes them very bad for PvP.
Cadde Gallente Gene Works AKA-AHN KINGDOM	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:23:00 - [7] For slots... It's High/Med/Low and the reason the kronos lost a highslot is because it only need 4 turrets to do the damage of 8! As for powergrid. Since it uses 3 less turrets than the mega and one less launcher it doesn't need that much powergrid anymore. And if it still had that much powergrid it would become too overpowered fitting wise. Bandwidth... I can only imagine that it is another balance deal. 4 turrets with dual the damage and 5 sentries is probably too much for a Gallente BS of any tech level. Scan resolution sucks on all marauders, it is to make sure that people think twice and then twice again before taking it into PvP. That is too keep the playing field fair between the rich and the poor. EHP, that is a 15% increase in HP. Skillwise that is training three levels in Mechanic. The higher up you get, the more you pay for smaller improvements, all in the interest of balance. Finally, the tractor beam bonus is there to either tell you "THIS IS FOR PVE" or to mess with you. You can use the highslots for other things you know. Like drone links or remote repair modules when running in a gang. --------------- Opinions? Yes they belong to me, not my corp!
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:27:00 - [8] 1. Bad resists compared to HACs because they are not meant to be BS sized HACs. That would be massively overpowered, imagine RR gangs of them since they got all those utility slots. 2. Bad sensor strength, so that falcons (or 5 ewar drones) can jam them. This instantly knocks them out of alot of PvP situations. They are meant for PvE, where sensor strength does not affect ECM jam chance. 3. Lower powergrid because less guns needed, duh.
Blastil	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:32:00 - [9] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Post. Why So Serious?
NeoTheo Dark Materials	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:38:00 - [10] there is a ships and modules forum. USE IT.
Mou'adib Gallente Fluffy Rabbit Killers	Posted - 2009.01.15 01:45:00 - [11] um.. wow I think you missed the part where CCP said these ships were dezigne for PVE and as such gave them low sensor strenght to not make them great at pvp. With that in mind if you look at your graph, other then scan res, it wins everywhere else. It also wins in slot layout too since its 4 guns = 8. Which means it has 3 utility slots
Mou'adib Gallente Fluffy Rabbit Killers	Posted - 2009.01.15 01:46:00 - [12] Originally by: NeoTheo there is a ships and modules forum. USE IT. that's where we are, CAOD-------> that way?
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.15 01:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Why so little EHP? This doesn't make any sense to me :( As a tech 2 battleship, shouldn't it have considerably stronger HP than the tech 1 counterpart? It is receiving a 17% base HP bonus... and that's not that much. Because EHP is almost completely irrelevant to missions, and the Kronos has plenty of buffer for your reps to cycle before you die. Quote: 13 Sensor Strength? Talk about relegating a ship to one role. This is a battleship with the sensor strength of a destroyer. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A ship this large surely has room to smash on some upgraded sensor equipment, but instead it is gimped totally unreasonably, making it a liability in PVP. That is intentional. Marauders are carebear ships, and sensor strength is a very elegant way of making them poor choices for PvP without awkward rules like "-90% damage to player targets". Quote: How about the fitting layout; it LOST a slot to its tech 1 counterpart? Really, what's going on here? There should be more slots on a tech 2 ship than less, or more slots in focused areas. And you can't say "well it has double the guns for half the slots" because a slot is a slot. It should have either another midslot, making it a real threat in PVP situations (this, really) or an extra lowslot making it a tanking God. Yes, you CAN say that it has double the guns for half the slots. A Megathron has 7 guns, leaving one free high slot. A Kronos does the same job with only 4 guns, leaving 3 highs free. So essentially, the Kronos has 10 high slots, just in a way that doesn't require re-doing the 8-slot limit. So yes, it DOES gain a slot, in fact it gains two. Quote: Then there's the issue of the grid. This isn't so much a big deal but it has 30% less grid than the Megathron. This makes fitting a full tank/gank setup somewhat difficult. It's possible - don't get me wrong - but you have to sacrifice something here. Throwing on an additional bucket of grid would be nice. Even 1000 more grid would make it ideal for a full neutron, double rep, mwd/cap booster setup. You don't need as much grid because you only have to fit half the weapons. Here's a hint: once you include the grid from the 3x Neutron IIs you no longer need to fit, the Kronos actually has MORE grid than the Megathron. Quote: For now, the ship is relegated to PVE situations with 4 guns and 2 tractor beams in the highs. But let me ask this -- when was the last time you fitted out a Kronos for salvaging? In my opinion, you could drop the tractor beam role bonus, throw it on a new dessie hull, and give the Kronos a weapon signatu Which was the point from the beginning: create a carebear ship that can kill and salvage without needing an alt. It's not CCP's fault you insist on treating it as a PvP ship, just like it's not CCP's fault your BattleBadger isn't a solo pwnmobile.
