These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proteus - January] Recon ships

First post First post First post
Author
Tuscor
13.
Enigma Project
#1621 - 2014-12-23 12:23:58 UTC
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:
Instead of making them invisible to D-Scan, why not make them un-scannable by Probes

They could know you are there, but could do nothing about it

...


They will do something about it... they will dock up and deny the fight!
Fromtheold
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1622 - 2014-12-23 12:33:07 UTC
The real issue with recon ships is that they have not enough resists, even if you keep them as is and fix the resist issue they will already be much better and actually useable.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1623 - 2014-12-23 13:31:50 UTC
Fromtheold wrote:
The real issue with recon ships is that they have not enough resists, even if you keep them as is and fix the resist issue they will already be much better and actually useable.


CCP Rise wrote:

  • All eight Recons will have their resist profiles brought up to Heavy Assault Cruiser level

  • Reading is a valuable skill Big smile.
    Mr Doctor
    Sex Machineguns
    #1624 - 2014-12-23 13:31:57 UTC
    Thats kind of the point, they are hellishly powerful but not great in the tank department. They're called force multipliers for a reason.
    Barrogh Habalu
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #1625 - 2014-12-23 14:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
    Cassius Invictus wrote:
    Fromtheold wrote:
    The real issue with recon ships is that they have not enough resists, even if you keep them as is and fix the resist issue they will already be much better and actually useable.


    CCP Rise wrote:

  • All eight Recons will have their resist profiles brought up to Heavy Assault Cruiser level

  • Reading is a valuable skill Big smile.


    Indeed:

    CCP Rise wrote:
    Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:

  • Biggest concern at the moment is the added EHP. Making recons a more realistic fleet option next to T3 cruisers is good, making them too tanky in smaller situations where their ewar already gives them a lot of damage evasion may be too much. Not sure if change is needed but will keep looking at this and update again asap.

  • Mr Doctor wrote:
    Thats kind of the point, they are hellishly powerful but not great in the tank department. They're called force multipliers for a reason.

    There's another force multiplier, which is logi, there and enjoying full T2 resists. I can't cay that recons need those less if they are to be fielded in a fleet, although at this point there are other difficulties with that comparison, seeing how recons are generally becoming sneaky class.
    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1626 - 2014-12-23 14:33:14 UTC
    hellokittyonline wrote:
    Delt0r Garsk wrote:
    I am not sure why the dscan immunity is such a big deal. Instead of a Rapier, now i have a reason to fly a Hugin. What case does dscan change having a gang on a plex cloaked vers dscan immune? seriously whats the difference?

    And in WHs who the hell is flying around without a cloakie. We just don't fly non cloaks most of the time. I sure as hell aren't going to waste time ratting sleepers in anything smaller than a t3. It would just be far too slow.

    Because if I warp to a medium with a slasher in it for a GF, all I have to do is wait a few seconds to know if there is a pilgrim on the other side because he has to decloak PRIOR to me arriving in the plex to be able to lock me. Furthermore, said pilgrim has to be 30km+ (outside of pointrange) away from the beacon to cloak.


    You are wrong.
    Any cloaky waiting for you will only have to do 2 things:
    1. dscan
    2. as soon as something it's on dscan, uncloak and cycle the mwd

    As soon as you land he will be in range of the beacon, uncloaked with all the mods preheated already locking you :)
    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1627 - 2014-12-23 14:35:39 UTC
    Crosi Wesdo wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Crosi Wesdo wrote:



    Not even close. I would just like to point out that i have Recon and literally everything else to 5 in spaceship command. Ill fly whatever works. The problems i see come from how at the moment i have risk things to get content. With these recon changes i can effortlessly scout myself around and pick off targets with minimal effort risk or skill and a far greater conversion rate since people will get far less of a chance to run.


    This is different from covert cloaking with no cloak deatcivation penalty on locking how exactly? This is the point that defeats entirley what you say, covert cloaks are WORSE than d-scan immunity.

    Quote:

    Instead of putting words into peoples mouths you should really listen to what they say since it seems you have quite a lot to learn about debating (being unjustifiably patronising isnt winning), and about eve pvp too.

    ]
    You do recall that is was YOU who started the ball rolling by trying to discredit people 'because killboard' right? No one is patronizing you, simply demonstrating why everythign you believe is measurably and demonstrably wrong.

    I predict this will be just like the Faction Battleship rebalance thread where people claimed that the Navy raven would be useless (ended up being even more popular for the things it's used for) or the pirate ship rebalance where people claimed the Rattlesnake with it's 'super drones' would suck....which is why you see null alliance have RATTLESNAKE FLEETS now because null alliances always make fleet comps out of ships that suck lol.

    I enjoyed the aftermaths of those discussions when reality proved the nay-sayers wrong (not that any of them ever admit it). I will enjoy the aftermath of this one when CCP implements this change, everything turns out fine and those of you so vocal in oppostion pretend like you never said anything Twisted


    Pubquiz, which cov ops cloak has no deactivation delay. Im looking for a ship class and bonus points for telling me why on earth would i be bothered by one of them tackling me.

    Why are you even posting when you clearly dont have a full grasp of even the current mechanics?


    Stealth bombers
    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1628 - 2014-12-23 14:49:32 UTC
    Thanatos Marathon wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    lots of stuff


    Hows that worm fit with the combat probes coming along?


