|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 02:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
My issue is that the module is trying to be two things at once. If used for it's sniping benefits, the tank isn't as useful. However, if put into a brawler the tank becomes a huge bonus but the range would be better served as an application bonus instead. There's also the problem of MJD being useless for the brawler archetype.
What I'd like to see would be either two separate modules or a scripting capability. If I want to snipe, I MJD out of the fray, bastion up, and start raining hell from beyond. If I want to brawl, I MJD (man I wish I could pick distance even if it was in 25K or 50K increments) to the center of the pack, bastion up, and start melting hulls up close and personal like. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 04:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
With only a 54 second delay on MJD, the Gate thing isn't as big of a deal as you think. Instead of heading to the gate directly, just jump 100K tangent to the gate, wait 54 seconds and then jump to the gate.
Wrong: * --------------------> = gate
Right: *..............= gate ..\............/ ....\......../ ......\..../ ........\/ ........2
It's not that hard to line up after you do it a couple of times. Also, if you keep this strategy in mind when making your initial jump from the warp in position, you may not even have to jump out and back at all depending on if you need to re-position during combat. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 05:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
As I suggested earlier, it would be interesting to look at having 2-3 independent modules/scripts. Here's a shot at how it would look. Feel free to tear it apart:
Sniper Module/Script
Survival Bonuses
- Provides 30% shield, armor and hull resistances when activated, which function on the same way than Damage Control modules (not stacking penalized)
Damage Projection
- Extends falloff and optimal of large turrets and target painters by 25%
- Increases all large missile max velocity by 25%
- Increases sensor resolution by 25%
- Increases max targeting range by 25%
When in bastion mode, Marauder is immune to EW but cannot be remote assisted in any way When in bastion mode, Marauder speed is set to 0 m/s, mass is increased by a factor of 10, cannot warp
What I like about this is it solves some of the inconsistencies of the original module. The range bonus isn't as effective when paired with long range weapon systems as they already easily approach the max targeting range of the hull, especially when using long range T2 ammo. Adding the bonus to max targeting range allows these hulls to take full advantage of the range bonus when in bastion mode.
The sensor resolution bonus is really just flavor and would help target locking speed on warp in and especially if going into bastion mode drops all current targets. From a lore/realism standpoint, it works well to explain why you cannot move once in bastion mode. Any movement would disrupt the delicate nature of the enhanced sensor and targeting systems.
Brawler Module/Script
Survival Bonuses
- Provides 30% shield, armor and hull resistances when activated, which function on the same way than Damage Control modules (not stacking penalized)
- Increases shield and armor repair amount by 100% or
- Increases shield and armor hit points by X% or
- Decreases shield and armor repair cap use by 50% and Increases shield and armor repair amount by 50%
- Periodic ECM multispectrum burst while in bastion mode to reduce incoming damage, annoy anyone in range :)
- Replaces one of the above: Increases cap recharge by 30-50% to ward off nueting
Damage Application
- Increases target painter effectiveness by 50%
- Increases stasis webifier range by 100% or
- Increases stasis webifier effectiveness by 50%
When in bastion mode, Marauder is immune to EW but cannot be remote assisted in any way When in bastion mode, Marauder speed is set to 0 m/s, mass is increased by a factor of 10, cannot warp
This form of the module or script would make the marauder a fearsome brawler and provide a reason to go into bastion mode if packing short range large weapons. The tanking capabilities are pretty much the same as the original module with some added options on how to implement the rep/buffer bonuses. I don't like the 100% rep amount because they almost force you to fit an ASB or AAR or go home in a pvp situation. If it was part rep and part buffer, this would help with the "alpha issue" as well. I really think this needs a look considering the elimination of remote assistance while in bastion mode.
The main difference is that in the brawler version of the module or script, the ability of the platform to apply its damage is enhanced instead of projection. If I'm going to jump into the middle of a furball and plant roots, I better damn well be able to melt faces before I wake up in the clone vat. This type of style would be amazingly visceral and pretty much awesome although expensive. I chose to boost painters and webifiers as they affect application almost symmetrically for turrets and missiles.
The third module type would center around drones. I don't use drones enough to put together a good bonus set so I'll ask someone with more experience to give it a try. Also, having a third option here really starts looking like a T3 module set so I hesitate to go beyond 2. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Let's consider outside of bastion mode first. So what do the numbers look like for a brawling Marauder now with the transition from 37.5 local rep versus T2 resists? PVE wise, some ships received a buff against their faction NPCs and some basically lost a third of their TQ tanking ability (Paladin). For PVP, this is reversed where the more omni-tanked T2 resist profiles shine. I'm not sure if this is a decent trade-off for all races here since enhancing the ship class's PVP role is a secondary concern. It shouldn't come as a nerf to the existing PVE capabilities of each hull. There are arguments for each side here.
The real problem now is that the bastion module is basically useless for non sniper roles. If you brawler fit and land in the middle of a furball, bastion mode has very little benefit. The issue arises when you consider the tracking and missile damage formulas.
At 0 m/s, the left side of the tracking equation basically drops out because you have very little traversal so the only modification to NPC/enemy chance to hit with turrets is falloff. If the NPC enters their optimal range, which will happen quickly since you're not moving, they will have a 100% chance to hit. Even moving at 100 m/s slowboating reduces incoming damage from enemy turrets.
The NPC missiles have an explosion velocity of around 85 m/s if I recall correctly. With the pre-nerf base speed you'd see at least a little damage reduction for incoming missiles. When in bastion mode you'll be guaranteeing max damage from missile based NPCs.
This all combines to make the 100% rep bonus far less than 100% effective because you'll be taking somewhere between 20-50% more damage depending on NPC range. In the middle of the pack most NPCs will be within optimal.
As has been discussed before, the tanking bonus doesn't really help the sniper role in PVE but the range bonus does. So really the bastion module only has the range bonus going for it for sniper fits and is almost pointless for anyone brawling or being caught in a PVP situation.
The original iteration although seriously flawed was still better than what we have now. This version makes winners and losers for PVE based on racial T2 resists with some being good for missions and some for incursions. At the price point they still aren't worth it for PVP use.
Give me a reason to hit the bastion button other than range (which for some weapon systems isn't needed), EWAR immunity (only really 1 in 5 missions does this even matter), and a cool animation. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'd like to put one of my earlier posts in this thread back out there.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3553386#post3553386
The balancing act of this ship class would be much easier if you simply separate the two roles of sniper and brawler into two distinct bastion modules or add scripting capabilities to the module. The current state of the rebalance is trying to go in too many directions at once.
I'm really worried that the Paladin in particular will actually have a LESS effective tank (for the NPC factions it's supposed to be shooting) than it does on TQ even when in bastion mode. The T2 resist profile doesn't help there so the base hull will be 1/3 less effective tanking that damage (EM/therm) than it is on TQ. To make up for it you can activate the bastion module. However, this increases incoming damage by 20-50% because you are now immobile taking max NPC missile damage and much more NPC turret damage as the tracking equation gets reduced to only falloff. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Although some hulls receive a tanking bonus based on the racial resist profile, the Paladin is losing out with these changes. I have a hard time coming up with a brawling scenario that the new Paladin would be better in than the TQ version as far as PVE goes. The only way to achieve the same levels of tanking with the new version is to enter bastion mode. So against sansha/BR rats it looks like:
old: 137.5% reps new: 200% reps (no help from T2 resists)
Both ships can fit the exact same tanking modules. However, when in bastion mode you are immobile. So you will very quickly, as the NPCs come into optimal range, start to receive MAXIMUM damage. Where as with the old version, you remain mobile and can adjust your traversal and range while under AB/MWD for a significant reduction of incoming damage. So really it looks like:
old: 137.5% reps versus 30-50% possible NPC damage new: 200% reps versus 80-100% possible NPC damage
Basically this causes a problem where if you relied on the extra 37.5% repair amount to either keep up with incoming damage or to allow you to pulse your reps to maintain some cap stability you will be unable to do either of those things even while in bastion.
There is also the issue that besides the rep bonus, bastion mode no longer really provides anything to support the brawling playstyle. The range bonus isn't really necessary. The web bonus is on the hull. There's EWAR immunity but the big ones affecting brawler's being web/scram you are basically applying to yourself anyways while in bastion mode.
Can someone better at this than I am provide a reasonable scenario where the new Paladin would be better than the TQ one if brawling fit? |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Both ships can fit the exact same tanking modules. However, when in bastion mode you are immobile. So you will very quickly, as the NPCs come into optimal range, start to receive MAXIMUM damage. Where as with the old version, you remain mobile and can adjust your traversal and range while under AB/MWD for a significant reduction of incoming damage. So really it looks like: T2 resists. 100km travel time after MJD and range bonus.
I understand that T2 resists offer some benefits. However, if you look at the opening of my post you'll see that i'm talking about rats that a Paladin should be shooting, Sansha/BR. For those specific situations the T2 resists add absolutely nothing to EHP or rep EHP.
I also understand the power of the MJD bonus and how it aligns with the sniper playstyle. I think it's actually quite nice in that role. However again, in my post I'm talking about fitting short range (mega pulse) lasers and do CQ combat with the Paladin. In this scenario the MJD doesn't help other than to gain initial position if the groups are situated nicely around 60-80K away at warp in. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:*snip* And double active repair. It just depends on how you like to rat... up close and personal or jump to range. Either way the tank is well beyond what you will need, especially in Bastion mode.
I think it will be enough. However I'm not convinced of the well beyond part. The problem I have is that once bastion mode is active, and nearby NPCs will quickly be within their optimal ranges while you are immobile. This would pretty much guarantee that you receive maximum damage from all NPCs on field. If their damage goes up by 50-100% that double rep amount starts to look pretty bland.
I'd be fine, if not disappointed, if CCP comes back and simply states that these hulls are for sniping with long range weapons and that's that as the bonuses (minus the web) seem to point to just that. However, I'm just trying to make sure that the brawling role isn't neglected. As I said before, this is really only a major problem for the Paladin because the Amarr T2 resist profile is so backwards. The other hulls look to be much improved with the change to T2 resists versus the active tank bonus. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 20:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ok, forget the web bonus for a moment. Given the proposal of leveraging the MJD+bastion combination in a sniping role, what exactly do you fit into the utility high slots? If you jump 100K away from the NPCs every 54 seconds, what can you fit into these slots that will have any effect besides tractors/salvagers with those only working out to 50% of the distance?
- Auto Targeting
- Drone Link Augmentor (for you single flight of lights)
- Cloak
- Nuet/NOS (25.5k range)
- RR (9k range)
- Energy Transfer (9k range)
- Probe Launcher
- Smart Bombs (6k range)
The cloak+probes could be useful leaving 1 slot open for tractor (tractor + salvager if not fitting bastion). The remaining items are so short ranged that if you are using the MJD to jump out and blap over and over they just don't make sense. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 13:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yeah, I have to imagine that the ASB module contributed to the second revision of the bastion module and the removal of the rep boost hull bonus. Those things are so far out of line that they severely complicate ship balancing efforts. Simply implementing a one-per-ship for ASB as they have for AAR would go a long way towards simplifying things.
Edit: I was going to add exactly what Captain suggested above me ^^^^. Instead of a pulse, it should simply stream armor points back into the tank. Would make armor and shield similarly effective but still quite different in operation. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 13:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Captain Semper wrote:This why armor reps need new mechanic. For example constant heal when armor rep ON. Not a chunk of hp at the end of cycle. Just constantly repair. 1 second server tics, thank you for paying attention.
Knowing that the server is limited in how it processes information doesn't negate the general idea. You could simply implement it as HP/sec instead of total boost amount at the end of a cycle. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 14:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:Debora Tsung wrote:Captain Semper wrote:This why armor reps need new mechanic. For example constant heal when armor rep ON. Not a chunk of hp at the end of cycle. Just constantly repair. 1 second server tics, thank you for paying attention. Knowing that the server is limited in how it processes information doesn't negate the general idea. You could simply implement it as HP/sec instead of total boost amount at the end of a cycle. I am not convinced... Sounds nice, but somehow not convincing.
I wrote a long winded post about the armor rep mechanics in the 1.1 module rebalancing thread but one of the main points is how the long cycle time + end of cycle rep is problematic because of the way it aligns with enemy weapon rate of fire. Basically, when you're talking about RoF between 5-9 seconds you wind up with shield boosters being able to rep twice between strikes, where as armor can take 2 strikes between reps. This means that occasionally you are taking 2X the enemy's damage in a spike which makes alpha doubly effective against armor tanks.
I think the reason why armor works well in large engagements is that it can be easily local buffered while the remote armor repair system works more like a shield boost with its cycle time being 4.5 seconds. Which means you can land multiple remote repairs between alpha strikes.
Edit: I might go ahead and drop a new topic in here about armor in general instead of distracting from this thread. I wonder how Marauders will wind up based on what we've seen so far. At this point it's anyone's guess. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 16:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Again, I'm sad that the ASB anomaly of a repair system has had such an effect on this rebalance effort. The 30% resists weren't that over the top until you throw a couple of ASBs onto one of these hulls with the hull rep bonus + the old bastion bonus. Can we please one-per-ship this abomination?
I would be fine if they specialized the marauder class into a mobile (MJD) long range weapons platform as long as they introduced another T2 line for brawling. As it stands, you can make both styles of play work with the existing TQ hulls. With the latest version of the proposal you get a mixed bag of bonuses that wind up marginalizing both roles compared to the current TQ version.
What I'd like to see is CCP either pick a role like EWAR, sniping, brawling, or gate crashing and tailor the hull and bonuses to it or select a specific aspect or capability such as tanking, damage application, damage amount, or mobility and go with that. I want a real, defined direction for the class stated so we can actually provide feedback on the proposed changes. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 16:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
To be honest, when I read the first version of the bonuses and the bastion module I had one thought. Flexibility.
With that combination you could go light tanked, load up on damage application and projection mods, jump out 100K, bastion, and rain death on your enemies. And once they regrouped, you jump away and do it all over again. What fun!
or
You could way over tank it with limited damage application and MJD right into the middle of a nasty furball, spewing close range hell while your enemies ran for cover. You probably couldn't kill any of them, but they would likely want to relocate. This of course would all begin with the time honored battle shout:
"Hey! Hold my beer and watch this!!!"
Both of these roles could be had with the original version of the proposal. I would give anything to have an occasion to scream that phrase above, even to the annoyance of my real life neighbors. lol |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 07:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
There's a secondary aspect to tanking that very few people on here seem to be taking into consideration, and that is capacitor usage and stability. This may be because everyone seems to immediately throw out ASB as the solution.
You are correct that ~400/s effective rep is "enough" to tank any lvl 4. However, if you can only rep that amount you must run your tank mods constantly. If you bring 800/s effective reps, you only have to run the modules HALF the time. This allows you to pulse your modules and achieve a state of "simulated" cap stability. This concept is very important for weapons that require cap to use, lasers especially.
Yes, you can use cap boosters to run your guns and tank. However, having to head to Jita, or your local hub, to resupply every so often is a HUGE reduction to effective ISK/hour from missioning.
Having extra cap and greater tanking ability if needed also allows you to deal with unexpected guests in your mission space.
Edit: Has anyone come up with a fit using the v1 proposal that produces OP tanking ability if you only utilize a single ASB on the ship? |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 08:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Roime wrote:So many people who think L4s are the only form of PVE in the whole game.
