These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#841 - 2014-12-19 13:31:04 UTC
Levina Windstar wrote:
Meaby I missed the info but if the recon is immune to D-Scan, will we be able to scan it with combat probe?

So the only way to be "immune" to combat probe is to be cloaked?

EDIT : Typo

You will still be able to combat probe a Combat Recon unless it is cloaked.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#842 - 2014-12-19 13:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
How is the situation different between landing on grid with a dscan immune Lachesis and a cloaky Arazu? I really don't see it at all. In both case, the ship can see you coming in warp, and you can't see it before you land. They both point the same distance, and in basically the same time. So why is it better to have this new Lachesis than it is to currently have a cloaky Arazu?

Your second point, again, is completely the same as the current situation. You can't see cloaky ships currently coming in either, so why is it different that you can't see the new dscan immune ships coming in when they perform basically the same function.

Because the lach won't have to be on the ball and make the player action of decloaking sufficiently in time to have cleared their decloak delay. The lazy lach ****** can just see you land and go 'oh, something to tackle' and ruin your day. They won't be caught out trigging their decloak from their dscan assessment just to find you'd warped to a nearby offgrid tactical exactly to provoke that response in order to test for awake recon pilots!

It's promoting brain-dead gameplay from those that already have the numbers advantage because they're risk-averse blobbers. In a game supposedly with a huge basis in risk:reward.


Ah. OK, I see your point now, thanks for the explanation.

I'm afraid I don't agree that this is a problem particularly though. I think that the number of pilots whom currently warp to nearby celestials in an attempt to persuade possible cloaked recons on grid to shed their cloak and get rid of the targetting delay is extremely small, and that the ability to avoid giving the game away to those few clever pilots will not be considered worth giving up the ability of cloaked ships to remain undetected by far more numerous interceptor and covops scouts.

So I don't think this change will result in people picking the combat recons over cloaky recons any more commonly than they do now, and when they do choose to take the combat recon I don't think they'll be particularly more successful at tackling people who warp to them unsuspecting.
Basically:

Holy **** you need to stop consider these future changes won't cause changes in people's behaviour! It's not like people are stuck in their chosen ships & are just getting a random chance at a buff or nerf on each balance change. People mostly train things that are effective (rather than pure looks, especially outside of PvE or super-casual play), and they'll cross-train to keep in ships that are effective. Where effective can either be what's FOTM OP, or what counters it if it's the regular thing to encounter in space. We don't pick a starting race, begin with T2 cruisers, and get frozen in that bubble world. Chars & SPs aren't pre-set draws off of a roster.

Why wouldn't people choose the objectively better combat recons over cloaky ones? Why wouldn't people short-warp if cloaky recons were more common & disadvantaged by the decloak timer mechanic? How would this change not negate this balance mechanic and negate the extra game knowledge & effort a skillful player would wish to use if only short-warping would continue to be of value?

Also: in lowsec there are no numerous interceptors and covops scouts. Because of no bubbles and because of sentry guns. By design. (In theory to give roaming BCs and BSs some viability too, back before superfast cruisers). And the fact is that the decloak timer mechanic exists, it is there as an option for a skillful player to take advantage of. Removing any reason to fly a recon that suffers it removes an option to approach the scenario beyond just comparing dps & ehp/rep numbers on paper.

There needs to be a space in the game mechanics for piloting to make a difference! For a player to become the pivotal piece and craft their story. Not for it to be written before they undock/come out of warp.
Zedah Zoid
Good Eats
#843 - 2014-12-19 13:31:47 UTC
CCP, just put in the d-scan immunity and watch what happens. You'll know soon enough if it's completely OP since you're now actually paying attention to your game and trying things and removing things that don't work. Good job, keep it up. I think this is potentially a fun change and I'm all for it. Give us something new to figure out how to use and counter. That's why we play, right?
Heleana Commodus Luyseyal
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#844 - 2014-12-19 13:42:22 UTC
Local invis for force recons Big smile
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#845 - 2014-12-19 13:43:48 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
There is a couple things here I am concerned about:

  • ECM still offers no counter play. Effectively rendering a player unable to do anything for at least 20 seconds plus the time it takes them to relock anything. 99.99% fo all combat in this game involves locking a target. ECM drones turn any ship into a diet Blackbird. ECM needs to be revamped from the ground up and should not involve removing a players ability to play the game.
  • Celestis being incredibly powerful from 100+km is silly.
  • If it turns out combat recons not being on the directional scanner is an option, perhaps showing the ships as the T1 version of the ship instead would be a good compromise. i.e. the directional scanner shows an Arbitrator on scan when in fact it is really a Curse.
Semi-related, but what are the odds of a new high slot module that can not be fit if there is any type of cyno fit as well, only allowed for recons and means they do not appear in local? Perhaps I am dreaming a bit too hard here.