Joe Starbreaker Starbreaker Frigateers	Posted - 2009.01.15 02:00:00 - [14] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Tech 2 Battleships should be involved in all aspects of the game, because they are Battleships. ... There should be more slots on a tech 2 ship than less, or more slots in focused areas. ... it has 30% less grid than the Megathron T1 is for versatility, T2 is for specialization. As for the slots and the powergrid, you know about the weapon bonuses, right? It gets the same damage but only needs half as many turrets. So in fact you actually have more grid and more effective slots to work with.
Shereza	Posted - 2009.01.15 02:22:00 - [15] Originally by: Mou'adib um.. wow I think you missed the part where CCP said these ships were dezigne for PVE and as such gave them low sensor strenght to not make them great at pvp. The home-away-from-home-tech-2-battleship The long-range and high-versatility Battleship nicknamed the "Violators". Their versatility will work for many play styles but we also wanted something which would work for PvE play styles. This doesn't mean they will work well for only mission runners, so there is no need to brand them with the misnomer of the "mission ship". Edit note: Long-range is not a reference to weapons range but the ships ability to go deep into enemy territory and stay there for extended periods. It is not a HAC either :) Marauders Marauders are heavy battleships focusing primarily on attrition and deployment for longer periods of time. While their number of hardpoints is limited to just 4, they also receive a 100% damage bonus to their primary weapon type. This has a number of advantages: the remaining high slots are available for other tasks, weapon capacitor need and munitions consumption rates are also reduced. Featuring large cargo holds they have plenty of storage for capacitor boosters or spoils of war. The sensors have been optimized for locking up to 10 targets at a time, but with sensor strengths comparable to cruisers the Marauders can be jammed quite easily if they are not hardened with ECCM. _____________ Well, those are the two biggest blogs put out by CCP on marauders and neither of them clearly states that the ships are intended for PvE. _____________ Originally by: Sera Ryskin Yes, you CAN say that it has double the guns for half the slots. A Megathron has 7 guns, leaving one free high slot. A Kronos does the same job with only 4 guns, leaving 3 highs free. So essentially, the Kronos has 10 high slots, just in a way that doesn't require re-doing the 8-slot limit. So yes, it DOES gain a slot, in fact it gains two. ... Not to nitpick but it'd be 11 and a gain of three. (4x Guns x 2.0 Damage mod) + 3 Utility slots = 11 effective slots. _____________ Now, if those of you who are complaining about the power grid, or even the CPU, of the kronos want real ground to stand on please use the nightmare in your arguments. It's a T1.5/faction battleship that has 6 high slots, 4 turrets, and the 100% damage bonus that marauders get. It also gets more CPU than any marauder except the golem which is only +5 over it, and it has more power grid than even the paladin which uses lasers, the most grid-heavy weapon system in the game, and armor tanks which is significantly more grid-heavy than shield tanking is. Furthermore, while the nightmare only has 2 utility slots to the 3 utility slots of the marauders it has +1 mid/low slot over all the other marauders. IOW, it had that high slot down-shifted to a mid/low slot where it can arguably be considered to be a superior place for it. Faction battleship, better fitting ability and, in some respects, better slot layout than virtually every marauder. That right there should be your beacon of whine. ____________________ Minmatar in Fantasy or Duct Tape Goes Medieval.
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated	Posted - 2009.01.15 03:14:00 - [16] The low-sensor strength makes them harder to find using scan probes, hence, making them harder to find in low-sec/0.0 if they are running missions. Of course some of the marauders are better than others but then again, in a gang of 10 BS when would you rather have 5 extra Pilgrims than 5 extra Falcons. Some ships are just ****house and that's how it is.