No, but they are the primary use of Marauders at the moment and a lot of us would rather that not be invalidated in the name of other PvE. Besides and honestly I'm somewhat wary of trying to get a Marauder to out-perform a Carrier in null or a T3 (for its mass) in a Wormhole.
If the class can be enhanced in such a way that they become effective (not necessarily the best) for the other forms of PVE, I'm all for it. However, I agree with Cade that it should not come at the cost of losing the use it already excels at. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 01:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
Massive Post Alert: Will try to format better (want table format codes!)
I've spent some time this afternoon working out some real numbers for the Paladin comparing the tanking capabilities of v1 and v2 of the rebalance proposals. I started with a 4 slot armor tank including a DCU2, 2x EANM2, and a repair module. This fit only leave room for 3 sinks in the lows, but can be made up for by fitting a T2 damage rig. I realized that you might want to run a 5 slot tank that includes a T2 nano pump to max repair amount. Those numbers are included for each repair module in the Repair Potential section of each fit.
Below are the first version numbers for the above fit with bastion not active. You'll see that the overall armor resists aren't too shabby even without T2 resists (EM/75,TH/68,KN/68,EX/70). The repair potential even for a LAR2 is well within tolerances for any level 4 mission and the DCU2 provides a healthy EHP total. However, when not in bastion you will still be popped quite easily by even a small group if you don't flee immediately.
Version 1 - Outside of Bastion
Resistances SheildEMTHKNEX Base02047.562.5 DCU212.53054.167.2
ArmorEMTHKNEX Base503534.440 DCU257.544.844.249 EANM268.158.658.261.75 EANM27567.667.370
HullEMTHKNEX Base0000 DCU260606060
EHPBaseEMTHKNEX Shield6300720090001372619207 Armor800032000246912446526667 Hull770019250192501925019250 Total2200058450529415744165124
Repair Potential EMTHKNEX LAR2450/s347/s344/s375/s +ANP2540/s416/s413/s450/s CorpusX709/s547/s542/s590/s +ANP2851/s656/s651/s708/s LAAR760/s586/s581/s633/s +ANP2912/s703/s697/s760/s
The following set of numbers reflect the version 1 bastion module being activated. This is the version with 30% universal (non-stacking) resists and 100% rep bonus. Your armor resist profile and EHP improve accordingly (EM/83,TH/77,KN/77,EX/79). You'd have the rep power and EHP to ensure that only a serious group of gankers would want to play ball as you become an annoying target if not a deadly one.
The other major benefit I see here is with the gain in resistances, you could run with 1 less EANM2 while maintaining strong resists which would open up a low slot for a forth heat sink. This would also recover that rig slot for other uses. It also allows you to downgrade your repair module to something less gank desirable and still be very efficient while running missions.
Version 1 - Bastion Active
Resistances SheildEMTHKNEX Base02047.562.5 DCU212.53054.167.2 Bastion38.755167.8777
ArmorEMTHKNEX Base503534.440 Bastion6554.554.1558 DCU270.2561.32561.02864.3 EANM277.6970.9970.7773.23 EANM282.5477.377.1379.05
HullEMTHKNEX Base0000 DCU260606060 Bastion72727272
EHPBaseEMTHKNEX Shield630010286128571960827391 Armor800045819352423498038186 Hull770027500275002750027500 Total2200083605755998208893077
Repair Potential EMTHKNEX LAR21288/s991/s983/s1074/s +ANP21546/s1189/s1180/s1289/s CorpusX2029/s1560/s1549/s1691/s +ANP22435/s1872/s1859/s2029/s LAAR2176/s1674/s1661/s1813/s +ANP22611/s2009/s1993/s2176/s
The numbers for the second version of the hulls and bastion module show how lackluster those changes are (at least for the Paladin). With the same number of tank slots allocated you wind up with slightly better resistances (EM/77,TH/71,KN/68,EX/83) but really only improved against Explosive damage with EM, Thermal, and Kenetic being nearly static. The problem is that as far as resistances go, you now HAVE to fit a 4 slot tank to fill the EM and Thermal holes in the T2 Amarr profile.
Another significant drawback to the second version is the new repair potential both outside of bastion and while it's active. You now must fit a LAAR or deadspace repair module to comfortably tank all level 4 missions/rooms. The T2 module is a little too light unless equiped along side a Nano Pump rig. You must enter bastion mode to obtain anywhere near the tanking power of the TQ version of the Paladin.
As far as fending off unwelcome guests, you are still quite vulnerable to even a small gang due to the reduced tank potential and also loss of EHP from the universal resists. The second version pretty much removes all fitting choses. Must have 4-5 slot tank. Must fit bastion module.
Version 2
Resistances SheildEMTHKNEX Base0207087.5 DCU212.53074.589.4
ArmorEMTHKNEX Base503562.580 DCU257.544.868.183 EEMM277.444.868.183 ETHM277.470.768.183
HullEMTHKNEX Base0000 DCU260606060
EHPBaseEMTHKNEX Shield6300720090001372619207 Armor800035398273042507847059 Hull770019250192501925019250 Total2200061848555545805485516
Repair Potential Outside of Bastion EMTHKNEX LAR2362/s279/s256/s481/s +ANP2434/s335/s307/s577/s CorpusX570/s440/s404/s758/s +ANP2684/s528/s485/s910/s LAAR611/s471/s433/s812/s +ANP2733/s565/s520/s975/s
Bastion Active EMTHKNEX LAR2724/s558/s512/s962/s +ANP2869/s670/s615/s1155/s CorpusX1140/s880/s808/s1516/s +ANP21368/s1056/s970/s1819/s LAAR1222/s942/s866/s1624/s +ANP21466/s1130/s1040/s1950/s
I didn't really understand why the version 1 numbers were so amazing that they needed to be gutted until I started working the numbers for the shield tanked marauders. I'll post the same type of numbers for the Vargur after I finish them, but needless to say the shield numbers get quite rediculous. Shield tanking is why armor tanking can't have nice things.
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 01:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:I didn't really understand why the version 1 numbers were so amazing that they needed to be gutted until I started working the numbers for the shield tanked marauders. I'll post the same type of numbers for the Vargur after I finish them, but needless to say the shield numbers get quite rediculous. Shield tanking is why armor tanking can't have nice things.
Actually you could get some pretty silly numbers out of Armor Marauders too, if you really tried. The first gen numbers weren't bad, but people wanted full T2 resists for PvP and the resist bonus on Bastion would have been OP all by itself if combine with T2 resists so the resist bonus had to go if we wanted T2 resists.
The spreadsheet I put together to generate these numbers are showing some pretty interesting things. Even with the second version, you can get better overall survivability out of only a 3 slot SHIELD tank even on the ARMOR hulls. My point was that most people will not drop an extra billion worth of faction/deadspace/officer modules onto the hull to reach those silly numbers for armor. Especially if you have to lock yourself in place for 60 seconds.
Being able to tank godly amounts of damage for minutes at a time can be fun. However for practical use, your cap boosters will eventually run out and the marauder class simply doesn't have enough DPS to be a huge threat while taking said damage.
What I'm trying to show by including real numbers of practical fits is that the exchange of T2 resists out of bastion doesn't necessarily gain you much in the way of tanking potential over the TQ version. The gain in effective health is tiny now that the base shield/armor/hull has been reduced overall. The T2 resists are partially cancelled out by that reduction. For example, the Vargur has significant gains in EHP against EM and Thermal but nothing for KN or EX. That only improves them against lasers and some specific ammunition types. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 11:22:00 -
[19] - Quote
The call for better tanking potential isn't so you can run with that full tank. It's so you have the option to:
- Replace a resistance module to gain DPS
- Downgrade the repair module meta to become less of a gank target
- Have enough EHP to discourage being ganked in high sec
That list is based on a PVE point of view. It provides the pilot with options while maintaining the efficiency inherent in the hull class's ability to run missions (today's focus). I don't think many of the posters here think they need the tank to survive level 4 mission content.
From a PVP standpoint, the T2 resists do provide additional EHP and synergy with RR. However, due to the slot layout of the hulls, this will come at the cost of DPS in most cases. You can't bastion or you lose your RR. So you are stuck with crap sensor strength. You can fit a Sebo or SigAmp but that's even more DPS or tank you have to give up.
As far as fitting options go, if you actually put together fits for the latest version of the proposal you'll see that you still have to fit the same number of tank modules to produce a viable omni-tank as you did before with only a marginal gain in resists.
Paladin TQ - DCU2, 2x EANM2 EM 75% TH 67.6% KN 67.3% EX 70%
Paladin v2 w/ T2 resists - DCU2, EEMM2, ETHM2 EM 77.4% TH 70.7% KN 68.1% EX 83%
Besides the significant increase in durability against Explosive damage you really aren't gaining much in the way of resists with T2 and the same number of tanking modules. You gained a 7-8% damage reduction when paired with your racial targets at the cost of 37.5% of your local repair potential. Yes you do gain something from T2 resists over TQ but it's not this magical thing that everyone seems to think it is. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 11:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
The other thing that doesn't sit well with me about the T2 resists is that it is really picking winners and losers when it comes to the various racial hulls. Here's the resist numbers for a T2 resist Vargur with a DCU2, 2x Invl 2:
Vargur TQ EM 66% TH 68.3% KN 72.8% EX 77.4%
Vargur w/ T2 EM 89.1% TH 82.4% KN 72.8% EX 77.4%
With T2 resists the hull practically becomes immune to laser fire. Conflag w/ 4 faction sinks would do a maximum of like 130 effective dps. The increase in Thermal resist provides a whopping 45% reduction to incoming Thermal damage compared to the TQ version. That covers a significant number of NPC profiles, player weapon systems, and selectable ammo types. With the second version of the proposed changes it will boost some marauders for PVE and PVP (limited application here) and make the others not only less effective than their brothers, their TQ versions, but significantly less attractive than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls for missioning purposes.
If you have to enter bastion mode and have to fit faction/deadspace modules to effectively tank the missions and still be efficient in your racial marauder, you might as well fit those modules to a pirate hull because you'll have nearly the same tanking potential and significantly more raw DPS to apply. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 12:08:00 -
[21] - Quote
Wedgetail wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:The other thing that doesn't sit well with me about the T2 resists is that it is really picking winners and losers when it comes to the various racial hulls. Here's the resist numbers for a T2 resist Vargur with a DCU2, 2x Invl 2:
With T2 resists the hull practically becomes immune to laser fire. The increase in Thermal resist provides a whopping 45% reduction to incoming Thermal damage compared to the TQ version. That covers a significant number of NPC profiles, player weapon systems, and selectable ammo types. With the second version of the proposed changes it will boost some marauders for PVE and PVP (limited application here) and make the others not only less effective than their brothers, their TQ versions, but significantly less attractive than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls for missioning purposes.
If you have to enter bastion mode and have to fit faction/deadspace modules to effectively tank the missions and still be efficient in your racial marauder, you might as well fit those modules to a pirate hull because you'll have nearly the same tanking potential and significantly more raw DPS to apply. this is a factor with just about any minmatar t2 shield tank - you can tank a minmatar t2+ ship on a single invuln because of how balanced the resistance profile is (the opposite is true for minmatar t2+ armor tanks, which have a native weakness to expl. kin)
Yeah. The Golem at least has to burn 2 slots or 1 slot plus rig filling that EM hole which makes it a little more balanced compared to the Paladin. The Kronos can fit DCU2, EANM2, and a EEXM2 and reach respectable omni-tank. It bugs me to no end that these hulls will now require a 4 slot tank or space bling to efficiently do mission content. And the bastion module will be no help at all in fending off a gank attempt now that you have all this bling just to do what you did prior to the rebalancing. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 12:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:Wedgetail wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:The other thing that doesn't sit well with me about the T2 resists is that it is really picking winners and losers when it comes to the various racial hulls. Here's the resist numbers for a T2 resist Vargur with a DCU2, 2x Invl 2:
With T2 resists the hull practically becomes immune to laser fire. The increase in Thermal resist provides a whopping 45% reduction to incoming Thermal damage compared to the TQ version. That covers a significant number of NPC profiles, player weapon systems, and selectable ammo types. With the second version of the proposed changes it will boost some marauders for PVE and PVP (limited application here) and make the others not only less effective than their brothers, their TQ versions, but significantly less attractive than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls for missioning purposes.
If you have to enter bastion mode and have to fit faction/deadspace modules to effectively tank the missions and still be efficient in your racial marauder, you might as well fit those modules to a pirate hull because you'll have nearly the same tanking potential and significantly more raw DPS to apply. this is a factor with just about any minmatar t2 shield tank - you can tank a minmatar t2+ ship on a single invuln because of how balanced the resistance profile is (the opposite is true for minmatar t2+ armor tanks, which have a native weakness to expl. kin) Yeah. The Golem at least has to burn 2 slots or 1 slot plus rig filling that EM hole which makes it a little more balanced compared to the Paladin. The Kronos can fit DCU2, EANM2, and a EEXM2 and reach respectable omni-tank. It bugs me to no end that these hulls will now require a 4 slot tank or space bling to efficiently do mission content. And the bastion module will be no help at all in fending off a gank attempt now that you have all this bling just to do what you did prior to the rebalancing. What the hell are you doing with your missions boats O.o. EM-Rigs? Please tell me you are kidding..
No, I don't put EM rigs on my mission boats. What I'm talking about is the fitting options available to players that are trying to fit a balanced omni tank on the currently suggested marauder hulls. The Golem has a significant EM resist hole. The only way to fill that is with an active hardener, a passive amplifier, or a rig. Obviously the active or passive modules are the best options especially since rigs are the only damage application slots available for missiles currently. However, the EM rig is still an OPTION to accomplish the goal of filling the resist hole. There's a difference between discussing the options available and recommending some subset of those options. I'm doing the former of those activities here.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Golem, Kronos, and Paladin hulls will HAVE to fit a 4 slot tank if they want a balanced omni profile while the Vargur can get away with just 3. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 13:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Oh well, that sounds better. Anyway - I think the golem will be able to get away with an EM ward and an Invul + Shield Booster for lv 4's. Dmg output is enough, and ~67 % em should be fine, considered that you will have huge thermal resists - if poop hits the fan, use bastion.
However, it won't be enough to switch from my CNR. CNR has enough tank and enough application (+ more damage through sentries), and the CNR has way more buffer..
No reason to use the Golem, unless you want to fly with torps.
That's been exactly what I've been saying. Swapping T2 resists for the old bastion resists and the local rep bonus pretty much makes most of the marauders far less attractive than the faction and pirate BS varieties for both PVE and PVP. The TQ and first proposal versions at least provided a boost to mission efficiency compared to the other hulls. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 15:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:The other thing that doesn't sit well with me about the T2 resists is that it is really picking winners and losers when it comes to the various racial hulls. Here's the resist numbers for a T2 resist Vargur with a DCU2, 2x Invl 2:
Vargur TQ EM 66% TH 68.3% KN 72.8% EX 77.4%
Vargur w/ T2 EM 89.1% TH 82.4% KN 72.8% EX 77.4%
With T2 resists the hull practically becomes immune to laser fire. Conflag w/ 4 faction sinks would do a maximum of like 130 effective dps. The increase in Thermal resist provides a whopping 45% reduction to incoming Thermal damage compared to the TQ version. That covers a significant number of NPC profiles, player weapon systems, and selectable ammo types. With the second version of the proposed changes it will boost some marauders for PVE and PVP (limited application here) and make the others not only less effective than their brothers, their TQ versions, but significantly less attractive than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls for missioning purposes.