The counterplay to ECM it's the damp from Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis.. Hell, Keres does a great job at that too :)

How do you do that when you are jammed? Ugh


You lock before the recon?
You know, a sebo helps. All ECM ships are using a full rack of ECM mods. I rarely see Falcons with a sebo.
So, use a sebo. Or a Keres which has a better lock time :)
Devil Seven
GeoCorp.
The Initiative.
#846 - 2014-12-19 13:50:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Devil Seven
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.

  • Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.

  • The Pilgrim. Opinions seem mixed, gaining neut range is obviously nice but many of you still feel that giving up neut strength is too harsh, or that some other added power is needed (more damage for instance). Will get back to you on this as soon as possible but it's possible that we will make adjustments.

  • RLML for Rook. Sure. Consider it done.

  • More low slots for Lachesis. Not sure yet on this one, will talk it over here and see what we can do.

    • Hope that answers some questions. I'm sure many of you would rather have more explanation for the dscan immunity change so I'll try to get that post together as soon as I can.

    Thanks for all the feedback.


    Yeah the lachesis is in real need of love 4 lows or a lot of base armor (15k to 20k) I can make do with 3 lows that way or it has little use to me
    flaming phantom
    Unlimited LTD
    #847 - 2014-12-19 13:54:41 UTC
    Wow, interesting. Definitely makes me never want to solo in medium plexes again, but otherwise quite interesting

    All great men have mustaches
    Flyinghotpocket
    Small Focused Memes
    Ragequit Cancel Sub
    #848 - 2014-12-19 14:04:29 UTC
    Lelob wrote:
    Flyinghotpocket wrote:
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Flyinghotpocket wrote:
    why the literal **** isnt the curse getting a 5th low? do you still want shield tanking curses? i mean thats totaly un amarr.


    I know right! Thats like minmatar having to armor tank a muninn... oh? That exists.. probably deal with it like minny pilots do. You at least have wtfpwn neuts going for you.

    Well look on the brightside, at least your kin and explo resists will be really high.

    deal with what? how minni pilots can change tanks on a whim and amarr cant? ok no thanks i dont want a shield curse i want a god dam armor curse. 4 lows on a punisher is one thing but on a ******* CRUISER designed to be armor tanked is another. especially when your always forced to have a stupid reactor control on it.



    Here's a good solution. Make the curse, AS AN AMARR SHIP, capable of armour tanking. Man wouldn't that be novel.

    no **** dumbass. that is exactly what im saying, give the curse a 5th low so it CAN armor tank.

    Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
    Xsaggie
    Doomheim
    #849 - 2014-12-19 14:05:34 UTC
    Changes look good, of course the rook and falcon are completely useless as ECM is still very broken. Plus why not give the falcon launchers, the dps out of that thing is totally pointless with Hybrids, plus it needs the cap for its useless ecm mods.Pirate
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #850 - 2014-12-19 14:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
    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.

  • Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.

  • The Pilgrim. Opinions seem mixed, gaining neut range is obviously nice but many of you still feel that giving up neut strength is too harsh, or that some other added power is needed (more damage for instance). Will get back to you on this as soon as possible but it's possible that we will make adjustments.

  • RLML for Rook. Sure. Consider it done.

  • More low slots for Lachesis. Not sure yet on this one, will talk it over here and see what we can do.

    • Hope that answers some questions. I'm sure many of you would rather have more explanation for the dscan immunity change so I'll try to get that post together as soon as I can.

    Thanks for all the feedback.



    The increased EHP is not THAT much. People already tried to engage those ships when possible out of their resit profile.
    Because these recons already use a lot of their tank slots ( most are shield) to ewar, so they cannot realistically get a very strong tank. Effectively. How many recons fit more than 2 tank modules? That is VERY rare.


    Even on small scale these ships already need to be very very careful to stay out of real guns, because they are very fragile. The last recon I lost died in like 10 seconds to an orthrus that got a good warp in. Even webbing him (and I was not webbed, I coudl not pull out range before a SINGLE orthrus killed it (with minor contribution of an interceptor keeping a point on me). I do nto think the extra resist will be too much.

    If the stronger resist is too much, then revert the resists and increase a bit the base HP of the defense layers.

    AND DO NOT SKIP THIS: Check for huggin PG. It is clearly an arti ship but will be too hard to fit with this PG. REALLY too hard.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #851 - 2014-12-19 14:12:31 UTC
    Xsaggie wrote:
    Changes look good, of course the rook and falcon are completely useless as ECM is still very broken. Plus why not give the falcon launchers, the dps out of that thing is totally pointless with Hybrids, plus it needs the cap for its useless ecm mods.Pirate



    the guns are there just to whore on KM. And the falcon is not useless at all. On small scale warfare is one of the most annoying ships a small gang can bring.

