Make Marauders Great Again (MMGA)

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
65

When they went and spent years to “match” all the module names? Couldn’t do it all at once so sometimes the cap efficient mods were enduring sometimes the weren’t.

Current state i still see vets trying to help new players out with fittings talking about adaptive shield hardeners causing confusion.

Jump fatigue was meant to only reduce the projection of capitals fozzie said this himself. But it was applied to black Ops to keep it consistent. But in order to not hinder black Ops game play all the ships were given reductions to fatigue.

Bpo research was simplified in order to be less confusing and more approachable by capping how much they could be researched. But to ensure no one felt cheated any high researched bpo was simply converted to the new max giving a massive advantage to players who had them as many became unrealistic to fully research after the change.

Damn near everything to do with the new structures and their interactions with jspace.

The current state of remote reps is full of them trying to keep it simple but having to pile on exception after exception with little explanation. Especially in frig to cruiser and cruiser to capital.

The current busted state of regular carriers.

Originally during the reballance the stated goal was really simple.

Fax would be capital logistics. Carriers would be anti sub capital. Dreads would be anti carrier and fax. Super carriers would wreck capitals and titans would wreck supers.

They had a whole keynote explaining how they wanted them to create organic escalations.

But it’s ccp and this was a great example of a simple solution, so of course they couldn’t keep it that way. Players had long loved tracking dreads and well, gosh nabbit they wanted to preserve that. So they also have us HAW that could do a carriers job for significantly cheaper. And well it didn’t make sense that a Super carrier couldn’t also do what a carrier could. So now a Super carrier could swat both caps and sub caps.

And carriers? Well they could be oppressive with a gate camp… and that was about it.

66

I am really not in the mood to make this a quotewar, so just in short: all your examples only show what I already said: CCP doesn’t understand what K.I.S.S. means and except of keeping a simple design that is “easy to learn but hard to master”, they go with bandaid solutions and fixing stuff that often makes the whole result worse or opens up 3 new problems for fixing 1. Exceptions are always possible, but they should be nessessary in order to avoid bigger problems.

K.I.S.S. doesn’t require that Capital Ships do work like subcapital ships for example. And most problems could have been avoided by simply sticking to K.I.S.S. rules from the start instead of trying to bandaid fix it later.

Simple example, and on topic, is the plate/extender thing we currently see. New players come into the game and learn that there are active (boosters, reppers) and passive (extenders, plates) modules to increase a ships durability. They can do “show info” and see how many HP are added, they can easily understand that skills in handling these modules will increase this value. Then they learn that they would have to take resists into account when estimating the durability of their ship, but thats also intuitive, resistances are a part of most games, it’s an easy concept. They basically know that from any RPG they have ever played: Hitpoints + Defense from Gear/Resistance = durability.

Now they see that there are Small (S), Medium (M), Large (L) and Capital Shield Extenders. But suddenly XL-Shieldboosters, but no XL-Reppers. And Ancillary Shield boosters, running capless. But Ancillary Reppers don’t. Ancillary Boosters you can fit multiple, but Ancillary Reppers you can’t. Passivemods bring xyz HP, but on Battleships they bring xyz+50%. But if the Battleship is a Marauder, then they don’t. And for Armor Plates it is even more confusing. 50mm? 100mm? 200mm? 400, 800, 1600? Thats all crap. It’s confusing, it doesn’t make sense and most of all: It’s completely unnessessary, it doesn’t add benefit to the game to make it that complex, when a much more simple solution would have also worked: S, M, L, XL, Cap - modules for both tanking types, Ancillary Modules only 1 per ship, running capless and stronger as long as you have charges, eating much more cap and being weaker when out of charge. Deal done, easy to understand. Easy to learn. And any balance changes (if you encounter a problem that needs fixing because one type of module is obviously too strong) you do by tweaking the actual numbers of these mods, how many HP they give, how many fitting resources they need, how much cap they eat etc…

1 Like
67

KISS has nothing to do with the intermediate changes .
You add a lot of off-topic rants that have nothing to do with the topic.

That’s a lot of BS.
Please STFU when you have no idea what we are talking about.