If you have to enter bastion mode and have to fit faction/deadspace modules to effectively tank the missions and still be efficient in your racial marauder, you might as well fit those modules to a pirate hull because you'll have nearly the same tanking potential and significantly more raw DPS to apply. Funny now check your paladin.. because it suddenly became almost immune to Explosive as well!!
The version 2 Paladin comes out to: EM 77.4% TH 70.7% KN 68.1% EX 83%
So for the ammo types that include Explosive damage here's the damage breakdown: EMP 16.7% explosive Fusion 83% explosive Barrage 54.5% explosive Tremor 62.5% explosive Hail 78.5% explosive
This only affects some of the ammo selections available to missiles and projectiles with options that become much more effective. The Vargur resists align with lasers perfectly and they can chose their ammo types to be more effective unlike lasers.
Again my point is that with T2 resists the Vargur gains a big advantage over the other 3 racial marauders in that they are easily omni tanked and can produce equivalent resist numbers with one less tanking module. As it stands now there will be a definite pecking order of marauders based on resist profile, repair potential, DPS and application, and efficiency. Here's how I view it
- Vargur - Great resist profile. Can fit a 3 slot tank. Good up close damage, high alpha damage from range. Can fit 4 damage mods easily
- Kronos - Pretty flexible resist profile. Great up close damage and good alpha/damage from range.
- Golem - Lack of 3rd rig slot hurts damage application versus faction/pirate hulls. Fully selectable damage. Great resist profile versus most pirate faction NPCs.
- Paladin - Poor resist profiles for faction rats. Subpar resists compared to other three options. Non selectable damage. Great capacitor and very flexible damage range through fast ammo switching
The middle two hulls really are a toss up on which one is better. If the Golem had a third rig slot it would easily beat the Kronos simply because it's shield tanked and has silly tanking options through ASB fittings. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 16:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
Gimme more Cynos wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:That's been exactly what I've been saying. Swapping T2 resists for the old bastion resists and the local rep bonus pretty much makes most of the marauders far less attractive than the faction and pirate BS varieties for both PVE and PVP. The TQ and first proposal versions at least provided a boost to mission efficiency compared to the other hulls. This is definately true for the turret-marauders. However, the golem isn't just that easy. In my opinion, the golem has nothing to offer at the moment, which makes it a reasonable choice. Both alternatives (CNR and the rattler) are just plain better. Even the normal raven and the SNI are comparable to the golem, as the only benefit the golem has to offer is the tank (which isn't needed anyway). That's the reason why I support this change - atleast, the golem will offer a choice over the other missile-boats (which is a stronger active-tank through bastion, and Ewar Immunity + high mobility through MJD). Ofcourse it seems that the bonuses are chaotic, but it makes sense to me and they define a role too (versatility as close range-brawler + mobility and range as sniper - both with very good damage application). As it stands, I support these changes, and I can't see why any PvE-player would ever complain about the loss of active-tank bonus for plain resists. For level 4's, you simply don't care about the marginal tank-loss you receive while not beeing in bastion. For other forms of PvE (Incursions), the resists are plain better too. And even WH spider-tanking will benefit more from the resists. Yeah, the loss of mobility in bastion is quite meh (noone likes to be immobile), but the benefits are there, and you can make use of it. The only thing I would question is the web-strength-bonus, which should be a range-bonus in my opinion.
The change to T2 resists only benefit some of the hulls versus their factions rats compared to the active tanking bonuses. The Paladin has received a net loss in tanking potential with the changes. The Amarr T2 profile doesn't enhance EM or Thermal resistances which is what the primary targets of a laser boat are shooting. So the Paladin lost 37.5% repair against their primary targets and gained absolutely nothing outside of bastion. The Paladin only sees an increase in tanking potential against those same NPCs over what they are capable of on TQ with bastion active and they must STAND STILL to get it. The other hulls received enough additional resistances against their primary factions to counteract the lost of local repair boost so they get a net positive both without bastion or with bastion active. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 16:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:you care about resist agaisnt RATS? LOL
No, not especially. I only care about them to the point of running missions efficiently.
Kagura Nikon wrote:Dude.. ANy of those can tank ANy level 4 with a hand tied behind their backs.
OVERTANKING HELPS IN NOTHING!!!!
NOTHING!!!
Actually, having tanking potential above and beyond what is required to successfully complete a mission provides 3 real benefits:
- Exchanging tank slots for damage amount, damage application, or utility modules
- Simulated cap stability by allowing the pulsing of repair modules instead of running them flat out
- Reducing module meta level to become less of a gank target
Kagura Nikon wrote:THe best tank in missions is DPS!!! In PVP tank can be useful, but even then DPS is usually more important.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. As I stated above the only way to eek out more DPS from these hulls (since they don't have a direct damage bonus) is to exchange some of that extra tanking potential for damage application or amount modules.
Kagura Nikon wrote:On your numbers:
this is BASE paladin resists for armor Armor resists: 50% EM / 80% EX / 62.5% KIN / 35% THERM
How in hell you managed to get only 83% in your explosive?
A paladin withn 2 Imperial ENAM and 1 DC (minimum you woudl invest in such a ship) woudl have EM 77% therm 70% kin 83% exp 90%
You are simply taking my post out of context. If you had kept up with this thread you would know that the intent of my posts is to compare the TQ, version 1, and version 2 proposals and draw conclusions on how they perform in various scenarios based on the differences. I can throw a bunch of faction/deadspace/officer modules into any fit and reach silly numbers with any hull. The point is to see where these hulls fit into the EVE ship ecosystem taking these changes into account.
If the overall tanking potential of these hulls is only slightly better then the pirate hulls, the pirate variants will always be better because they bring greater DPS potential. The devs have already indicated that they do not want to add a direct DPS bonus to the marauder class and have chosen to concentrate on damage projection and situational mobility. I'm simply looking at the numbers provided by practical fits and seeing how they fit within this stated goal and which usage roles benefit from the changes and which roles are adversely affected by them. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 17:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:The change to T2 resists only benefit some of the hulls versus their factions rats compared to the active tanking bonuses. The Paladin has received a net loss in tanking potential with the changes. The Amarr T2 profile doesn't enhance EM or Thermal resistances which is what the primary targets of a laser boat are shooting. So the Paladin lost 37.5% repair against their primary targets and gained absolutely nothing outside of bastion. The Paladin only sees an increase in tanking potential against those same NPCs over what they are capable of on TQ with bastion active and they must STAND STILL to get it. The other hulls received enough additional resistances against their primary factions to counteract the lost of local repair boost so they get a net positive both without bastion or with bastion active. Designing marauders for PvE is what ruined them in the first place. They need to be balanced for PvP because mission runners are just going to pick the ship that runs missions the quickest anyway.
I agree with you. However, what I don't want to see happen is the reduction of PVE capability to the point that faction and pirate hulls become better than marauders for that use. It would completely invalidate the ISK and SP investment of those players who already use the Marauder class for its current PVE focus. If modifications to the class to add PVP uses and expand their use into other areas besides level 4 missions can be made while maintaining everything else, great. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 18:06:00 -
[28] - Quote
Wolfgang Achari wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Wolfgang Achari wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been a while since I've done missions, but last I checked you don't need a 1000dps tank to solo L4 missions. The few places you do need a greater tank than that are meant to be run by multiple people/accounts anyways. Likewise, T1 resists are more than adequate to run the ships respective racial missions without issue. This truly isn't as big of an issue as many people are making it out to be. After all, remote repping isn't the only reason resist bonuses were nerfed recently. ;) Depends on the ship and the weapon systems. The greater the ship's innate ability to tank the more you can focus on other things like damage application and projection and the less tank you actually have to bring. Being able to perma-tank a mission is quite a nice luxury if you can't lower incoming DPS fast enough. Plus it's pretty fun watching ~1k of mission DPS splash off your tank with no red showing. For reference if you fail to bring down incoming DPS there are Level 4 missions that do 1k DPS, give or take a little. As for Level 5 missions, yes those are meant to be run by multiple people, however people figured out ages ago how to run them solo in a few select fits so they haven't really been serious multi-person content for years. I fail to see why that's a compelling argument for retaining the rep bonus. Losing a little bit of tank against some NPC rats will not suddenly make these ships useless for PvE content. If anything it broadens the range of PvE content they can effectively be used for because of the overall increased resists. Retaining the current tanks for PvE just because a few people don't want to see any red on their tank during a site/mission/etc. isn't a good reason to retain it. Especially if it's at the expense of giving the ship greater usability overall.
The problem is that by lowering the tank, the differences between the Marauder class and the pirate/faction hulls becomes too narrow making the those alternatives far more attractive because they will bring almost the same effective tanking potential, but with greater maneuverability, raw damage, less training time, and less ISK investment. Why train for and fly a marauder if the faction/pirate hulls match it or exceed it in most ways. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 18:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:The issue with the "resists for rep" trade off is that it works as described for two ships, but two others (to include the Paladin) gain no resist bonus for their regionally prevalent rats to offset the 37.5% reduction in tank- resulting in the need to fit more modules to compensate. This reduces DPS, which reduces the amount of ISK you earn. This makes Pirate Battleships like the Nightmare that much more appealing, which defies the concept of a Tech 2 PvE focused Battleship. Which is why the new marauders aren't suppose to be PvE focused battleships. Like every other ship in the game they're suppose to be ships that can be used in PvE, but giving them the PvE focus is what ruined them in the first place. And seriously, if you can't 3 slot tank (4 w/bastion) amarr rats with the paladin you fail pretty hard at this game.
Under the version 2 changes only the deadspace modules provide enough repair potential to tank all missions outside of bastion, thus requiring the use of the bastion module. The benefit of the TQ version is that with the assistance of the local rep bonus on the hull, you could do this with a Tech 2 fit if you chose to.
Adding a deadspace repair module to a faction/pirate hull also allows them to tank all missions. So you wind up with equal tanking potential between faction, pirate, and marauder hulls while the faction and pirate hulls provide better raw DPS and equal or better damage application. Damage projection would be the only benefit of the marauder class over their faction and pirate counterparts. That would not even come close to making up for the difference in training time and ISK cost. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 23:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
How about those of you following this thread interested in the PVP application of this ship class come up with good uses and scenarios for the marauder class as proposed instead of just saying, "But PVP!" or "But T2 Resists!". I'm having trouble coming up with anything that makes a lot of sense. If you don't want to use the bastion module because of the drawbacks, you are left with a hull that has:
- Terrible sensor strength
- T2 Resists
- Less DPS than Pirate and some faction hulls
- Slightly better damage projection
- Terrible local maneuverability
- MJD bonus
- Almost no drone bandwidth and small drone bay
- 4 utility high slots
- Lowish EHP
The low sensor strength and slow local movement are huge detractors for these hulls in PVP. Although you do get T2 resists, the inherent flaws in the hull like lower EHP make this less interesting. A single EWAR module could put this ship out of the fight until your opponent is ready to put you down. Not to mention the SP requirements and cost of the hull are prohibitive. When compared to Pirate and Faction alternatives why would you fly one of these in a PVP situation?
If you do use the bastion module the list of benefits increases to include a local rep bonus, better damage projection, and EWAR immunity. Although you get to scratch the low sensor strength off the list above, you also have to add immobility for 60 seconds, the activation of a weapons timer, and the exclusion of remote assistance to the list of "bad" things.
As they stand now I can only think of 2 niche PVP roles that MIGHT make sense if you use the bastion module. They are rooted in the concept around being in a position where RR is unlikely to begin with so that the exclusion of RR is no longer relevant.
First, a remote sniper role would work. The marauder stays at extreme range from the conflict and deals steady damage while the remainder of his group work close in like normal. You wouldn't post a dedicated logi on that type of role in a small gang so he can feel free to bastion up. He's still in danger of being pinned if a tackle can get there while he's bastioned but it's at least a plausible PVP role.
The second option would be to act as a sort of area denial platform or tip-of-the-spear deployment. The marauder would MJD into the target area and bastion. Nuets, weapons, and other utility would be leveraged immediately after entering bastion. The idea is to scatter the opponents initially with enough self tanking capability to survive until the remainder of your group can engage on their terms. You would have to be enough of a threat to make the opponent at least respond to your presence and allow your group to position.
That's about all I can think of at the moment. Anyone else have any vague ideas on how this version of the rebalance could be used? |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 04:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
Only the shield tanked marauders can reach "invulnerable except for alpha" status with 3-5k dps tanks (with only a deadspace booster and T2 support) due to the availability of oversized repair modules. The armor tanked hulls top out around 1800 dps tanks with a deadspace repper. Add an additional 500mil worth of deadspace support and you can get into the shield levels. Just three ships with 800 dps apiece will kill a bastioned armor hull in less than 40 seconds due to raw dps, not alpha.
There's too many mixed messages from the hull bonuses coupled with the lackluster bastion module to really even figure out what role is intended for this ship class. I think we're just going to have to wait for the devs to put together a more fleshed out plan and go from there. I think we can all (PVP, PVE mission, and PVE wh/incursion pilots alike) agree that the current version doesn't really please anyone all that much. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 04:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
Wolfgang Achari wrote:A Paladin isn't in hostile space if the space is controlled by Amarr empire. Take a look at the T2 resists and how they compare to NPC damage types in Minmatar space though (and vice versa for a Vargur in Amarr space). You argue that the T2 resists make the ship weak, I argue that you've been using the wrong ship for the space you've been flying in this entire time. :P
Lore or description wise, ok sure. However from a mechanics and mission efficiency standpoint, shooting lasers into your enemy's best and second best resists doesn't sound very appealing. Also, the reverse example you gave of a vargur in amarr space has a distinct advantage since they have selectable damage ammo. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:22:00 -
[33] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Siddicus wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
I digress though, this has very little to do with Marauders, which is more or less the point of the last 170 pages...
And it's been 34 pages (coming on a week soon) since the last dev post, pretty much everything to be said about the proposed changes has been said =/ I'm actually working on my own version of a proposal for fun. When it's suitably thought out I'll post it for the wolves to chew apart. Overall this is a rather prickly issue since you have people on the one side who want the Marauders for pure PvP and don't give a flying crap about their PvE usability. On the other you have the people who have actually trained to use these ships already and use them extensively in PvE and probably don't care very much about their PvP viability. There's a third and somewhat smaller group who really care equally about both but I would say from the posting trends that more or less everyone is leaning one way or the other, generally to a large degree. The PvP people were the ones who jumped all over the first proposal for not being friendly enough to their interests. They really want to keep the web bonus because it essentially makes these hulls immune to frigates and very good against cruisers. On the flip side the PvE people hate the second proposed version and don't want the web bonus, especially on the Vargur and Golem. Throughout the mix we have people who want a number of ridiculous things like cloak-bonused Marauders and massive damage bonuses on Bastion. Not to mention the various people who think Bastion is an awesome idea, a horrible idea, or belongs on an entirely new ship class... Personally I think Bastion is a pretty cool idea but I don't think it should be mandatory. I'm against web velocity bonuses in general because after running the numbers I find them to be hilariously over-powered against small targets even compared to regular webs, and I'd like to find a solution that at least makes the PvE and PvP sides marginally less angry, if not actually happy (this is Eve Features and Ideas Discussion after all, happy is something you hope for not something you expect) though I don't think Bastion is going to be something both of them get equal use out of no matter what.