Zhilia Mann	Posted - 2009.01.15 03:23:00 - [17] Originally by: Shereza It's a T1.5/faction battleship that has 6 high slots, 4 turrets, and the 100% damage bonus that marauders get. It also gets more CPU than any marauder except the golem which is only +5 over it, and it has more power grid than even the paladin which uses lasers, the most grid-heavy weapon system in the game, and armor tanks which is significantly more grid-heavy than shield tanking is. Furthermore, while the nightmare only has 2 utility slots to the 3 utility slots of the marauders it has +1 mid/low slot over all the other marauders. IOW, it had that high slot down-shifted to a mid/low slot where it can arguably be considered to be a superior place for it. Interesting, I suppose, but when did the Nightmare start armor tanking?
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Zhilia Mann Originally by: Shereza It's a T1.5/faction battleship that has 6 high slots, 4 turrets, and the 100% damage bonus that marauders get. It also gets more CPU than any marauder except the golem which is only +5 over it, and it has more power grid than even the paladin which uses lasers, the most grid-heavy weapon system in the game, and armor tanks which is significantly more grid-heavy than shield tanking is. Furthermore, while the nightmare only has 2 utility slots to the 3 utility slots of the marauders it has +1 mid/low slot over all the other marauders. IOW, it had that high slot down-shifted to a mid/low slot where it can arguably be considered to be a superior place for it. Interesting, I suppose, but when did the Nightmare start armor tanking? paladin armor tanks, not nightmare nightmare used to, back when it had 8 highs 4 guns 4 missiles. feel bad for the guys with t2 armor rigs on there nightmare is also more of a pvp ship, that and it isn't very cap stable, shield tank and lasers
Zhilia Mann	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:28:00 - [19] Edited by: Zhilia Mann on 15/01/2009 04:28:19 Originally by: Warrio The low-sensor strength makes them harder to find using scan probes, hence, making them harder to find in low-sec/0.0 if they are running missions. Actually, quite the opposite. Signature radius divided by sensor strength determines difficult to find someone, so marauders are actually not so well off. Recons are just the opposite, oddly enough. edit: formatting...
Shereza	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:30:00 - [20] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton Originally by: Zhilia Mann Originally by: Shereza It's a T1.5/faction battleship that has 6 high slots, 4 turrets, and the 100% damage bonus that marauders get. It also gets more CPU than any marauder except the golem which is only +5 over it, and it has more power grid than even the paladin which uses lasers, the most grid-heavy weapon system in the game, and armor tanks which is significantly more grid-heavy than shield tanking is. Furthermore, while the nightmare only has 2 utility slots to the 3 utility slots of the marauders it has +1 mid/low slot over all the other marauders. IOW, it had that high slot down-shifted to a mid/low slot where it can arguably be considered to be a superior place for it. Interesting, I suppose, but when did the Nightmare start armor tanking? paladin armor tanks, not nightmare nightmare used to, back when it had 8 highs 4 guns 4 missiles. feel bad for the guys with t2 armor rigs on there nightmare is also more of a pvp ship, that and it isn't very cap stable, shield tank and lasers Pretty much, I just pointed out that the paladin's supposed to use lasers and armor tank yet the nightmare still gets +1,000mw over it. Still, the nightmare "started" armor tanking the moment some idiot said, "Just move your raven's tank over to it." My raven just happens to be armor tanked. And yes, I'm already well aware of the general forum opinion of armor tanking a raven. I just happened to find armor tanking to be the only way I could fly a raven, literally. ____________________ Minmatar in Fantasy or Duct Tape Goes Medieval.