68

linking shitfit marauders doesn’t exactly prove your case.
the Vargur with T1 guns? Looking at the mids, I’m going to take a wild guess they can’t use T2 shield modules yet. In which case: what in the name of Divinities Edge are they doing in a marauder in the first place? Looking at their killboard, I’m going to guess they’re not particularly knowledgable about the game.
A Golem with SIX capacitor mods? SIX? What hellish neut pressure are they facing in THE FORGE that requires SIX cap mods?
A Rail Kronos? RAILS on a KRONOS for hisec PvE?
None of these had even attempted a travel fit. Even without the buffer bonus, fitting some buffer may well have saved these ships. Fitting an AB may have allowed them to burn back to gate while overheating their reps.
Simply scouting their route would probably have saved all of them.
These really don’t make the case for marauders retaining the buffer bonus.

69

TLDR; I’ve revised the original post.
…

Marauders should have the native ability to lock up to 12 targets (with skills) without having to mount additional modules.

The Paladin needs another low slot; the Golem needs another low slot. Both can easily sacrifice a high to accommodate this.

Marauders still need the armor, hull and shield point buffer returned. You can easily reach 650+ EHP in a Rattlesnake without impacting DPS, so the argument for nerfing one class of battleship while leaving the rest is moot.
…

If the buffer isn’t going to be returned, then all Marauders should receive an additional +1 high slot (20 slots total). This would give the following (revised) results:

• Kronos: 8h, 5m, 7l
• Paladin: 8h, 8l, 4m
• Vargur: 8h, 6m, 6l
• Golem: 8h, 7m, 5l

70

A Rattlesnake does not have T2 resists.

Why?

71

Or bastion

72

You’ve convinced me. I’m no longer willing to compromise - I want all the nerfs back.

1 Like
73

Yet costs less than half, can passively tank just as much and has over twice the EHP.

74

But nowhere near the active tank. You know the main thing marauders are built for.

75

Rattlesnakes (along with some other Pirate ships) have only started recently coming down in price, so you can’t really compare what the meta was when they were stupid expensive to what they may be going forward.

(I’m not suggesting either that Rattlesnakes will be the new dominant force in Pochven or replace Marauders - just that it’s too early to tell where things may shift)

76

If you’re more interested in high buffer use the rattle.

T2 aren’t supposed to just be better they are supposed to be more specialized. The marauders specialized into active tanks.

Edit: Was a typo in the post you responded to and you replied faster than i could fix it

77

The last friend that had his Marauder ganked had it replaced by CCP because the “gankers” (plural) turned out to be one (singular) guy input broadcasting. This isn’t the exception - it’s the rule. It used to be the exception. So that’s what’s changed with respect to specialization.

Buffer is added insurance against cheaters - plain and simple.

For what it’s worth, I’m not disagreeing with anything you say - just that while the game may be the same - the rules have definitely changed. Null-sec just got a nerf, then a buff - then an un-nerf and kept the buff (at least for now). So asking for what’s been taken away to be returned isn’t unrealistic (and there’s definitely precedent).

78

Like i posted before tos violations are not something to be balanced around.

The vast majority of the gankers i know don’t input broadcast. Gank targets are the most likely to report you and you don’t last long with the logs show all your accounts activated weapons at the same time.

79

But apparently one abuse scenario (Pochven) is.

80

Right and my point is the EHP buff was making them far too oppressive in every other area of the game outside of hs ganks. And that you can’t just bring the buff back to protect against ganks without breaking them again everywhere else.

The vaurger and the golem were especially oppressive

81

Then return it for the Kronos and Paladin… Again, nerfing an entire class of ship because of 1 or 2 case scenarios is an overreach.

82

I said that they were especially oppressive, not that they were the only ones. The paladin with a few logi alts was nearly unstoppable especially in ls without dropping capitals.

83

You aren’t the one that needs to be convinced, CCP needs to be convinced. It would help if you could actually state why the nerfs need to be reversed and why they need to be buffed. You have a laundry list of things you want, but no reason as to why it’s needed other than wanting to be super safe against PVP.

84

Agree, Alot of people are anti this though.

Also your video says "REDACTED for your HP/Shield/ETC but nothing bout blocking the system in the corner.