Cade, I'm working on something too over here. I completely agree with you that the Marauder class must be fully useful without a bastion module fit. The problem is that since the module is in a highslot and doesn't require a turret/launcher hard point you have to at least look at what it can be traded out for module wise and compare the benefits of the replacement to the benefits and drawbacks of the bastion.
If there's no comparison and bastion is simply way better than anything else, everyone will fit bastion even if they don't use it. On the flip side, if the bastion module isn't strong enough and the hull changes remove any significant disadvantage (like the sensor strength) you won't find them fitted.
I think they should add an additional turret/launcher hard point to these hull, and adjust the bastion module to require one. Now you actually have a powerful replacement module to balance the bastion module against and provides some very hard decisions if the bonuses on the module are well thought out. Do you fit a 5 turret and lose damage projection/application/whatever else they put on the module, or do you fit the bastion module. Less raw damage but great tank, damage project, etc. That scenario would make this conversation completely different! |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
I'm really starting to like my idea of 5th turret/launcher hardpoint with bastion module requiring a turret/launcher hard point. Here's how I would set it up.
Role Bonus: 80% bonus to large weapon damage, 100% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams, 70% reduction in Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay
This would produce the equivalent of 9 active weapons if you fit a weapon in each slot, while having 7.2 active weapons with a bastion module fitted. This would allow you to balance the bonuses and drawbacks of the bastion module against 1.8 effective weapons instead of against what you can fit in a utility high slot. Now that you are replacing something of great value, the bonuses and drawbacks can be much more interesting.
As it stands now, the bastion module has to be balanced when compared to another utility module:
- Drone Range - worthless with the current drone bandwidth and bay)
- Nuet/Nos - great utility for PVP and some using Nos in PVE
- Remote Repair/Boost - without a range boost this is lackluster
- Energy Transfer - no range boost
- Smart Bomb - decent close range support considering the new drone stats
- Regular Cloaking Device - Useful in some situations
* Please add to this list if I overlooked something
The current bastion module has some extreme drawbacks because when compared to what it can replace it would always be used if it didn't. The bonuses it provides far out shines the items listed above, thus enter the immobility and no remote assistance. If you paired the module against something of real value such as number of active turrets, you can now provide real, useful bonuses without resorting to including drastic penalties that eliminates its use in most scenarios except level 4 mission running. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:I think they should add an additional turret/launcher hard point to these hull, and adjust the bastion module to require one. Now you actually have a powerful replacement module to balance the bastion module against and provides some very hard decisions if the bonuses on the module are well thought out. Do you fit a 5 turret and lose damage projection/application/whatever else they put on the module, or do you fit the bastion module. Less raw damage but great tank, damage project, etc. That scenario would make this conversation completely different! It's an interesting concept but I think it would lead to Bastion being over-powered and put the hulls into a DPS race with the Pirate Battleships. You'd essentially be giving the ships 10 effective turrets of damage (even ignoring the 25% damage bonus from ship skills) and reducing their damage bonus to compensate would result in a 4 turret setup doing less DPS than any T1 Battleship which probably isn't worth the cost or application.
I forgot to bold the part of the Role Bonus I changed. I dropped it to 80% weapon damage from the 100% it is now. That equates to 9 turrets/launchers with a 5 turret/launcher fitting and 7.2 with a 4 turret fitting. So for people who want to take the hull as it is and forget bastion you have a 12.5% damage increase over TQ. I think you're right though this comes a little too close to Pirate BS damage levels.
The main point was that you can now offer a bastion module that provides bonuses that can be comparable to 1.8 active turrets/launchers. Make it worth giving up the extra damage for some unique utility or special abilities. You could remove much of the current drawbacks to the bastion module. Here's a pseudo equation that illustrates the goal. The details would obviously have to be thought out well:
Hull Bonuses + 5 turrets/launchers (9 effective) ~= Hull Bonuses + 4 turrets/launchers (7.2 effective) + Bastion Bonuses/Abilities
Currently the dev value equation looks something like this:
Utility High Slot ~= Bastion Bonuses - Bastion Drawbacks
I think that form is much harder to balance out because the value of a Utility High Slot is so low considering the hull already has 3 of them. So really it's comparing Bastion bonuses and drawbacks to a 4TH utility high slot module. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 21:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:I forgot to bold the part of the Role Bonus I changed. I dropped it to 80% weapon damage from the 100% it is now. That equates to 9 turrets/launchers with a 5 turret/launcher fitting and 7.2 with a 4 turret fitting. So for people who want to take the hull as it is and forget bastion you have a 12.5% damage increase over TQ. I think you're right though this comes a little too close to Pirate BS damage levels.
The main point was that you can now offer a bastion module that provides bonuses that can be comparable to 1.8 active turrets/launchers. Make it worth giving up the extra damage for some unique utility or special abilities. You could remove much of the current drawbacks to the bastion module. Here's a pseudo equation that illustrates the goal. The details would obviously have to be thought out well:
Hull Bonuses + 5 turrets/launchers (9 effective) ~= Hull Bonuses + 4 turrets/launchers (7.2 effective) + Bastion Bonuses/Abilities I see this as being a knife edge to balance though, since a vast majority of players aren't going to see giving up 1/5th of their DPS as being worth it unless the trade-off is clearly worth it. Any trade-off that's a no-brainer is probably a no-brainer because it's over-powered and not a real tradeoff. Also, to put a couple numbers behind that. 12.5% DPS is currently the exact difference in turret DPS between the Kronos and the Vindicator when both ships are fully bonused. Also your math is missing the 25% damage bonus on 3 of the 4 hulls at present which actually puts the Kronos at 11.25 effective turrets of damage to the Vindicator's 11 flat.
You're right about the hull bonus. I dropped it out because i usually compare the nightmare to the paladin (bit of a laser head apparently). I agree that it would take some effort to balance my value equation. However, the apparent dev value equation is even more difficult. It doesn't take much to easily over power a 4th utility high slot so you wind up having drawbacks that are almost equally bad as the bonuses are beneficial.
Basically I'm talking about equating the bastion module bonuses and abilities to 20% damage compared to 5 turrets or 10% damage compared to the TQ version of the Marauder. The combination of 12.5% damage increase over existing TQ hulls coupled with the removal of the tanking bonus would at least smooth out some of the PVE mission issues. I think that would be a fair trade from an efficiency stand-point. With the added damage, the total incoming dps would drop quickly. I think 12.5% would be enough to reduce the volley count on some of the tougher cruisers, battle cruisers, and battle ships. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
Well I've finally compiled all my thoughts together from this thread into a (somewhat) comprehensible format. The thread is located here. I've tried to incorporate many of the ideas I've seen posted here with an eye towards useful base hulls with bastion being a role enhancer. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it overall and where you would change or make it better. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 12:08:00 -
[38] - Quote
Multi-post Warning! CCP Eterne wanted me to migrate my separate thread into this one. I bow to his authority. The original thread was here and includes some great feedback.
This proposal attempts to satisfy at least some of the groups here, but I fear it will be impossible to provide a ship class that meets everyone's goals without producing an abomination that would eclipse most other ships. I've formed this proposal around several design goals and tried to follow a consistent philosophy towards balance.
Design Goals
- The base hull must be usable "as is" without fitting the Bastion Module
- Maintain current PVE mission capabilities
- Provide opportunities to expand roles into additional PVE scenarios
- Enhance PVP effectiveness albeit in niche roles
- Marauders should fit within the currently described framework of T2 "specialization"
- Hull bonuses must be complimentary and not conflict with each other
- Role Bonuses should reflect suggested use of the Marauder class
- Special Abilities should enhance the general performance of the class outside of suggested role
Balance Philosophy
- Hull bonuses should not require fitting modules that would not have been fit without them
- Bastion Module must be roughly equivalent to any module it would replace
- The Marauder class should be balanced within itself in that no one race is significantly better than the rest although they may lend themselves to one aspect over another in marginal ways
- The Marauder class should not out damage comparable Pirate hulls in significant ways but may exceed Pirate hulls in application or projection in certain scenarios
- The additional skill point investment should be recognized versus the T1 and faction hulls in clear but marginal ways
The current Marauder class has several attributes common to all races that together encompass the nature or essence of the class. The class description implies Marauders are efficient and semi-self sufficient hulls and these common attributes tend to lend themselves to that end through reduced ammo usage, enhanced tanking potential, better than average damage, and inherent damage application compared to the T1 and faction hulls.
- 4 Turret/Launcher hard points
- Role Bonus - 100% weapon damage
- Role Bonus - 100% tractor beam range and velocity
- Low Sensor Strength
- 37.5% local repair bonus
- 5%/level damage boost (Golem is an outlier in that it's boost is application and not raw damage)
- 400 rig calibration but only 2 rig slots
- 10%/lvl bonus to damage application modules (Vargur is an outlier in that its application bonus is a 7.5%/lvl direct tracking bonus)
The intent of this proposal is to preserve the current nature of the Marauder class. I've taken the thematic approach of concentrating on efficiency over raw power to ensure the general flavor of the Marauder class isn't lost. All Marauders would share the following attributes:
- +1 High slot (total of 8)
- 5 Turret/Launcher hard points
- Special Ability - 75% weapon damage
- Special Ability - 200% tractor beam range
- Special Ability - 100% tractor beam velocity
- T1 Sensor Strength
- T2 Resist Profile
- 5% bonus to local repair amount
- 5%/lvl damage boost (Golem gains its explosion velocity elsewhere)
- 400 calibration and 2 rig slots
- Role Bonus - Built-in MJD (base stats for pilots without skill)
- Role Bonus - 70% reduction of MJD reactivation delay
- Role Bonus - Can select 50km or 100km for MJD distance
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 12:08:00 -
[39] - Quote
There are three significant changes here to the common attributes of the current Marauder class. I'll try to explain my reasoning behind each one in detail before getting into the changes to each hull.
High Slots, Hard Points, and Weapon Damage Role Bonus The most extreme change presented in this proposal by far compared to the current Marauders or the developer rebalancing is the addition of an 8th high slot that is also a turret/launcher hardpoint. The primary driver for this approach is to provide something of real value to balance the bastion module against. This change is paired with Bastion module requiring a turret/launcher hard point to be fit.
It is important to note that the Weapon Damage special ability was also reduced from 100% down to 75%. Here's a comparison of effective weapons between the TQ Marauders, Pirate BS, and this proposal and the overall effect on raw damage potential:
- Paladin TQ: 10
- Paladin New: 10.9
- Nightmare: 10 (I know, I don't like this either. More later)
- Golem TQ: 8
- Golem New: 8.75
- Kronos TQ: 10
- Kronos New: 10.9
- Vindicator: 11
- Vargur TQ: 10
- Vargur New: 10.9
- Machariel: 10.9
Overall the new Marauder sees a 9.375% increase in damage potential over their TQ versions with all 5 hard points occupied. For this added damage they expend more 25% more ammo and/or 25% more cap/s. The overall efficiency of running missions should be about the same with faster mission time through increased DPS but more frequent resupply.
There are 2 issues I see with this approach. First, as it stands without having any information about the Pirate rebalance direction, the Paladin will simply be about 10% higher damage than the Nighmare. However, the nightmare does have the advantage of being shield tanked, has 75mb drone bandwidth, and will likely have a 4th heat sink fitted while the Paladin will most likely only have 3. The comparison between the Vargur and Machariel is still in the Machariel's favor as it is far and away more maneuverable than the Vargur after initial engagement.
The other issue is that it might be compelling to remove the explosion velocity bonus from the Golem and replace it with a straight 5%/lvl damage bonus. For all targets, a 25% damage bonus is better than the explosion velocity bonus while the target's speed remains below 750m/s. Targets on approach will likely take roughly the same damage as before. However, once orbiting they would take more damage. It's a toss up really. I left the explosion velocity bonus in place for now.
Sensor Strength The super low sensor strength is a wicked limitation in both PVE and PVP depending on your weapon systems and NPC targets. It almost single handedly precludes the Marauder class from being PVP viable outside the use of some special module like Bastion. Give these hulls T1 sensor strength and be done with it.
T2 Resists + 25% local repair Anyone who has followed the developer thread knows that this has been the most hotly debated changed proposed by the developers. The Marauder class trades it's local repair bonus for their full T2 racial resist profile. I personally don't like the exchange as it makes some hulls better than others and hulls like the Paladin actually become worse in missions because of it. To alleviate some of the burdon, all Marauders have a 5%/lvl bonus to local repair instead of the 7.5%.
Miscelaneous Changes Other notable changes include increasing the bonus to tractor beam range to 200% making them effective out to 72m. This guarantees they will reach anywhere within a mission space after at most 1 MJD use and most likely everywhere if positioned in the center of the pocket. Another change sees the hull get a special MJD built-in. This frees up a medium power slot for use and eliminates the loss of hull bonus if you didn't want to fit the module. You can still choose not to use it for whatever reason but your fitting options remain as flexible as they are today. With the very low base speed of these hulls, most will likely want to have a second prop module to the MJD even further limiting the fitting options. Just build the thing in. Make it non-functional for non-skilled pilots if you have to.
Overall I think these changes make the Marauder class widely useful in many aspects of EVE gameplay without requiring the Bastion module to be effective. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 12:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
Bastion Module I've chosen to take the scripted approach that so many others have suggested including myslef in the developer thread. I think it's the only approach that will result in a balance between usefulness and consistency. The goal of this bastion module version is to specialize the Marauder class into the role of tactical deployment for use in long range engagements or establishing a beachhead. Since you are giving up an active turret/launcher to fit a Bastion module, it's base line power is balanced against losing roughly 20% of the hulls raw DPS potential.
Base Statistics
- -1 turret/launcher hard point
- 10 CPU
- 100 PG
- Duration 60s
- One per ship
- Immobile while active
- Skill requirements: High Energy Physics (should change) & Energy Grid Upgrades 5
Weapon Stability Configuration (long range)
- 50% reduction to MJD spool up time
- +50mb Drone Bandwidth (75mb total)
- 25% increase of turret optimal and falloff range
- 25% increase to Cruise Missile and Torpedo velocity
- 50% increase to Cruise Missile and Torpedo hitpoints
- 25% increase to maximum targeting range
- 100% increase to scan resolution
- Immune to Tracking Disruption, Sensor Dampening, and targeted ECM
- 100% increase to optimal range of Remote Sensor Boosters and Target Painters
This script is designed to enhance a remotely deployed Marauder's ability to apply damage, avoid disruption, and provide spotting capabilities for fleet/gang members. This script does NOT negate incoming remote assistance. The MJD spool up time reduction allows more breathing room if an enemy gets too close.
The increase in range will roughly allow most weapons to use at least one tier better ammo, with some being able to jump two notches. This equates to roughly a 10-15% increase in damage application which negates a significant portion of the 20% dps loss from 1 less turret. The added missile and torpedo velocity and hitpoints should help to minimize the reduction of damage due to defender missile use.
The targeting range expands the engagement envelope to include most ranges that would result from a MJD activation regardless of initial target distance. The bonus to scan resolution should allow the Marauder to quickly lock targets in response to priority changes.
The EWAR immunity in this version is selective to include only targeted effects that would otherwise reduce the Marauder's ability to project and apply it's damage. While the increased range on Remote Sensor Boosters and Target Painters provides Marauders a specialized role in targeting support.
