These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#901 - 2014-12-19 16:18:43 UTC
Drew Li wrote:

Falcon and Rook

  • -50% ECM cycle time
  • +50% ewar optimal/falloff

This would make ECM more reliable and/or allow them to fit non-bonused ewar with significantly increased range. Target painting effectively from 150km for example. Something similar could be done with the scorpion as well.


Quoting someone that clearly has no idea how ECM works. This would be the singularly most OP buff to ECM ever short of a simple switch that says "Activate this module to permajam 1 ship."

3 years ago, I trained up recons and all my EWAR skills to 5 so that I could be the best I could be in a recon, despite the fact that recons are the number 1 targeting priority in any fight. Then recons got nerfed, stealth nerfed (HACs with insane targeting stats, caps, T3s, T1 tiericide/rebalance, etc) and nerfed yet again. They have been nerfed so many times that virtually no one flies them anymore. I have not seen a combat recon in space in years. Currently, there are very few situations in which a T2 recon is preferable to its T1 or T3 version.

Combat recons and the Pilgrim have been utter shite for years. The only reason you see Pilgrims is because it has a covert cloak. Their applications are very narrow and incredibly niche. Everything any combat recon can do, something else can do better. For non-cloaky work, T3s, T1s, and even pirate factions simply do it better. The proposed changes are vital and necessary. But imo they barely scratch the surface of what is wrong with recons.

The fact that so many solo bears are crying about how OP the d-scan immunity will be just goes to show how out of touch they are with the rest of eve. If you want risk-free solo PvE, run missions in hisec or rent space in the drone lands. But don't roam around in losec, w-space, or a conflict-ridden pirate-infested nul region and then demand that everyone you meet should have to play the game in accordance with your narrow and self-entitled mind-set.

When an area in a game devolves into a singular ship archetype or doctrine, and entire methods of gameplay or classes of ships are meta'd out, there is a balance problem that needs to be addressed. I have been asking for recon rebalance changes for years and cannot express how glad I am to finally have them put before the community for a public review.

My only regret is that testing D-scan immunity on sisi will be completely pointless. With caps everywhere at known locations, AT prize ships regularly fielded, and no pve of any kind, Sisi is simply not an effective test-bed for that kind of change. I predict it will go live on TQ with little testing. The other changes should see substantial testing and evaluation.

Bring it on, CCP RIse! My body is ready!

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#902 - 2014-12-19 16:19:50 UTC
Xsaggie wrote:
[
Im not saying do a 180 on ecm, im just saying make them more effective than they are currently, because at the moment they are pretty pointless, may as well just load up the rook with a full midslot tank instead haha
Missiles would make more sense on the falcon too agreed.



On my view. ECM right now is very powerful neutralizing small scale combat. and useless in large scale. And that is VERY bad for the gameplay. We can reverse that.




change ECM effect from unable to lock for 15 seconds to: Swap randomly your locked targets by other ships that you could be locking (from ALL the ships in grid, be friendly or enemy)


Why? Think on the result. in very small scale warfare it will have minimal results. But against a fleet it will ahve drastic results. Suddenly the enemy fleet will have a hard time to focus fire, their logistics will have a hard time repairing correct people, and even friendly fire will happen if people are not paying attention. They will work EXACLTY as an ECM should.. SCRAMBLING.


It is exactly what this game needs, a tool that is stronger against large groups than against solo or very small gangs. And the thing will not be so frustrating. BEcause the one udner effect can still lock thigns and can still do something. They can still fire ato some enemy, probably just not the one the gang is focus firing, its is MUCH more fun, and still very powerful against large fleets.

THe STrenght of the module woudl need to increase a bit to compensate for the bit weaker effect although.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Jeann Valjean
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#903 - 2014-12-19 16:20:07 UTC
Just wanted to add my two cents to the threadnaught.

I support the proposed changes.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#904 - 2014-12-19 16:21:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
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.

    Kudos for sticking to your guns RLMLs and not caving to the whiners. Recons may have nasty EWAR but they need the extra EHP from full T2 resists to be practical fleet tools (just adding more raw HP wouldn't really cut it due to fleet logistics).

    None of them do all that much damage really, and this really limits their power in solo and small gang situations. The Curse and Pilgrim are the only ones that get "full sized" cruiser DPS but non-sentry drones have other factors that keep them in check. I suppose you could cut the size of the drone bay a bit if you are worried about it.

    As for DSCAN immunity, the whiners can suck it. People need to learn to be less risk averse. Its a great idea that gives the class a unique flavor without being OP once everyone is on grid and the pew pew has commenced. Its not like the cloaky recons couldn't already do this anyway with just as much surprise EWAR love. It doesn't step on the toes of the cloaky recons either since only they get all the other powerful utility offered by a covert ops cloak.

    The proposed changes are great. Keep up the good work.
    Midnight Hope
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #905 - 2014-12-19 16:30:03 UTC
    Ripard Teg wrote:
    [...]and the smaller your gang, the more likely you are to be punched in the face by those implications.


    When Rice says that lack on information or intel makes people take chances is right...up to a point. After getting punched one too many times (as Ripard says) you start NOT taking chances and not engaging.
    Estella Osoka
    Cranky Bitches Who PMS
    #906 - 2014-12-19 16:31:32 UTC
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    Estella Osoka wrote:
    Instead of D-Scan immunity, why not give combat recons EWAR immunity?



    BECAUSE THAT is 1 trillion times more powerful. Think before you post please.


    About as bad as what has been proposed. There is no huge difference between the cloak and d-scan immunity, except targeting delay. More tank on the combat recons or a dps bonus.