    It just does nto scale well in larger fights.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Haege Azizora
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #852 - 2014-12-19 14:13:54 UTC
    I hope you can overhaul Dscan before giving that bonus to Combat Recon.

    A simple idea:

    Bigger ship has bigger scan range, pod has very limited range. Give Combat Recon more dscan range than other ship same class, and you cant see them on dscan unless they are within 1-2 AU.

    Even F-22 cant complete steath against Russian's radar Lol
    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #853 - 2014-12-19 14:14:08 UTC
    Tethys Luxor wrote:
    Basicly, the whole dscan feature is outdated.
    All ships have the same equipment
    - same dscan range
    -100% chances to work (except 0% chance on cloak / minute)
    - same visibility on dscan of others -ability to see the ship name like a beacon :)

    It would be good to include scanner strength and range, and partial results. Using target' signature radius would make sense.
    Advanced dscan ability could include ability to reminder given ship's signature and links with combat probe scanner.

    I guess CCP Rise answer pointed in a dscan change direction


    Hell yes.
    This will be so nice to have. Sig radius and ECCM mods to determine when you show on dscan will be pretty cool.
    Even better if the same rules will apply to local channel :P
    Kendarr
    The Congregation
    RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
    #854 - 2014-12-19 14:15:32 UTC
    TheButcherPete wrote:
    Something to balance this suggested Recon change would be to only have the immunity active when traveling at sublight speeds, and when in warp the ship diverts too much to the warp core to keep the immunity field up.

    also if Recon capacitors end up needing a slight nerf, this would be a neat lore idea.



    pretty pointless. its seen or not seen at all.

    Zebra-Corp
    Epigene
    Cordata Enterprises
    #855 - 2014-12-19 14:21:42 UTC
    Giving the Combat Recons a unique bonus seems like an excellent idea. I always wanted a Rook but for my purposes, a Blackbird did the same job for a fraction of the price. And since I pretty much lose every ECM boat I am engaging with, price is an issue.

    As wormhole resident, I like this a lot.

    My blog
    maCH'EttE
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #856 - 2014-12-19 14:26:06 UTC
    S'No Flake wrote:
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    S'No Flake wrote:
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    There is a couple things here I am concerned about:

    • ECM still offers no counter play. Effectively rendering a player unable to do anything for at least 20 seconds plus the time it takes them to relock anything. 99.99% fo all combat in this game involves locking a target. ECM drones turn any ship into a diet Blackbird. ECM needs to be revamped from the ground up and should not involve removing a players ability to play the game.
    • Celestis being incredibly powerful from 100+km is silly.
    • If it turns out combat recons not being on the directional scanner is an option, perhaps showing the ships as the T1 version of the ship instead would be a good compromise. i.e. the directional scanner shows an Arbitrator on scan when in fact it is really a Curse.
    Semi-related, but what are the odds of a new high slot module that can not be fit if there is any type of cyno fit as well, only allowed for recons and means they do not appear in local? Perhaps I am dreaming a bit too hard here.


    The counterplay to ECM it's the damp from Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis.. Hell, Keres does a great job at that too :)

    How do you do that when you are jammed? Ugh


    You lock before the recon?
    You know, a sebo helps. All ECM ships are using a full rack of ECM mods. I rarely see Falcons with a sebo.
    So, use a sebo. Or a Keres which has a better lock time :)

    You are asuming that he/she has a alt that is flying around with him. How about the solo player or even a small pvp group that has no cele or any other ship to "counter" ecm.
    You are absurd and so is your logic. You are thinking everyone flies in a fleet of 20+ where there is logi, ecm or even ecm counter, and links.
    This is OP, its not bad enough that a falcon has a lock range of 120km, and they do jam over 80+km. Now the rook will not be on d-scan. WTF.
    RUIN pvp more why dont you.
    Yeah yeah, add mods to counter ecm, only if eccm worked.
    ECM SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME FOR GOOD.
    RISE AND FONZIE HAVE F'ED UP THIS GAME, ESPECIALLY SOLO/SMALL GANG PVP.
    maCH'EttE
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #857 - 2014-12-19 14:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
    Niart Gunn wrote:
    I'm still wondering about this: Dscan immunity makes Combat Recons encroach on the role of Force Recons. If the purpose of this treat is to make them stand out as a unique ship class, how is giving them half a Covert Ops cloak for free working towards achieving this goal? Just because that line of text has never been used doesn't make the effect actually unique. Fact is, it is very similar to Covert Ops cloaking, and actually better in some cases, like the fact that there are no windows in which you're visible or no locking delay when setting up a trap. Especially for a ship like the Pilgrim there will be very little reason to use it, as long as the Curse does the job so much better while being almost as hidden. There is a case for this for all other races' recons too, the ability is so similar to Covert Ops cloaking that unless you absolutely need to be invisible on grid, there is very little reason to use the Force Recons (except maybe the Arazu for lowslots alone), as they are not only short one slot on their Combat counterpart, but also have to fit a cloak and thereby sacrifice a high, whereas Combat Recons get dscan immunity for free.