The idea is to ensure that a Marauder under WSC will win any fight in which its enemy chooses to stay at range while remaining vulnerable to CQ encounters. WSC truely specializes the ship's role while limiting it's use outside the designed engagement envelope. While long range weapons are greatly enhanced, the use of this script with short range weapons fails to reach parity with the loss of an active turret/launcher. A wing of these ships would be quite effective as they could each fit remote assist modules and repair each other as well.
Area Denial Configuration (beachhead)
- 50% increase to local repair amount
- 100% increase to maximum shield and armor hitpoints
- 15% reduction of incoming energy drain and neutralizer effectiveness
- 50% reduction of turret signature resolution
- 20% reduction of Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion radius
- 20% increase of Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity
- -25mb Drone Bandwidth (Deployed drones marked abandoned)
- 50% reduction of maximum targeting range
- Disrupts all remote assistance within 25km reducing effectiveness by 50%
- Cannot be remote assisted
This script enables the Marauder to engage the enemy in close combat while disrupting thier supply lines. It is designed to be the first ship into the breach opening up a path for more to follow.
The increase in local repair amount coupled with the increased shield and armor hitpoints provide significant staying power. However, the hitpoints are added upon entering Bastion mode and are removed wholesale upon exiting. When the shield hitpoints are subtracted, any deficit between current sheild strength and removal will be subtracted from Armor prior to the armor buffer being removed. This continues onto the hull if there is still a difficiency. A sufficiently damaged ship will be destroyed upon exiting Bastion mode without enough health to repay the buffer.
The bastioned Marauder would be able to apply its damage very effectively even against smaller targets. The 50% reduction in turret signature resolution provides almost medium turret levels of tracking versus smaller targets, while the 20% bonuses to explosion velocity and radius do the same for missile platforms. The maximum targeting distance penalty ensure that this great application only applies within short range of the Marauder.
A beachhead Marauder would be able to significantly disrupt an enemy's logistics once engaged. It would likely be unwise for an enemy to enter the 25km range unless it's willing to meet the Marauder on its terms. Marauders employing this script would most likely carry nuetralizers or smart bombs in its utility highs under this model. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 12:08:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ship Specifics I've chosen to maintain the basic ship statistics for fittings presented in the developer thread. Those can be assumed unless specifically mentioned in each ship's section.
Paladin Amarr Battleship Skill Bonus:
- 7.5% bonus to Large Energy Turret tracking
- 7.5% bonus to Large Energy Turret optimal range
Marauder Skill Bonus:
- 5% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage
- 5% bonus to local repair amount
*Roll some or all of the capacitor bonus into the base hull
Golem Caldari Battleship Bonus:
- 10% bonus to effectiveness of target painters
- 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity
Marauder Skill Bonus:
- 5% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo rate of fire
- 5% bonus to local repair amount
Kronos Gallente Battleship Bonus:
- 7.5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret tracking
- 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret falloff range
Marauder Skill Bonus:
- 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage
- 5% bonus to local repair amount
Vargur Minmatar Battleship Bonus:
- 7.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret tracking
- 10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret falloff range
Marauder Skill Bonus:
- 5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
- 5% bonus to local repair amount
I organized the bonuses into application and projection for the always lvl 5 battleship skill while linking the best bonuses of damage and local repair to the longer train time of the Marauder skill. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 12:37:00 -
[42] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Ms. Ambraelle has some interesting proposals, but I wonder: just how much of that stuff is codeable within current EVE engine without requiring massive code rewriting that can presumably take years.
The two major departures from know features are the 50/100km MJD and the hitpoint buffer of the beachhead version of the bastion mode. A third possible issue is the turret signature resolution reduction as I'm not sure that is a bonusable statistic currently.
To be honest, I'd be happy with the base hull and just the CWS version of bastion. The beachhead version of bastion might be better served as its own ship class. I just didn't want to leave the brawling or short range weapon users out in the cold for the Marauder class. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.
That's basically the gist of my proposal as well. Have a base hull that is usable "as is" for most purposes and use the bastion module to apply bonuses and drawbacks to perform a specialized role. Unless I misunderstand post. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:23:00 -
[44] - Quote
Wedgetail wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:Barrogh Habalu wrote:Ms. Ambraelle has some interesting proposals, but I wonder: just how much of that stuff is codeable within current EVE engine without requiring massive code rewriting that can presumably take years. The two major departures from know features are the 50/100km MJD and the hitpoint buffer of the beachhead version of the bastion mode. A third possible issue is the turret signature resolution reduction as I'm not sure that is a bonusable statistic currently. To be honest, I'd be happy with the base hull and just the CWS version of bastion. The beachhead version of bastion might be better served as its own ship class. I just didn't want to leave the brawling or short range weapon users out in the cold for the Marauder class. all easily changeable bar the MJD which will need supporting UI code in order to access the function of altering range, by far the best solution to date, however i would suggest swapping the 50% self rep bonus for remote rep, for the reason that if the idea is to act as a 'door breaching charge' you're not going to be able to tank yourself, may as well give reason to fit RR in high slots. logic being aggressive fits will then fit 1-2 RR mods and 1 vampire/nuet, where long range ships will tend to sport out right RR mods (local reps in PVP (particularly on battleship scale) are a waste of space in most cases - so the preference is to rely on remote aid regardless of the fight you're in) if you're gonna design an RR battleship hull may aswell make it a focus for both modes - and the close range mode will need it far more than long range, so if you want to lock out RR for one, swap the two and make the long range doctrine RR immune (they're already out of dps range as it is, no reason to make them harder to kill, and the close range ships will have neuts to worry about) assuming you are still vulnerable to targeted ECM etc in close range mode, sensor dampeners will decimate this ships functionality in close quarters, as will tracking disruptors (though to a lesser degree) - as was pointed out to me by vendetta a few days ago, be careful limiting targeting range because that 25 k 'max range' will drop to less than 10 very quickly, making the ship all but worthless - it's ok to have them vulnerable to ewar just be cautious. cruisers and frigates carry lots of those mods and you don't want to shift from 'has a weakness to' to 'is completely screwed against' just cuz one frigate happened to carry a sensor damp - you'll need a bit of room on either side. finally: do not script this, have two distinct modules - so before you leave dock you must pick one or the other and cannot swap between both on the fly - this will ensure that you're locked into one style of strengths and weaknesses for the duration of the flight while changing between doctrines is great with the strengths you propose being able to alter between them with only a minute or two's notice without leaving the field (or using a carrier/etc) is a bit much. again, well compiled collection of the better suggestions here Great feedback here. I'll try to describe the roles for each bastion module and how I can see them being used. If there's a better or more balanced way to get there I'm all about it.
CWS (long range) I want a CWS fit Marauder to be "better" than a T1, faction, or pirate hull when deployed at range in a few aspects:
- Faster locking times
- Better range
- Better damage projection and through projection increased application
- Situationally better mobility through MJD use
- Less disruption from EWAR
The drawbacks to this increased performance over T1, faction, and pirate hulls should center around:
- Immobility during enhancement
- More susceptible to getting caught by close range opponents
The loss of incoming RR would make them far weaker than the T1, faction, and pirate hulls deployed at the same distances. I'm not sure the better application on somewhat equivalent raw damage would overcome this drawback.
Beachhead I really like your suggestion of swapping the self-rep bonus on the beachhead version for a bonus to RR amount. However, I'm not sure it would make sense for a ship to be able to disrupt others RR in an area while having a bonus to their own outgoing RR. It would make it much more useful in the role of "landing pad" though. Beachhead Marauder posts up in the enemy's line disrupting their RR chains while his buddies land. He would then be able to provide short range RR to them as they engage. The limited range on those RR modules would balance it out pretty well. Here's what I'd like them to do in their roles:
- Create a small pocket of space that is undesirable for the enemy to remain within. This does not have to mean it's the Marauder being deadly but provides a disadvantage for remaining
- Have enough temporary staying power to enable holding on till help arrives but now be invincible in small group engagements
- This is really geared towards "owning" a piece of land for a short period of time for a strategic purpose
It's a fine line between commanding a location strategically and just being over powered. I didn't want the Marauder's raw damage to go up in this situation but be able to better apply it to any that might be within a limited range. I'm kind of OK with the weakness to damps and an already restricted range. There needs to be some kind of counter strategy available that doesn't require "bring more ships" :) |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:42:00 -
[45] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Wedgetail wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Having different Bastion modules for different play/flying styles sounds like a good idea. Leave the base hull mostly alone and use the relevant Bastion module to tweak ship bonuses and performance.
That's basically the gist of my proposal as well. Have a base hull that is usable "as is" for most purposes and use the bastion module to apply bonuses and drawbacks to perform a specialized role. Unless I misunderstand post. difference in 'one module that you reload a different script' and 'two distinct modules of the same type' like an interdiction maneuvers link is not a shield harmonizer link, both are command links but do different things, you need to fit one or the other to get the bonuses, you don't load a new script into the one command link to do multiple things at your convenience :D Scripts, different modules, T3 subsystems, rigs, it's the same idea. Instead of being locked into a hull that is dedicated to a particular role or play style (e.g. PVE, PVP,) just give the players more customization options. Trying to make a hull's bonuses, which are set in stone, support multiple roles/play styles, or even going so far as to change the original use of the hull, tends to make things complicated[1] as we've seen with the proposed web bonus and T2 resists. [1] i.e. balance, power creep, torches and pitchforks... If they made a T2 battleship line that was designed for CQ engagements, I'd drop the beachhead module in a heartbeat and start a new training plan. You really only have BLOPS and Marauders as T2 battleship options. BLOPS have a nice, defined role to them. The more combat oriented roles are left to the Marauder class as it stands. Break out range and CQ roles into separate classes and I'm right behind you. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 22:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:It wasn't just incursion runners. Anyone who could do maths could see the golem and vargur becoming idiotically powerful loltank baitships. And I don't mean in a good way. In a 40,000dps tank way!
There was no way it was going to fly, and rightly so.
Pretty much this. I didn't understand either until I started running the numbers for myself. I thought my spreadsheet was broken lol. Thus my signature. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 02:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
The LASB isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things; even rotating 2 of them for sustained tank. With the recent changes to boost amounts, the Pith X line of boosters actually surpass the ASB in HP/s and can be reasonably sustained. Think about the difference between these 3 boost setups:
- Cap booster
- SBA2
- L Pith X-type
versus
Although the pilot has the option of activating both ASBs simultaneously for a large burst tank, they are limited to the time they can do this. In the first setup, they will have higher HP/s and a longer running time than if the second pilot were alternating the ASBs.
The real problem is the entire eXtra Large line of shield boosters, not just the XLASB. The up sizing of boosters provides huge HP/s burst tanks that can be supported by a cap booster with 800s for quite a while especially if your weapon system doesn't eat cap. The XLASB is the true abomination as it provides massive HP/s for 0 cap expenditure and also provides cap warfare immunity. If you can shoehorn 2 of these bad boys onto your hull for something like:
You are really only killable through raw alpha or simply eventually running out of boosters. If you can afford faction boosters this gets even worse as you get more boosts per reload cycle and you can fit more of them in your cargo hold to boot. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 02:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
As far as the web bonus is concerned, I'd like to see them fix the underlying problem instead of treating the symptom. The only reason you need webs at all on a BS size platform is to control smaller ships that have gotten "under your guns". In PVE this isn't really a problem because a single flight of light drones with even basic drone skills can bring them down quickly.
In PVP where those smaller ships don't have crap tanks and no hitpoints to speak of that flight of drones won't even scratch their tank. A BS is completely helpless against smaller craft. The exception being cruise missile ships with target painters and precision cruise missiles. 2-3 painters and precision will make them go pop quite nicely. Turret platforms are just out of luck in this situation.
I don't know how you fix this without doing a complete weapon system rework. A good start would be to forklift the existing tracking formula and start with something a little more realistic. Like smaller ships being harder to hit farther away instead of easier... Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 03:03:00 -
[49] - Quote
Shantetha wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Sure a dual ASB sleipnir can be kited by anything with a web. However, dual, or triple ASB is a real problem for the marauder. It's a problem because the marauders can fit them without being gimped - and they have huge cargo bays. Of course these cargo bays were designed for loot - but they hold cap boosters just as well.
Even without the bastion module, dual-asb vargurs and golems are to all intents and purposes unkillable by a single ship - unless that ship happens to be a dreadnought.
This provides a very shaky platform for any kind of bastion module which is designed to increase tank. The tank is already OP, so any increase simply makes it more OP.
This is not a problem that can be solved with convoluted changes to the bastion module - you simply have to start with a good foundation. Fix the ASB and it forces marauder fits into shield boosters, for which they were designed. Shield boosters and armour repairers are roughly equivalent in performance over the course of a fight (at least in terms of total effective hitpoints), so a bastion module can be made that affects them equally without too much trouble.
This of course assumes that one imagines that the bastion mofdule is a good idea. I actually don't. Okay, this I can get behind at least to an extent. We can definitely say that the Golem and Vargur won't have as much trouble as the other ships fitting multiple ASBs, though I think three is pushing it while still having a ship that does more than tank. The problem as I see it is that if you limit ASBs to one per ship then at that point the marginal utility of one vs a cap booster is questionable. This suggests that ASBs should be adjusted to be more balanced in the instance that you do fit two rather than simply hard limiting them to 1 per ship. it's one module that does the job of 2, there is not marginal utility over it's massive utility over. Why did they limit the AAR to 1 module vs have 2 of those (irrespective of the fact that cap boosters are massively cheaper then nanopaste)
Since armor modules fit for space with dps modules, the limitation is usually moot anyways. The shield tanks have the options to trade "utility" for tank and keep their gank. Armor tankers simply don't have the slots available to do this unless they drastically reduce their dps potential. It's doubly so since the only way to increase dps or armor HP/s is through rigs. The dps rigs require very high calibration and the ANP2 only offers a 20% increase verses the SBA2s 37.5%. This saddens me to no end. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 03:20:00 -
[50] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:The LASB isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things; even rotating 2 of them for sustained tank. With the recent changes to boost amounts, the Pith X line of boosters actually surpass the ASB in HP/s and can be reasonably sustained. Think about the difference between these 3 boost setups:
- Cap booster
- SBA2
- L Pith X-type
versus Although the pilot has the option of activating both ASBs simultaneously for a large burst tank, they are limited to the time they can do this. In the first setup, they will have higher HP/s and a longer running time than if the second pilot were alternating the ASBs. The real problem is the entire eXtra Large line of shield boosters, not just the XLASB. The up sizing of boosters provides huge HP/s burst tanks that can be supported by a cap booster with 800s for quite a while especially if your weapon system doesn't eat cap. The XLASB is the true abomination as it provides massive HP/s for 0 cap expenditure and also provides cap warfare immunity. If you can shoehorn 2 of these bad boys onto your hull for something like: You are really only killable through raw alpha or simply eventually running out of boosters. If you can afford faction boosters this gets even worse as you get more boosts per reload cycle and you can fit more of them in your cargo hold to boot. Congratulations on comparing a 1m ISK module to a 2b ISK module and establishing that the 2b ISK module is slightly superior. *bows* I even thought about editing that into the original post, but thought "Nah, nobody will take this out of context and they'll surely be able to understand the overall balancing intent to the examples." Guess you proved me wrong. I have been sufficiently punished and won't forget this valuable lesson for some time to come.
