These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Recons
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#21 - 2013-09-16 16:11:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Soldarius wrote:
Force Recons are already better at long range than Combat Recons. Combats don't get the cloak. But they do perform better at close range. They have useful dps and apply their bonused EWAR better than force recons.

Example: A Curse will still own most HACs solo, or at least be able to disengage easily.

The one thing that comes to mind right away is to give the Pilgrim it's neuting range bonus. Since dps on force recons is low across all races, making it into an effective neuting ship should make it a more popular choice for covert and blops gangs.

edit: With the recent changes to Nos, the Pilgrim could be an awesome addition in blops gangs, rather than the current POS that it is.

Agreed. The Pilgrim is the Recon most in need of help.

Either a range bonus or it might be interesting to go the route of making it fast enough (even cloaked) so that it can actually get in range to use it's neuts. Being able to apply the power of it's neuts (or NOS) has always been the difference between the popular Curse and the unused Pilgrim.

I personally have always felt that a speed bonus when cloaked is an overlooked option that can be very powerful. In the past it simply hasn't been a large enough bonus to become as powerful as it should be.

I suppose for the class as a whole we could consider a slightly different route than other classes have taken. Allow both Force and Combat Recons to cloak, however all of their high slots are weapons slots. The choice has to be made to either mount the cloak or to mount the extra weapon... depending on the role you want to fulfill. Either way you would still have the ability to use a covert cyno bridge.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Emily Jean McKenna
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-09-16 17:48:44 UTC
Seriously, lower the ranges? What are you smoking? Its not pot, must be crack...

All you will do is shelf the rest of the Combat Recons. They are flown rarely as is. Havent seen a Rook in years (in pvp anyway), Curse some, Havent seen a Lechesis in years either... Huggin on the other hand I have seen...

Hell the Cov Ops Recons are few as well... Pilgrims are just wrecks waiting to happen, Falcon is flown of course, Arazu sometimes, and the Rapier is used.

Recons need as much of a boost as any of the other T2 ships on the shelf. Logistics and Recons need to be revamped next.
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#23 - 2013-09-16 18:47:00 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
high slots?

its a fleet ship...


i would go for removing their weapons altogether. same with ceptors.

they can be made in very effective and balanced specialized platforms, after all they are not supposed to bring the pew pew.


Keep your filthy mits off my Taranis!

For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2013-09-16 18:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Ranger 1 wrote:
Either a range bonus or it might be interesting to go the route of making it fast enough (even cloaked) so that it can actually get in range to use it's neuts. Being able to apply the power of it's neuts (or NOS) has always been the difference between the popular Curse and the unused Pilgrim.

I personally have always felt that a speed bonus when cloaked is an overlooked option that can be very powerful. In the past it simply hasn't been a large enough bonus to become as powerful as it should be.

And suddenly "+ speed while cloacking" bonus makes sense.
One can tinker with variable mass if someone thinks that it can make the first prop cycle (while cloaked) too good of an asset... Which I doubt is even a problem.

GreenSeed wrote:
high slots?

its a fleet ship...


i would go for removing their weapons altogether. same with ceptors.

they can be made in very effective and balanced specialized platforms, after all they are not supposed to bring the pew pew.

So I heard pew on ceptors helps against drones sometimes...

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-09-16 19:14:17 UTC
The recon range isn't fundamentally flawed like several other ranges are or were, so it isn't top of the priority list for revision. There's some internal tweaking to be done to slot layouts, hardpoints, and weapon bonuses of individual hulls to get rid of some anomalies and issues, but not a glaring across-the-board issue that needs fixing.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#26 - 2013-09-16 22:29:47 UTC
Emily Jean McKenna wrote:
Seriously, lower the ranges? What are you smoking? Its not pot, must be crack...

All you will do is shelf the rest of the Combat Recons. They are flown rarely as is. Havent seen a Rook in years (in pvp anyway), Curse some, Havent seen a Lechesis in years either... Huggin on the other hand I have seen...

Hell the Cov Ops Recons are few as well... Pilgrims are just wrecks waiting to happen, Falcon is flown of course, Arazu sometimes, and the Rapier is used.

Recons need as much of a boost as any of the other T2 ships on the shelf. Logistics and Recons need to be revamped next.


I fly a rook quite frequently and I can say that if you fit for hams then its a very reasonable idea to reduce jam ranges.

infact I don't kniw why there is no module out there that lets you trade range for strength or vice versa. This module has never been considered? And if one were to be made to be fair I think it should be a mid/high slot rather than a low slot.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#27 - 2013-09-20 16:02:20 UTC
personally i would be in favour of reducing jam range as a stronger drawback for the sheer power of ecm.

atm
43km optimal 48km falloff on lv5 skills.

then most ecm ships fit sig amps and ecm rigs and links that all can boost range.

Falcon
2 sig amps
2 ecm range rigs
lv5 skills

66km optimal 48km falloff

considering atm falloff works as optimal for ecm for some odd reason means you can get well over 100km easily.

as falloff doesn't work atm on ecm i would consider just removing it entirely so new ecm range would be 43km instead of 91km.
Or an alternative is make falloff reduce ecm strength by 2 points per 10km's and just half optimal and falloff range so

21.5km optimal range with 24km falloff on lv5 skills

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Previous page12