    MMO => Bring friends
    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1629 - 2014-12-23 14:52:24 UTC
    maCH'EttE wrote:
    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    hellokittyonline wrote:

    I do actually fly in gangs, albeit small gangs. The main reason I fly solo or in small gangs is because I am looking for a challenge. I however like to find challenges where my ability as a PvPer can surmount numbers, however with improper intel, and no way for me or my small gang to gain intel (aside from yet again one of us having a probing alt or *shudders* BEING the probing alt) it just gives another unneeded advantage to all the coolbros who want to pay to win. Dscan immunity not having some features of the covert cloak is not a downside. It is merely a(n arguably) lesser upside with no downside.


    If you fly in gangs then there is no problem. Your scout should have probes and a cloak anyway. Probes negate it's distance advantage, and having eyes on grid with a cloak shows you what's on grid waiting for you. Probes literally take seconds to get the same intel you would have gotten out of d-scan.

    So why all the "if you make me get another account I'll unsub and go play something else"?

    I swear you must fly in large gangs, cuz your repetitive lip keeps saying, probes, probes, scouts, probes, probe scout, scout with combat probes, combat probes.
    you must not have a clue on how small gangs or solo combat works. Some people dont have the luxory of flying in 20+ gangs with links/sout/logi/ecm.
    wait let me guess, get a cloaky scout with probes.


    You only need one. It's called hunter and it's usually a cloaky Arazu with combat probes :)
    CCP Rise
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #1630 - 2014-12-23 14:56:38 UTC
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

    Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • Finally, I will say again that the directional scan immunity is staying, though we are very aware of concerns (especially concerning FW site abuse) and will watch closely to see how this new capability is used and make any necessary adjustments.

  • Have a great Christmas o/

    @ccp_rise

    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1631 - 2014-12-23 15:00:51 UTC
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    so people are saying to 'just use probes'.

    how do I fit an expanded probe launcher to my thorax?


    Are you alone in your alliance?
    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    #1632 - 2014-12-23 15:02:37 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

    Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • Finally, I will say again that the directional scan immunity is staying, though we are very aware of concerns (especially concerning FW site abuse) and will watch closely to see how this new capability is used and make any necessary adjustments.

  • Have a great Christmas o/


    If everyone is worried about FW sites, just say that they put out a field that allows the recons to be D-Scanned, keeps its immunity in everything and is still useful until you land on the site.
    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1633 - 2014-12-23 15:02:44 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

    Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • Finally, I will say again that the directional scan immunity is staying, though we are very aware of concerns (especially concerning FW site abuse) and will watch closely to see how this new capability is used and make any necessary adjustments.

  • Have a great Christmas o/

    Glad to see y'all holding the line on the dscan immunity. I also think the pilgrim thing is a decent compromise. Good stuff.

    This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

    TheMercenaryKing
    Ultimatum.
    #1634 - 2014-12-23 15:03:09 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

    Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • Finally, I will say again that the directional scan immunity is staying, though we are very aware of concerns (especially concerning FW site abuse) and will watch closely to see how this new capability is used and make any necessary adjustments.

  • Have a great Christmas o/


    DScan immunity is the best bonus for this ship. Also, I would buff the combat recon resist profile, but not force. Combat recons would be the ones who need it.
    Reagalan
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1635 - 2014-12-23 15:07:03 UTC
    "Let's close the gap between Tech 3s and Recons and make Recons more viable in fleets.

    We will do this by adding a bonus to D-scans, which won't ever affect fleets.

    Oh, we're also rolling back the resistances change, which would have made them more viable in fleets.

    Have fun playing Tech 3s Online."
    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #1636 - 2014-12-23 15:07:42 UTC
    Not ANOTHER kinetic lock in :(
    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    #1637 - 2014-12-23 15:08:22 UTC
    I agree that the combat recons need a small buff to their resist at least. While the D-scan immunity will make it easier to get targets, its useless if most targets can just chew through you before you can do much of anything.
    CCP Rise
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #1638 - 2014-12-23 15:17:54 UTC
    We are disappointed too with having to pull back the resists for fleets. These ships just need that drawback to balance them at smaller scales where they are more likely to get used anyway.

    We have T3 rebalance, black ops rebalance, and potential ewar module changes on the horizon to help address this as well.

    @ccp_rise

    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1639 - 2014-12-23 15:20:14 UTC
    Thanatos Marathon wrote:
    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    Zemfadel wrote:
    So, these changes sound great to me but I can see how they could be problematic. Especially in wh space where ships that are designed to be very heavy tackle will now be undetectable until they land on top of you...


    Couldn't you do that with a cloaked T3 anyway?


    Nope, will show on DSCAN when it comes through the hole.


    You mean you don't have eyes on the open worm holes and combat probes out looking for new sigs?

    Then d-scan immune or not, you will still burn in flames at some point ... combat recons or not :)
    Fonac
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #1640 - 2014-12-23 15:21:43 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    We are disappointed too with having to pull back the resists for fleets. These ships just need that drawback to balance them at smaller scales where they are more likely to get used anyway.

    We have T3 rebalance, black ops rebalance, and potential ewar module changes on the horizon to help address this as well.



    Good work Rise!

    I look forward to the black ops, and what you have in store for the ewar changes.

    Now, hold off on work and enjoy the christmas!