In all seriousness, the original comparison was between LASB and L Pith X-type. If you do the math, you burn 30 mil ISK every hour you spend alternating the two LASBs. So you have to spend 13 hours repping before it actually costs more than the 399 mil ISK Large Pith X-type module. We can go back and forth arguing total cost of ownership and increased risk of gank for hours and come to no better conclusion than anyone else has before. The point here was simply looking at repair potential in that context alone. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 15:51:00 -
[51] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:As far as the web bonus is concerned, I'd like to see them fix the underlying problem instead of treating the symptom. The only reason you need webs at all on a BS size platform is to control smaller ships that have gotten "under your guns". In PVE this isn't really a problem because a single flight of light drones with even basic drone skills can bring them down quickly.
In PVP where those smaller ships don't have crap tanks and no hitpoints to speak of that flight of drones won't even scratch their tank. A BS is completely helpless against smaller craft. The exception being cruise missile ships with target painters and precision cruise missiles. 2-3 painters and precision will make them go pop quite nicely. Turret platforms are just out of luck in this situation.
I don't know how you fix this without doing a complete weapon system rework. A good start would be to forklift the existing tracking formula and start with something a little more realistic. Like smaller ships being harder to hit farther away instead of easier... This is pretty much working as intended. The smaller ship has far fewer hitpoints, less range, and lower damage than the large ship, in exchange it's harder to apply damage to and has a chance against larger ships by avoiding damage. Eve is not supposed to be a linear progression like with, say, World of Warcraft swords where you "level up" or in this case gain skill points and everything gets progressively bigger and better. Certainly Battleships are bug and useful and the mainstay of a lot of combat but is it really a problem for them to be out-done in solo situations by smaller more maneuverable craft? Personally I'd say no, that's fine. What's the problem with Cruisers and Frigates as more viable solo ships compared to big lumbering Battleships? Besides as we've already established you *can* fit to deal with these smaller ships it's just going to hurt you in other ways. I agree with you about the general intent of the current system. It would make for a very bad model if moving up a class made you trump anything below you. That's not a game that would be particularly interesting to play. I'm more talking about the complete ineffectiveness of larger hulls to deal with ships that are down a class.
Unless the battleship fits cruiser size turrets in some of its highs its only option for dealing with small targets at close range is to deploy light/medium drones. The problem is that a flight of lights/mediums doesn't pack enough punch to break the tank of those targets. Unless you have utility highs and fit heavy neuts you don't have many options for escape either.
The role is reversed at range with the smaller ship risking getting blapped off the field just because it's at range. Not a fun prospect for the cruiser/frigate pilot too. What I'd like to see is the removal of those two extreme cases. The cruiser/frigates smaller size should offer some protection at range which decreases as it gets closer, while the BS wouldn't become completely ineffective against smaller targets at minimal range. No certain death for the cruiser/frigate pilot at range and no guaranteed lockdown for the BS in CQ. I think that would be more balanced and offer a more dynamic environment.
Note: As I mentioned earlier, with precision cruise and 3 TPs or 2 bonused TPs a missile ship can apply 75%+ damage to said targets at all ranges. I know this is what sets missiles apart from turrets. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 14:57:00 -
[52] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote: My main concern for a long time now has been he way to huge repamounts given the basehp. On a lowsec vargur (HG crystals, CS-links, strong blue), you're achieving something around the 7k shieldboosts, or near 80% of your max HP. While it is okay for shields which are easy to apply tahnks to instaboosts, go over to armor <.<
10k buffer, repping 6k with each AAR cycle.... sure. Nice design. This' gonna bleed structure nonstop.
Cycletime and capreduction is mostly the only choice to not mess it up with the uberapplications made possible by ASBs/AARs.
I share your concern about these ubertanks and you make a good point. However my concern is from a different perspective. I simply don't think it's OK for a battleship to have a 6 or 7k tank, not without logistics support and certainly not a permatank. This is said by a person who regularly flies solo (or dual box) self rep pvp in a variety of hulls. If anything, you'd expect me to welcome this kind of tank but actually I don't. I get almost 2k/s from a hyperion and that can stand up to 3 or 4 ships easily... for a while. And that's the point. Making a last stand while tackled is one thing. Easily beating off 8 assailants without batting an eyelid is really no fun for anyone. It's just not challenging. If bastion has a role (and I am not sure that it does), it should be in evasion, not tanking. Marauders already tank sufficiently - particularly since the local repair buffs. They don't need any more OPness in PVP - 1500dps from a blaster kronos is fine. What they could use is a way to operate in hostile space while having a good probability of returning in one piece. Having read most of the posts, it seems to me that simply making them a bit faster and increasing the tractor beam range and speed, plus maybe a little powergrid and CPU would mean that we'd see more of them in space. Having done that, we could look again at whether they need further work. This bastion thing is an idea looking for a home. That home is not on marauders. This is why I wanted to remove the active tanking bonus from the ranged version of bastion while swapping it out for a raw HP buffer on armor and shields for the stand-and-deliver bastion module/script. This provides the "last stand" scenario without reducing incoming damage or increase self repair. It simply adds time to live. You can't do this with resists because although they increase EHP just like a boost to raw HP, they also increase the local repair EHP/s values as well. That double dip is what makes it too much. I think a boost in time to live would be great. In the case of you versus a group, you might be able to kill mail an additional foe before losing the hull. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 21:42:00 -
[53] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Rapid Heavy Missile Golem for the win. Agreed. That was about the only part of that show that really made me smile. Might actually be able to split your launchers and TPs and engage multiple targets simultaneously :) Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 21:48:00 -
[54] - Quote
Also. I couldn't tell during the stream, but were they talking about a new tractor beam MODULE or deployable STRUCTURE? If it's a module, that works nicely with the Marauder bonus. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 06:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
If I understand the new loot grabber, I guess you would drop one of these in the middle of a wreck cloud and have it tractor things in and loot them leaving a pile of empty wrecks to salvage. I see at least one problem with the general idea: aren't wrecks collidable objects? Won't this cause some issues as the wrecks start to pile up? How are you supposed to get to the structure to empty/reclaim it if the thing is surrounded by wrecks?
So you would fit 3-4 non-bonused salvager II modules and maybe add a flight of salvage drones into the mix? What kind of range are we talking about on the beams? Can you repackage the structure and move it to the next room of the mission? Not only will you have to return to the structure to retrieve your loot, you'd have to stay right next to it to salvage effectively. I'm not sure how big an upside you're going to get. If they just made regular tractor beams auto loot wrecks and containers once they are within loot range, it would be far better.
I have a counter proposal.
Salvage Drone Hive I
- Inherits deploying pilot's drone control range modified by skills but NOT ship fittings
- Inherits deploying pilot's salvage drone operation skill bonus
- Hive Neural Core increases base salvage drone difficulty by 2/lvl of whatever skill is required by the module
- 25mb drone bandwidth
- 125m3 drone bay
- 200m3 salvage storage bay
- Replaces destroyed drones automatically unless operation is suspended
There are two benefits I see to this approach over the loot grabber. First, some players care more for the loot, others care more about the salvage. This depends heavily on what is being looted and salvaged. The hive would offer a convenient way for pilots to salvage while actually running the mission without dealing with the loot if they don't want to. However if a player only wants the loot, they can fit their tractor beams and continue on as they do today. No real change to mission running habits.
Second, it provides a nice bonus to salvage time which is usually far more time consuming than moving the wreck into salvage range. Especially when using salvage drones with their max 13% access difficulty bonus. The hive would allow drones to reach 23% which is still 2% less than T1 salvager modules at max skills and no rigs. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 18:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
Even if you deploy one of those structures, it's going to pull all the wrecks into one location. You'll still have to sit within 5k of the thing to be able to salvage those wrecks or have to wait for your salvage drones to bring the stuff back to you if you are further away; after which you'll have to return to the structure to pick up your loot. This cycle would repeat FOR EVERY ROOM of the mission. So basically unless you deploy and stay next to it you are adding even more travel and loot time to every room of the mission than you have now.
If you go with a salvage based structure as I proposed earlier, the salvage is collected into a single location leaving only loot cans from the wrecks that had loot to begin with. Think how much time would be saved by not having to relocate the empty wrecks. If the structure tractors all wrecks, both empty and non-empty, it spent time relocating wrecks that didn't have loot. If you don't plan on salvaging and only looting this wastes valuable time. If it doesn't relocate empty wrecks, now you still have to fit a tractor or 2 to retrieve those wrecks for salvaging unless you are using salvage drones.
I think I'm going to do a separate thread about that structure and some alternatives. As it stands now i don't think it provides any real benefits to the Marauder class and might not really help other hulls either. Salvaging is the real time consumer especially if you use drones. It's not the relocating of wrecks, at least not in my experience. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 15:05:00 -
[57] - Quote
My issue with the current iteration is that it restricts playstyle choice over the version on TQ. The TQ version is flexible enough that a pilot can choose short or long range weapons. You can snipe from afar, sit and brawl, or as I like to do simply slowboat to the next gate as I clear the room. This is possible because the current set of bonuses are agnostic in how they apply to these playstyles (web bonuses not withstanding).
Iteration 2 fails to maintain this flexibility by reducing the base hull's capabilities through reduced speed, base EHP, and local repair potential. You do get T2 resists. However this only benefits some of the hulls and not all of them. The bastion attempts to return some of these abilities such as local repair potential. However the drawbacks of the module preclude it's use in the slowboat playstyle. The MJD role bonus is very nice for pilots who enjoy sniping their way through a mission. However, since the MJD range is not yet adjustable it is of little use to slowboaters or brawlers. The web bonus might be useful to slowboats and brawlers but does very little to improve the snipers gameplay.
Taking the sum total of bonuses on the hull and the proposed bastion module you might think they are quite powerful. However the hull and bastion bonuses don't cooperate to create a cohesive piloting experience. I'm all for T2 specialization as a general balancing concept. However, the selection available at the battleship level is quite limited. You have Marauders and Black Ops and that's it. Blops covers several realms of play and roles (and should probably be split up at some point). Marauders currently fill the direct combat T2 role but are purposely made less desirable in PvP due to abnormal sensor strength.
I would wholeheartedly get behind the idea of making Marauders the king of sniper warfare and adjust the bonuses to make that role even stronger, but only if the other types of direct combat were represented by additional hull classes. As it stands now, no one style of gameplay will able to utilize the full spectrum of hull and bastion bonuses. This doesn't seem to be the best choice for moving the Marauder hull class forward into the future.
Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 20:24:00 -
[58] - Quote
Lair Osen wrote:You both seem to be looking at this from a fleet doctrine view. It seems very clear these ships are not meant to be used in fleets and I really don't know why anyone would since they're so expensive for little dps benefit over t1 (and dps is the only thing that really matters in a fleet). However, the MJD is Very useful in PvE, especially since, with the PG buffs, its a lot easier to fit long range weapons, and many PvEers will be perfectly happy and able to sit still at 100km with double tank and more range for only a minute. Especially since the MJD means that if some scram rats get under its guns It can just MJD away when the rest of the minute is up. You are correct in that the MJD works for that very specific form of gameplay. However, it does so at the expense of all others. Although this follows the T2 specialization theme some what, again the problem is that there are no other T2 options available currently besides Blops.
You are taking a hull that is already in place and used by a group of pilots in many different ways and relegating it to a single usage scenario. That is bound to **** a good portion of those pilots off especially given the ISK and SP investment getting into one of these bad boys in the first place. Direct combat brawling or shoot as you go playstyles would no longer have a T2 representation at the Battleship level.
I personally don't really enjoy the sit at 100K style of play though I employ it at times depending on the mission specifics. It's about player choice and providing options. As I've said before, I would be perfectly happy to allow Marauders to become the kings of the battleship sniper role, as long as there are equivalent options available for the other playstyles as well. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 20:51:00 -
[59] - Quote
There are two viable options available to rectify the confused nature of the current iteration that myself and many others have been proposing since this thread started:
Pseudo T3
- Transition hull and role bonuses to be more commonly usable regardless of playstyle
- Provide specialization through the use of scripting of the bastion module or a set of unique bastion module flavors
This approach has many benefits. The base hull remains usable in most aspects of EVE while still working towards the general goals of T2 specialization. The drawback of this approach is that it is a little too similar to the T3 concept of using subsystems to designate roles.
Separate roles into additional hulls or classes
- Move Marauders into sniper role
- Create brawling T2 BS hull class
- Abandon bastion module or significantly modify its bonuses
This approach would produce the most normalized T2 Battleship experience based on other T2 ship lines. It would also not be possible to do for the winter expansion.
To be honest, I'd be happy with the results of either approach as it would provide the necessary set of options to pilots wishing to employ their preferred playstyles. That said, I believe only the first option would be remotely possible to implement for the winter release.
I provided a very detailed post outlining one possible incarnation of the first option many pages back that attempted to satisfy most of the requests or comments presented in this thread. Many others have provided similar or different but just as acceptable solutions to the current situation. I'm pretty pleased with the level and quality of feedback we, as a community, have proved the dev team. If they only half listen to that feedback, we'll see the Marauder class shine. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 21:59:00 -
[60] - Quote
I still think you need something of value to balance the bastion module against or else you either wind up with a poorly constructed hull that must have the bastion module fitted to be viable or you the hull is good and the bastion module is worthless in most situations because it would make the hull over powered. I think we're in the former situation with the current iteration because the hull by itself is less effective than it's T1, faction, and pirate equivalents. You have to fit a bastion module to even recover some of what was taken away from the TQ version of Marauders.
What I mean by value is that currently, the bastion module occupies a UTILITY high slot. Since the hull has 4 of these, you have to balance the bonuses provided by the bastion module against what ever you could fit in the 4th utility slot. The value algebra looks something like this currently:
hull bonuses - hull weaknesses + 4th utility slot capabilities ~= hull bonuses - hull weaknesses + bastion module bonuses - bastion module drawbacks
I think the developers realize that a 4th utility slot isn't worth that much in most situations so they added additional weaknesses to the hull and threw in several significant drawbacks to the bastion module. This pretty much requires the bastion module to be fit because it is trying to fix the inbuilt weaknesses of the hull.
Some pages back I suggested changing the balancing equation to be more equitable. The idea is to balance the power of the bastion module against a trade off of bonuses instead of negating inbuilt weaknesses. As part of that I suggested making the bastion module occupy a turret/launcher slot and adding a turret/launcher hard point with the new 8th high slot.