    Also, the situations this treat caters to are mostly blobbing and ganking, while hurting the small guy the most. I know, there has been a long tradition in eve for this anyways, but does it really need to be continued? Regardless of similar things already being possible with cloaks (that have their drawbacks and actually use up a slot), is it really necessary to introduce yet another mechanic that reinforces camping of different places of interest, and make it even more important to have alts while being largely useless to a roaming gang? At the end of the day I think this just doesn't add any valuable gameplay over what we already have, while making things more tedious for people who can spare less numbers for scouts.

    If you want to obscure information from players, it would be much better to either introduce sort of a Mobile Scan Inhibitor in ship form that remains on scan itself, or better yet, start reworking the entire intel gathering in eve towards a system that is more dependent on ship signatures and sensor strengths, where information becomes more detailed the closer something is, or the more narrow your scan angle becomes. A thorough overhaul in this kind of fashion would be much better than an arbitrary gimmick like dscan immunity for 4 ships in the game.

    CCP Rise wrote:
    Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse.


    Nice logic. So that would mean the removal of local would result in more fights, since the lack of local means the gang considering engaging something never knows that they can't deal with what they can't see, like it's the case in wormholes, right? Because people do not want to take extra risks is exactly why they will work very hard to get all the information possible, now involving getting on-grid eyes or combat probes as well, both of which might scare your potential target away too. Imagine the gang considering engaging the two Vexors seeing that there are 4 members of the corp they want to fight in local, not only will this slow everything down, because that gang now has to get a scout on grid with or probing the Vexors, but also will likely no fight happen because either there are the two Rooks or the Vexors will run because they get scouted.

    VERY GOOD POINTS MY FRIEND.
    AND RISE, LOL MY GOD YOU HAVE LOST TOUCH WITH THIS GAME.
    *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
    First they dont see the rooks so they dont fight,
    Now they are not on scan, they fight, they get raped, ECM OP.
    They never fight again!!
    How is your logic logical lol.
    Xsaggie
    Doomheim
    #858 - 2014-12-19 14:39:54 UTC
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    Xsaggie wrote:
    Changes look good, of course the rook and falcon are completely useless as ECM is still very broken. Plus why not give the falcon launchers, the dps out of that thing is totally pointless with Hybrids, plus it needs the cap for its useless ecm mods.Pirate



    the guns are there just to ***** on KM. And the falcon is not useless at all. On small scale warfare is one of the most annoying ships a small gang can bring.

    It just does nto scale well in larger fights.



    I know what your saying, but every other force recon can put out at least some dps, the rapier for example can get around 300 ish, which is pretty much what you want for its role as anti frig, the falcon at a push might get to 150? Doesnt seem balanced at all to me, though with the changes to missiles for the rapier, maybe that is going to be impossible to reach now too. ECM is VERY ineffective compared to other recon modules, neuts - very effective / webs - very effective, ecm with great skills and modules still only hover around 30-40% effective, and that is with racials, multispecs those numbers drop by almost 50%.

    On a separate note I also dont see how these ships close the gap to t3's at all, they all sport extremely hard tanks and decent dps, none of these ships are able to bring that to the table, as someone else pointed out, most are shield fit, and most need most of their mid slots for their respective roles, perhaps the answer is to buff midslots up ALOT?
    ArmyOfMe
    African Atomic.
    #859 - 2014-12-19 14:40:51 UTC
    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.

  • Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.

  • The Pilgrim. Opinions seem mixed, gaining neut range is obviously nice but many of you still feel that giving up neut strength is too harsh, or that some other added power is needed (more damage for instance). Will get back to you on this as soon as possible but it's possible that we will make adjustments.

  • RLML for Rook. Sure. Consider it done.

  • More low slots for Lachesis. Not sure yet on this one, will talk it over here and see what we can do.

    • Hope that answers some questions. I'm sure many of you would rather have more explanation for the dscan immunity change so I'll try to get that post together as soon as I can.

    Thanks for all the feedback.

    <3

    GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #860 - 2014-12-19 14:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
    Can we please get ore sites moved back to signatures rather than anomalies at least in WH space its bad enough we have cloaked ships to worry about but at least you had a slim chance to catch them when they decloaked b4 recloaking when entering system now we have no warning against some thing like Lachesis


    EDIT: Never mind for some reason my brain thought off D-scan meant not detectable by probes as well

    BLOPS Hauler
    The 16.8km Bubble