Siigari Kitawa Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:36:00 - [21] There is no true diversification if everything you have does a crappy job. Marauders are just this. They were designed to do "one" thing, and in my opinion you are taking something which has the potential to be amazing, however one or two design elements are restricting it from being such. Again I'd like to stress that the Marauder could be an amazing all-around ship even if you just up its sensor strength. Sure there are other things I would love as well, but that would kick the ship off into considerably more use bringing a ship that is usually overlooked into the light. That's all I'm saying. www.siigarikitawa.com ò www.quafeultra.com
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Shereza Pretty much, I just pointed out that the paladin's supposed to use lasers and armor tank yet the nightmare still gets +1,000mw over it. Still, the nightmare "started" armor tanking the moment some idiot said, "Just move your raven's tank over to it." My raven just happens to be armor tanked. And yes, I'm already well aware of the general forum opinion of armor tanking a raven. I just happened to find armor tanking to be the only way I could fly a raven, literally. cant stand a nightmare with a "raven" tank.... that and needs more damage mods, cant stand an armor tanked raven either
Prometheus Exenthal Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:38:00 - [23] Wait.. you mean an epic ship needs support else it gets jammed? *NO WAY*
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:54:00 - [24] Originally by: Warrio The low-sensor strength makes them harder to find using scan probes, hence, making them harder to find in low-sec/0.0 if they are running missions. Of course some of the marauders are better than others but then again, in a gang of 10 BS when would you rather have 5 extra Pilgrims than 5 extra Falcons. Some ships are just ****house and that's how it is. You're joking right? Right?
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.01.15 05:30:00 - [25] What I can't understand is why anyone would want to use a Marauder when a faction battleship is cheaper and does just as good a job, AND has proper sensor strength. Marauders are PvE ships, get over it.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.15 06:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Again I'd like to stress that the Marauder could be an amazing all-around ship even if you just up its sensor strength. Sure there are other things I would love as well, but that would kick the ship off into considerably more use bringing a ship that is usually overlooked into the light. Marauders would be absolutely **ing broken as proper PvP ships. You're talking about a ship with a tank no single ship in the game can break, over 1000 dps, and three highs for nos/neuts. Oh yes, and the old 90% webs too, on the ones that need them. Seriously, just look at the Nightmare: it's as close to the definition of "pwnmobile" as you can possibly get, and kept from being utterly game-breaking only due to the very limited supply. Put that kind of firepower into an inventable hull, and you have exactly what CCP does not want: a game breaking solo pwnmobile.
Zaran Darkstar Divine Slaves	Posted - 2009.01.15 06:37:00 - [27] I don't see why the Marauders couldn't have a better sensor stregth. People say they would become overpowered for PvP but fact is that even with the BS sensor stregth the falcon can jam you about all the same. Let's not forget they cost a fortune. If rich people want to bring them for PvP i say LET THEM! We all know that no matter the sensor stregth a BS sized ship of this cost will be always primary anyway. It would be a great isk-sink for the game.
Archadam	Posted - 2009.01.15 07:02:00 - [28] I'll add my old ECCMed Mega to this pile. Even with an ECCM, a Falcon can concentrate jam on ya, and it's "GG." Even though the ECM's chance based, it's thouroughly powerful to be game-breaking for many other set-ups.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.01.15 07:08:00 - [29] Originally by: Sera Ryskin Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Again I'd like to stress that the Marauder could be an amazing all-around ship even if you just up its sensor strength. Sure there are other things I would love as well, but that would kick the ship off into considerably more use bringing a ship that is usually overlooked into the light. Marauders would be absolutely **ing broken as proper PvP ships. You're talking about a ship with a tank no single ship in the game can break, over 1000 dps, and three highs for nos/neuts. Oh yes, and the old 90% webs too, on the ones that need them. Seriously, just look at the Nightmare: it's as close to the definition of "pwnmobile" as you can possibly get, and kept from being utterly game-breaking only due to the very limited supply. Put that kind of firepower into an inventable hull, and you have exactly what CCP does not want: a game breaking solo pwnmobile. I was adding up your numbers and just realized you were describing a Raven. o.0 Crazy.
FlameGlow Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.15 07:17:00 - [30] Originally by: Zaran Darkstar Let's not forget they cost a fortune. If rich people want to bring them for PvP i say LET THEM! We all know that no matter the sensor stregth a BS sized ship of this cost will be always primary anyway. It would be a great isk-sink for the game. How the hell can it be an isk sink when it doesn't remove isk from the game? Quite the opposite - it devalues isk when it's destroyed by reducing amount of goods in economy

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.