To make sure a 5 turret/launcher setup didn't simply eclipse the T1, faction, and pirate battleship lines I suggested lowering the role bonus from 100% weapon damage to 70% weapon damage. What you end up with is a ~9% increase in hull DPS potential over the current TQ Marauders (in line or below the pirate DPS potential) if you fit all 5 weapons. However, you now get to balance the power of the bastion module against 20% of the hulls maximum DPS potential; allowing the bastion module to be much more powerful than it is today. Here's what the new value equation looks like:
100% DPS potential ~= 80% DPS potential + bastion module bonuses - bastion module drawbacks
One example bastion module designed for sniper fits could ensure that at any extended range the pilot would be able to use ammunition 2 grades higher than they normally would. For example extending optimal and falloff so you could use multifrequency instead of Ultraviolet or Standard. This would pretty much recover the loss of the base 20% DPS. Then you would add additional bonuses that support the sniper role further. That would be a trade off worth having. If you're going to deploy in the sniper role, you would fit that bastion module as you would have equal effective DPS as a 5 turret/launcher fit but be better at the sniping role. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 22:40:00 -
[61] - Quote
Wedgetail wrote:thinking another part of the problem also is ccp confusing a ship's role with its function within that role.
most t2 ships can perform several roles but have a specialty in performing one function within their role.
as an example: a heavy interdictor is a type of brawler with the specialized function of tackling EWAR immune ships
a curse is a skirmisher that focuses on the functions of energy warfare and tracking disruption.
a marauder now is a broad spectrum ship, it specialises in performing many roles and can do so due to its damage projection and utility high slots, but at the cost of poor targeting and lower fitting and EHP.
what it really needs isn't so much a rebalance as a reinforcement - it already does something well it just needs to be brought in line in such a way that it surpasses t1 hulls.
you could almost fix the marauders simply by giving them the same kind of base HP as the t1 battleship counterparts, and reducing the ECM weakness slightly.
if you do this they're better at brawling than t1 hulls due to cap warfare, could run remote repair doctrines, or could snipe
their lower speed still excludes them from most kite or skirmish warfare but the damage projection means they can pose a challenge to those too.
they still would not beat any one ship in terms of raw damage or cost effectiveness - but they would provide something that the typhoon used to, and that is a ship that can pull pandora's box on you if it needed to - by being able to swap quickly between different styles based on situation.
the only reason i suggest this kind of specialization (in being versatile team dependent hulls) is because of the prior point of having so few battleship hulls on the t2 level that can bridge into specific doctrines, the marauders and blops aren't like frigs and cruisers that quite literally have one hull capable of performing 2 or more roles per and a specific function inside that role,
they have two ships between 5 roles, the blops gets the specialized function of the jump drive (mobility) and between the races has specific functions within most doctrines
panthers kite, redeemers tank, widows have ECM and the SIn is just useless and forever will be ;)
- the marauders get a mix of different tactics that depend on working with other ships to fully utilize, which is great but for it to be worth doing it needs to be easier to support these ships in combat, they lack mobility and so need staying power.
for now, just buff their ehp and sensors, then after you've added more t2 battleships you can set to work on giving them function specializations that match those seen in cruiser sized hulls - stop trying to balance these ships using the same rule set the cruisers used - they aren't cruisers and their circumstances are very very different. I agree with you there. The best approach would be to expand the line of T2 battleships to provide a framework for roles and usage scenarios. The problem with that is it's not going to happen for the winter expansion and they seem set on making much larger scale changes to the Marauder class. A sensor and EHP boost while leaving the hull alone would be acceptable to me, but there would still be some issues with the underpowered racial hulls within the class. The Golem is pretty much strictly worse than the Navy hulls. The RNI and SNI separate nicely into the gank-or-die and flying-brick roles respectively and are very effective hulls with coherent bonuses and capabilities. I prefer the SNI for missions personally as I tend to pop triggers at inappropriate times Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2013.09.30 11:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
I keep seeing people post EFT numbers on repair potential with and without bastion that are simply created in a vacuum. They simulate maximum numbers with billions of ISK in modules, implants, and pills. You'll also notice that those posts don't include running time at those numbers, DPS potential, or any other pertinent information about how that ship would operate on the field.
It simply doesn't provide any real benefit to this discussion as these would be considered fail-fits when viewed holistically. Regardless of the maximum repair potential these ships are tens of thousands of EHP short of their T1/faction/pirate battleship cousins and will quite easily be F1'd off the field in even moderate size engagements.
I do find the remote repair platform version of the Paladin posted above interesting. However, even if it did rep the same amount as 2 guardians, at what range would it do so? Also, the benefit of 2 guardians is that you only loose half your gang/fleets repair potential if you lose one of them. You can also field 2 guardians for much cheaper and the two together would have significantly more EHP between the two of them.
I'm all for collecting information about what these hulls are capable of using the current iteration numbers. However, I think we need to ensure that those numbers are representative of real-world viable fits. Otherwise all we are doing is providing a skewed picture to the devs and community that will ultimately ensure the Marauder class is subpar compared to anything else. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2013.09.30 16:46:00 -
[63] - Quote
Overall I'm fairly pleased. The base hull will be quite functional without the bastion module fit. The bastion module has a purpose now in both survivability (resists) and repair potential. Those two things added together will offset the loss of RR pretty well in all but medium to large engagement sizes.
I think there's room to leave the T2 resists in place while possibly scaling back the bastion resist bonus to like 20% to help out the incursion runners. I'm still voting for the bastion module to require a turret/launcher hard point with that 8th high converted to a hard point. With the lowered role bonus the hulls will see about a 9% increase in base DPS over TQ. It would give the non-bastion mode a decent gain to balance the loss of tank from not fitting the bastion module. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2013.09.30 17:11:00 -
[64] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:CCP thanks for coming back on this thread finally but seriously bad decision just saying to everyone who has given feedback that u dont really care what they say.
Cant see why your choosing the route of 30% on bastion, while it will give a good tank while in bastion, noone will want to enter it because your too vulnerable while you cannot receive RR.
It needs to be just T2 resists everything else was fine in the OP - though tractor beams & slot layout need looking into because of the new deployables
If you go back through the thread, the overwhelming consensus was that the first iteration was preferred over the second. That being said, I agree with you that there's still a need for something outside of bastion use to make these hulls attractive in and of themselves. There have been several very good suggestions along this line.
Xequecal wrote:People should not be complaining about these, except to complain that they're too strong. 30% unstacking global resists on top of partial T2 resists and a tank bonus is absurd. Dual XLASB Vargur/Golem are not reasonably killable without involving capital ships.
They just need to fix the dual (any size) ASB setups. It's a problem regardless of hull class. The repair bonus on Marauders just make it a glaring issue. A simple 1 per hull rule like the AARs have would clear that right up. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2013.09.30 17:33:00 -
[65] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Just think about it this way: Say you put 2b into a Vargur. 4guns/3neuts, mid slots for MJD and dual XLASB tank, low slots 3 damage mods, DC, TE. 1b for the hull and 1b for mods. What combination of ships that costs 2b can kill you? The only thing is a massive blob of cheap T1. Basically any gang in T2 or higher ships will never be able to kill you unless they both outnumber AND out-ISK you. That's the definition of broken. Is there a non-ASB fit that produces the same result? It's not the hull or bastion that's broken it's the ASBs. And I agree with you that a dual ASB fit Marauder is going to be stupid broken. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 02:39:00 -
[66] - Quote
The paladin with a L Corpus-X, 2xEANM II, DCU II, and ANP II comes in at these numbers:
Bastion Active EM: 82.54% - 2434.36 EHP/S - 83,605 EHP TH: 77.30% - 1872.42 EHP/S - 75,599 EHP KN: 77.13% - 1858.5 EHP/S - 82,088 EHP EX: 79.05% - 2028.83 EHP/S - 93,077 EHP Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 03:56:00 -
[67] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:You just compared a 4-Slot + 1 Rig Armor Tank with a 5-Slot Shield Tank. You compared a 1x LAR armor tank to a Booster+SBA shield setup. You compared a Deadspace Line that increases ressource consumption with a deadspace line that decreases ressource consumption. You also found close to a decade old differences between shield and armor. Nothing about those numbers should come as a surprise to you. The numbers don't surprise me at all. The two setups are similar in that they are both 5 slot fits; the difference being 1 rig versus 1 mid slot due to module availability. It does no good to use the "less resource" Corp armor repair module in the comparison as it has the exact same HP/cap ratio as the Corpus.
The post wasn't so much about the age old difference in repair potential between armor and shield tanking, but to highlight that difference when applied to Marauders when a bastion module is active. It is merely meant to be informative to anyone reading as to where the hulls sit in the realm of local repair potential. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 04:17:00 -
[68] - Quote
What I'm really interested in seeing is the stats for the new Rapid Heavies. You'd be looking at ExRad of ~116m and ExVel of ~135m/s with 2xRigor II with Furies and ExRad of ~67m and ExVel of ~140m/s using CN ammo. A missile boat with the ability to down engage would be quite fun Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:35:00 -
[69] - Quote
They could always compromise:
- T2 resists on the base hull
- Keep the 7.5%/lvl local repair bonus on the base hull
- Make Bastion slightly better than a DCU II 12% shield resists, 15% armor resists, 65% hull resists (only bastion or DCU can be fitted at one time)
This would effectively give all the hulls a low slot if you planned on using a DCU in your fit. It satisfies the call for T2 resists to help non mission based PVE. It is still equal to or better than the TQ version when tanking missions without bastion. And if you choose to use bastion, you recover the low slot of a DCU, have better tanking potential and range. That would be something I could get behind. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 16:47:00 -
[70] - Quote
I wonder what the total increase in mission times will be when you add all of these things together:
- Lower base speed
- Higher base mass (lower acceleration for AB/MWD)
- Higher align time
- Lower warp acceleration/deceleration
- Lower top warp speed
Did I miss anything here? Depending on the number of jumps away the mission is located and the number of mission gates you have to use this could be a pretty significant increase in total mission time compared to today. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 19:17:00 -
[71] - Quote
I think there are much better ways to encourage the use of MJD and the bastion module on the Marauder hulls without taking a knife to the hull's "sensitive bits".
MJD Simply allow the adjustment of jump range through a script, abort, or some other mechanic. This could be as limited as 100km and 50 km. With the cooldown time role bonus I think you'd see a lot more pilots using this propulsion module. It supports the sniper and brawler play style in PVE as NPCs disrupt and not scram. There is no need to make the base hull a-brick-trying-to-slide-down-a-ramp-covered-with-sand-paper-while-submerged-in-molasses-on-a-frozen-tundra kind of slow.
Bastion Module This is a much more difficult problem to solve. The crux of which revolves around the current value equation used to balance the module's power. Since it currently only replaces the 4th utility high slot which in and of itself doesn't provide much value, the power level of the module has to be balanced by added significant drawbacks to its use; such as immobility and exclusion of remote assistance.
On paper the overall effect is balanced. However, when applied to EVE world scenarios, the drawbacks severely limit the module's possible usage in dangerous areas such as low or null security space and make it unattractive in engagements that favor remote assistance. As I see it the resistance and local repair bonuses are offset by the remote assistance exclusion while the EWAR immunity is paired with being immobile. The range bonus is a nice trade off for the loss of the 4th utility high slot.
The base hull bonuses as they stand now with Iteration 1 are pretty decent and are at least coherent. If it goes live as-is we'll see Marauders used as they are used today with maybe a few more pilots leveraging the MJD and/or bastion modules. It's not great but at least the current users won't be terribly impacted by the changes (except the drone bandwidth/bay nerfs). I don't see a compelling reason for the number of Marauder pilots to increase with these changes. This saddens me as I have always loved the idea of the Marauder hulls if not some of their implementations.
I'm going to go back and update my Marauder proposal to include all the great feedback that's occurred in the some 100 pages since I posted it. By no means do I expect any of it to be used by the developers, although I do hope it might lead to a greater consensus as to what we as a community want from the Marauder class. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 19:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
Gargantoi wrote:Rep bonus back = + 1 ccp ...but i dont understand 1 thing ..why paladin has 40 exp basic resist on armor ? while golem is still 0 on em shield as well as kronos beeing 10 at exp ...maybe a missclick ? anyway ..now what u need to do is give them a lil bit more dmg ..say 10% bonus to theire dmg / rof per level ..or make them all use 5 heavy / sentry drones ... The Marauder class has "Pseudo T2 resists". This includes a +10% resist bonus on one of the 4 categories. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 21:52:00 -
[73] - Quote
Here's an updated version of Iome's Marauder Rebalance. All Marauder hulls would receive these changes over the TQ version:
- T1 Sensor Strength
- T2 Resist Profile
or
- Balanced Resist Profile
- Role Bonus: +10 Access Difficulty for Salvager and Salvage Drones (replaces tractor beam bonuses)
- Role Bonus: 70% reduction in MJD reactivation delay
- +1 High Slot (total of 8)
- +1 Launcher Hard Point (all races)
- +1 Turret Hard Point (all races)
- Role Bonus: 70%(-30%) Weapon Damage
- Can fit Bastion Module
The main thrust of the Iteration 1 changes could stay (i.e. fittings and capacitor) but I would remove the base velocity reduction, increased mass, and drone bay changes.
T1 Sensor Strength This I could do without if necessary. It would be a nice modification though.
Resist Profile and Hull bonus to local repair I do think as T2 hulls, Marauders should provide some benefit to survivability in ALL types of engagements whether that be PVE or PVP, solo or in a gang/fleet outside of using the Bastion module. The hull bonus to local repair works well for small scale PVE and PVP where logistics support isn't as prevalent. It doesn't however translate well to larger scale engagements.
Giving T2 resists would be the path as the numbers are already defined for each race and are a know quantity. Another pilot suggested the use of a special resist profile designed for omni tanking setups that consisted of resists being similar across all four damage types.
By no means do I want to see the hull bonus to local repair removed. It is a hallmark of the Marauder class and is necessary to ensure the base hull is as functional as the TQ version.
Not my tractor beams! Depending on the capabilities of the new auto-loot structure this role bonus might remain valuable or become utterly pointless. In the latter case, I advocate for the replacement of this bonus with an equivalent bonus to salvaging. The +10 came out of my posterior, so feedback is appreciated.
5 Weapon Hardpoints! WTF! Oh, the role bonus changed too... This is the most radical change to the base Marauder class included in this proposal. It is important to understand the reasons behind the changes and their ramifications. The combination of the additional weapon hardpoint and reduced role bonus come out to a 9% increase in maximum DPS potential over the current TQ Marauders, and offsets some DPS loss from the drone bandwidth changes. In all cases except the Paladin, this is still equal to or less than the maximum DPS potential of the corresponding Pirate battleship. This would provide a compelling reason for pilots to spend the training time and ISK required to fly these ships without nullifying the attractiveness of their Pirate cousins.
It also provides a new framework by which the Bastion module can be balanced if that module was modified so that it occupied a turret/launcher hard point. Under this framework the bastion module would no longer be balanced against the value of a 4th utility high slot, but would now be compared to 20% of the hull's maximum DPS potential. The massive drawbacks of the bastion module would no longer be necessary to balance it's power. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 21:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
Here's the base Bastion module and two example scripts that would fit this new value framework:
Base Statistics
- Occupies a turret/launcher hard point
- 10 CPU
- 100 PG
- Duration 60s
- Immobile while active
- One per ship
- Skill requirements: High Energy Physics (should change) & Energy Grid Upgrades 5
Weapon Stability Configuration (long range)
- 50% reduction of MJD spool up time
- +75mb Drone Bandwidth
- 25% increase of turret optimal and falloff range
- 15% increase to Cruise Missile and Rapid Heavy damage
- 25% increase to Cruise Missile and Rapid Heavy velocity
- 50% increase to Cruise Missile and Heavy Missile hitpoints
- 25% increase to maximum targeting range
- 100% increase to scan resolution
- Immune to Tracking Disruption, Sensor Dampening, Sensor Jamming, and targeted ECM
- 100% increase to optimal range of Remote Sensor Boosters and Target Painters
This script is designed to enhance a remotely deployed Marauder's ability to apply damage, avoid disruption, and provide spotting capabilities for fleet/gang members. This script does NOT negate incoming remote assistance. The MJD spool up time reduction allows more breathing room if an enemy gets too close.
The increase in range will roughly allow most weapons to use at least one tier better ammo, with some being able to jump two notches. This equates to roughly a 10-15% increase in damage application which negates a significant portion of the 20% dps loss from 1 less turret. The increase to drone bandwidth adds even more DPS potential through the possible addition of 3 sentry drones. The added missile velocity and hitpoints should help to minimize the reduction of damage due to defender missile use.
The targeting range expands the engagement envelope to include most ranges that would result from a MJD activation regardless of initial target distance. The bonus to scan resolution should allow the Marauder to quickly lock targets in response to priority changes.
The EWAR immunity in this version is selective to include only targeted effects that would otherwise reduce the Marauder's ability to project and apply it's damage. While the increased range on Remote Sensor Boosters and Target Painters provides Marauders a specialized role in targeting support.
The idea is to ensure that a Marauder under WSC will win any fight in which its enemy chooses to stay at range while remaining vulnerable to CQ encounters. WSC truly specializes the ship's role while limiting it's use outside the designed engagement envelope. While long range weapons are greatly enhanced, the use of this script with short range weapons fails to reach parity with the loss of an active turret/launcher. A wing of these ships would be quite effective as they could each fit remote assist modules and repair each other as well.
Area Denial Configuration (beachhead)
- 100% increase to local repair amount
- 30% increase to global resistances (non stacking)
- 25% reduction of incoming energy drain and neutralizer effectiveness
- 50% reduction of turret signature resolution
- 20% reduction of Torpedo explosion radius
- 20% increase to Torpedo explosion velocity
- Drone Bandwidth reduced to 0 (Deployed drones marked abandoned)
- Disrupts all remote assistance within 25km reducing effectiveness by 75%
- Increases optimal range of smart bombs by 50%
- Cannot be remote assisted
This script enables the Marauder to engage the enemy in close combat while disrupting their supply lines. It is designed to be the first ship into the breach opening up a path for more to follow.
The increase in local repair amount coupled with the increased resistances provide significant staying power. The ship would still be vulnerable to the application of heavy DPS or focused alpha strikes. It's ability to local repair would also be bolstered by the reduction of enemy cap warfare effectiveness.
The bastioned Marauder would be able to apply its damage very effectively even against smaller targets. The 50% reduction in turret signature resolution provides almost medium turret levels of tracking versus smaller targets, while the 20% bonuses to explosion velocity and radius do the same for torpedo platforms.
An ADC Marauder would be able to significantly disrupt an enemy's logistics once engaged. It would likely be unwise for an enemy to enter the 25km range unless it's willing to meet the Marauder on its terms. Marauders employing this script would most likely carry neutralizers or smart bombs in its utility highs under this model. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
85
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 22:46:00 -
[75] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Aglais wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Aglais wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Amazes me how balancing the marauders nad finding a role for them woudl be to make them stay parket in hangars because there will be no place in eve where they are the best choice for the job. The fact that they're only going to ever be parked in hangars implies that their role has been removed though does it not? I don't know about you guys, but i'm going to be flying the hell out of a cruise Golem.. As an owner of a cruise Golem, I'm probably going to sell it, because the bastion module's benefits do not at all in any context outweigh it's drawbacks seen thus far (not to mention the other pointless stat nerfs to the hull itself that put the Golem into the "what is moving" state that most capitals end up in). Keep in mind too, the WARP SPEED of Marauders is going to be tanking as well. So they've just got WAY, WAY slower, in ALL respects, and must be STATIONARY for their main gimmicks to actually be applicable. So ISK/hr is probably going to end up going down due to exceptionally awkward quantized 100km jumps in mission sites (the hull's too slow and heavy for an AB, and the MWD uses too much capacitor to be considered with awful agility), longer time for the Golem to actually REACH the missions (and return to station)... Pretty much the only "pro" that happens here is that you can massively downgrade your tank because bastion mode can compensate for it. Basically, these changes drain literally any semblance of fun from the hull, and believe it or not, both fun and isk/hr are things that I consider in terms of missioning. Well, i'm interested in bastion mode. That said, the cap, velocity, and mass nerfs p!ss me off I really wish they would revert these 3 things as there is no purpose behind them. I have to agree with the sentiments here. At least with the turret boats you get to use better ammo and see bigger numbers while deployed at that range. The added range/missile velocity does nothing to enhance the pilot experience.
I am also very worried about the impact on mission times with the combination of velocity reduction, mass increase, warp speed reduction, and warp acceleration reduction. There are two aspects to this: travel to and from the mission site and local travel within the individual rooms. I don't think there's any way to improve the former situation unless you allowed remote mission turn-in. The local travel is still up in the air. We'll just have to see how well the reduced MJD cool down works for the latter. If the MJD distance was selectable, local travel would be improved overall and maybe recover the time lost in warp.
Edit: Actually looking at the new warp speed/acceleration info, a T3 will probably do laps around a Marauder during mission travel time. If a T3 cuts that in half, is 3x as fast during local movement, and is only 25% slower than a Marauder in kill times I'm not sure why you wouldn't just fly one of those. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2013.10.10 02:47:00 -
[76] - Quote
I haven't had time to get my sisi client set up due to work. Has anyone been able to test the new RHML on the Golem? With the TP bonus you can pretty much apply full damage (sig not speed) to cruisers and above with furies. That would open up at least 1 mid slot for tank or utility. A load of precision could be devastating to frigs. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.10.14 04:25:00 -
[77] - Quote
I would still like Marauders to gain a role specialization that corresponds to the play style that is being encouraged through their hull bonuses and the Bastion Module. What I mean is that it's pretty obvious that the current iteration lends itself heavily towards the sniper style of play. The added range for damage projection along with the bonus to MJD reactivation align well with this play style. However, the total package falls short of providing a true role specialization within the sniper play style. There is simply no clear reason to select a Marauder for this role over another BS hull; there are just trade-offs.
Here are a couple of ideas I've had on how the base hull or Bastion module could be modified to promote role specialization within the sniper playstyle:
Marauder as Long Range Tactical Support
- Bonus to maximum targeting range and sensor resolution
- Bonus to Remote Sensor Booster optimal range and effectiveness
- Bonus to Target Painter optimal and falloff range
- MJD reactivation synchronization within 15 km
These bonuses together would make including at least one Marauder in your sniper wing beneficial. It would become the sensor platform for the wing and allow the remaining wing members to avoid fitting SeBos. The target painter range bonus allows the Marauder to provide spotting and target acquisition support to the entire group. The MJD synchronization would reset all friendly ship MJD reactivation timers within a 15 km range each time the Marauder's MJD reactivation timer completed. This way all sniper wing members would be able to relocate simultaneously without having to have the entire sniper consist of only Marauders. The overall effect would entice groups to include at least 1 Marauder without completely overshadowing all other BS hulls in that role.
Marauder as Safe Zone
- Increased Remote Assistance effectiveness within 15 km range (still immune to RA itself)
- Bonus against targeted EWar to all friendlies within 15 km range (still immune to EWar itself)
- +2 (or more) warp strength to all friendlies within 15 km range (only while immobile in Bastion mode)
The Marauder would increase the overall safety and survive ability of those around it. Although the Marauder may be sacrificed, the remainder of the group would be able to escape nearly any situation. It wouldn't be very powerful but would at least provide an interesting flavor to possible engagements.
Ultimately I just want a well defined role for the Marauder class that leverages the play style the current hull favors. When considering group engagements I still don't see a compelling reason to include a single Marauder within a long range group other than marginally better damage projection. The local repair capability while amazing during solo play doesn't lend itself well to group activities. On the other hand, the bonuses only need to encourage the inclusion of a few Marauders and not require the entire group to consist of them. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.10.14 04:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:It's a cool concept, but that would basically make the marauders moving auras or fleet boosters on top of the proper fleet boosters with ganglinks. Also would make marauders primaries all the time, and highly unlikeable due to their high price. I tried to pick combat aspects that weren't necessarily covered by links but there is some overlap. There just isn't a good reason to include a marauder especially at their price and SP cost in any sort of moderate sized PVP activities and their use in group PVE activities could be improved as well. Something to provide a real role would be nice. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 21:32:00 -
[79] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Here's an idea: Give each Marauder two (2) additional launchers -or- two (2) additional turrets (not both), just to give Marauders a bit of anti-frigate/cruiser capability. Since they'd be light or medium weapons, they won't receive any of the hull bonuses, with any DPS increase being a bare minimum. As far as that goes, if we're talking light weapons here - why not give them four (4) additional launchers or turrets.
If need be, increase the grid and CPU cost of Bastion to prevent abuse (I haven't played around with the Marauder fits, so maybe it's extremely tight for grid and CPU already; I don't think you could run any additional large turrets or launchers even with an ancillary rig - possibly a pair of mediums or a quad stack of lights, but that's probably it). In theory I guess you could possibly get away with a fifth large launcher or turret, but I imagine you'd sacrifice your rigs, a low slot and a lot of tank for the extra DPS. That's not necessarily a bad trade-off, and it does make Marauder configurations a bit more of a wildcard (you'd probably have to drop the MJD to pull it off).
It would make these a bit more interesting for PvP (and with the ability to fend off small ships, I can actually see Marauders venturing out of high-sec). Marauders are supposed to be the end-all/be-all of battleships: Tank, glass cannon or anti-ship - a few interesting possibilities with unique roles. Thoughts? This is similar to an idea I've put out there a few times and works towards really defining a true role for the Marauder class. Instead of saying they are a sniper by giving a slight boost to projection (stacking penalized at that), actually making them play a role within the sniper play style.
Modifications
- +1 turret hard point (Paladin, Kronos, Vargur)
- +1 launcher hard point (Golem)
- Role Bonus: 75%(-25%) weapon damage
- Bastion module occupies a weapon hard point
This equates out to a 9.375% DPS increase over TQ Marauders if all 5 hard points are occupied by weapons. The effective turret counts would look like this:
- Paladin TQ: 10
- Paladin New: 10.9
- Nightmare: 10 (I know, I don't like this either. More later)
- Golem TQ: 8
- Golem New: 8.75
- Kronos TQ: 10
- Kronos New: 10.9
- Vindicator: 11
- Vargur TQ: 10
- Vargur New: 10.9
- Machariel: 10.9
All pirate hulls will be doing greater or equal DPS than their Marauder counterpart with just guns alone except the NM. If taking drone DPS into account all pirate hulls will still out DPS the Marauders. In the case of the NM, it will still be doing more DPS with short range weapons due to greatly increased tracking over the Paladin.
The real fun begins when considering the effect on the Bastion module's power threshold since you would have to give up 20% of your max DPS (-12.5% compared to TQ Marauders) to fit it because it would occupy one of your weapon hard points. The module can be improved over the current iteration because you are giving up something valuable: DPS. Here's an example of what I'd like to see:
Bastion Module
- 33% scan resolution while active
- 40% max targeting range while active
- 100% increase to optimal and falloff range of remote sensor boosters
- +75mb drone bandwidth (deployed drones over bandwidth are abandoned when cycle ends)
These items would be in addition to the current Bastion module bonuses and drawbacks. A Bastion fit Marauder would excel at the sniper play style and gain the role of targeting support for the gang or fleet. The additional damage projection through optimal/falloff or missile velocity in conjunction with the increase in drone bandwidth would easily make up for the DPS loss of the 5th turret while the targeting bonuses would allow the Marauder and his group to quickly react to a changing battlefield.
Overall there isn't much movement in total DPS over the current iteration. However, the Maruader would have a well defined role in any sort of group engagement. Brawling Marauders would enjoy the added raw DPS potential while the Bastion module would not make up for the loss of DPS from 1 less turret/launcher in a close range encounter.
As it stands now, the current iteration loses a little too much DPS through reduced drone bandwidth. The damage projection bonuses don't make up for that loss completely. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 21:46:00 -
[80] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:[quote=Arthur Aihaken] Modifications
- Vargur TQ: 10
- Vargur New: 10.9
- Machariel: 10.9
Vargur TQ: 10.67 Vargur new:11.67 Machariel: 11.67 Oops, forgot those bonuses. Thanks! Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
|
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 23:52:00 -
[81] - Quote
Never mind. Just remembered the Ewar immunity immunity of the target spectrum breaker... Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 00:15:00 -
[82] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:Iome Ambraelle wrote:snip I quite like this idea. However Bastion would be giving drone bandwidth, scan res, targeting range, resists...a bit too much. However, the Marauder would be losing it's Marauder status. I like the concept, and would work wonderful for a T2 combat ship based on the Maelstrom, Rokh, Hyperion and Abaddon, battleships made solely for damage (like HACs for cruisers), can they be called something like Heavy Combat Battleship? For Marauders I'll defend the fact that they need to be able to salvage and loot easily. Role Bonus: Wrecks within 10kms of the ship get salvaged automatically? (okay, a bit too far). What we all agree though is that Marauders lack raw damage, especially for the Minmatar Vargur. I think we matari got the worst lately. Speed and mass nerfs, our guns lack raw DPS, agility was thrown out...at least give us battleships that can alpha stuff via 1400! I'm not really worried about losing the Marauder aspect of Marauders as the current iteration pretty much already does that. My issue is that as far as long range engagements go the only major benefit Marauders will have over T1/faction/pirate hulls is minor projection, EWar immunity, and increased tank or equal tank with tank modules replaced with other modules. For this benefit, they are giving up all mobility, remote assistance, and a significant reduction in Sentry Drone DPS.
I'm afraid that for most roles there will be a better hull within the T1/faction/pirate categories than the applicable Marauder especially the drone oriented boats as that play style provides pseudo EWar immunity. The local tank potential of a Marauder is fantastic. However, in group play the addition of logistics is an easy match.
My idea isn't really as much about raw damage as it is about better damage when deployed within a role. When fit with close range weapons in all 5 hard points, the pirate alternative would still out damage the Marauder as I think it should be. The big difference would be when a Marauder is acting as a sniper in some role. In that case as long as the engagement remains at long range, the Marauder would out damage (raw or application) its T1/faction/pirate counterparts by enough of a margin to be attractive in that role. As it stands with the loss of drone bandwidth with nothing to compensate for it, it will bring less DPS than at least some (if not the majority) of T1/faction/pirate hulls. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
91
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 06:59:00 -
[83] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: You are a liar.
Go back through this very thread. Every single idea from pve players has demanded the removal of all drawbacks, more damage, webs dispite the fact these are long range ships, more tracking, full flights of sentries, more resists just to make omni tankz easier to fit and an utter lack of first hand testing. Most pve drones are trying to simlly turn these ships into yet another pirate BS. The simple fact is these ship are much better at almost all pve and very vible in several pvp roles. You however want them to be able to do just a single job, incursions. Dispite the fact thatt the pirate BS are better at this job anyway. I would consider myself primarily a pve player. However, I think if you go back through my suggestions you'll see that your blanket statement doesn't apply to everyone. I'm perfectly fine with drawbacks. I'm perfectly fine with Marauders as a class to be specialized within a role.
I do advocate a slight damage increase, although still below that of pirate BS counterparts in all play styles other than long range engagements. If the developers wish these hulls to excel within this envelope, there still are some issues with the proposed changes. Some T1/faction/pirate hulls still outperform their Marauder counterparts in this scenario due to drone DPS potential and equal or greater main weapon system DPS. The current state is pretty close, though it could be better. Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things. |
|
|
|