    Hell, if they are going to go through with this, at least bring back the old option to leave a set of probes in space.
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #907 - 2014-12-19 16:32:19 UTC
    Midnight Hope wrote:
    Ripard Teg wrote:
    [...]and the smaller your gang, the more likely you are to be punched in the face by those implications.


    When Rice says that lack on information or intel makes people take chances is right...up to a point. After getting punched one too many times (as Ripard says) you start NOT taking chances and not engaging.




    That type of people already quits eve pvp after 2 months anyway.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Altirius Saldiaro
    Doomheim
    #908 - 2014-12-19 16:32:31 UTC
    Gryla and her Yule Lads are coming to eat all the FW kids.
    Nova' Darkstar
    Doomheim
    #909 - 2014-12-19 16:35:00 UTC
    Kmelx wrote:
    Nova' Darkstar wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Dscan immunity is staying.

    Thanks for all the feedback.


    Lol, why even post in features & ideas discussion, then?


    It's so they can say they "consulted" the player base before they made the change.

    Which is exactly what they have done, they consulted the player base, granted he's then gone on to ignore the views of the eve players, their paying customers, but what the hell our opinion's clearly unimportant, after all, we only have to play the game once they've made the PVP experience into an even worse abortion than it already is.

    As a guesstimate, I'd say 75-80-% of the people posting in here dislike the d-scan change, but like I said why should the majority view of the players of the game matter to it's developers? They've already made the decision to foist a change we don't want on us, they're not consulting with us they're simply informing us of their decision, and we can either like it or lump it.



    Just seems like a lot more time would have been saved if they just threw these changes into a devblog as upcoming features instead of pretending to do the whole "we want feedback" run around.
    Liet Ormand
    Sons of Bacchus
    #910 - 2014-12-19 16:36:53 UTC
    dR PaNouKLa wrote:


    In many of the later patches you introduce a SPECIAL bonus that is not in line with all the rest of the general mechanics and there is always a SPECIAL ship that brakes the rules (bubble immunity ceptors, micro jump drives which apart from the ridiculous 100km warp they are immune to warp disruptors, ships that have old school nosferatus which drains cap continiously and now... ships that they are immune to scanner! without a cloaking device..).


    It's growing pains.

    As you add features to any program (including MMO games) there comes a point where you've done all the clever things you can to utilize the existing code's feature set. The stuff you add in is more complex and works differently than the original code envisioned, so you start having to do one offs and special conditions to add this feature or that one.

    It's like writing a spreadsheet, then adding on a scripting feature. People start scripting XML calls to a web site to get live data, which works ok so you add some more features like a console for debugging the XML. Pretty soon people want to dump the data to a local database too. That's when you realize there's no way you can tack that on to the existing spreadsheet code and have it be in any way maintainable or bug-free. You didn't write the spreadsheet with database connectivity in mind. You have to start over and re-work stuff that already works.

    CCP aren't lazy. They're trying to keep an existing user base happy by maintaining a steady development pace and releasing new features. Putting special case and add-on features out regularly makes people significantly more happy than taking several months or the better part of a year re-coding fundamental things that already work just so you have the ability to add more features in an elegant way later on.

    If the community on the forums is responding the way this thread indicates to a single change, imagine how unhappy they'd be if CCP didn't release anything for a year while coding furiously, then put out a new version, complete with possibly game breaking bugs, but with few or no new features? That's what re-coding the fundamentals would look like.

    It also plays havoc with development schedules. If you only release a new version 4 times a year and certain new features are dependent on re-work of the existing code base for release, then you have dependencies which means you have to schedule work on the new features so it comes after the code base re-work. If the code base work is delayed for emergency bug fixes, then the new features are delayed, which is a problem if you've already promised/discussed those new features with the community... it goes on and on.

    CCP seems to understand the issues here, I'm interested to see what rationale they post for these changes, and also what they plan for D-scan long term. Those of you fighting against this change like it's the end of the world need to realize that the game changes over time. Even if this change isn't made, long term something else will change, and you'll have to change with it. That's life.
    Crosi Wesdo
    War and Order
    #911 - 2014-12-19 16:37:34 UTC
    Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:

    As for DSCAN immunity, the whiners can suck it. People need to learn to be less risk averse. .


    As for this argument, people need to learn to be literate.

    What you call risk aversion, in this scenario is actually better termed 'risk ignorance'.

    People who want their targets to be ignorant of what risk they are about to face should learn how to hide and split their fleet and get good at the game without leaning on an arbitrary mechanic shoehorned in randomly to make up for how bad they are.
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #912 - 2014-12-19 16:39:41 UTC
    S'No Flake wrote:
    Nyjil Lizaru wrote:
    The D-scan immunity sounds interesting, and the debate is educational. But I do not like my in-game tools lying to me.


    They don't :)

    Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are cloaky ships.
    After Proteus: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are either combat recons or cloaky ships.

    Plan accordingly ...

    Correction - Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => The rest are in cloaky ships, docked up, or outside of dscan range.

    This is very important since many fights are taken because you think they can potentially be over before the people not on D-scan can warp to you. The combat recons will be able to warp to you from a pounce AND be really effective combat ships.

    I think giving the Combat Recons the dscan immunity AND increased combat ability is over the top. Leave them as they were or decrease their power a little bit if you're going to give them dscan immunity.
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #913 - 2014-12-19 16:41:32 UTC
    CCp shoudl think on mid term on an overhaul on all DETECTION and early warnign mechanics in game.

    On general its all horrible.

    Local is horrible, too perfect.

    D-Scan is horrible - too perfect and binary (cloaked or fully visible) and too click intensive

    Probing is horrible ( too easy to probe on grid and gone the age where you needed human skill to probe)



    All these need to be remade, then the D-SCAN immunity coudl be convereted in a better bonus regardign that. Something like being harder to detect in D-SCAN ( be that range of detection or chance based).

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #914 - 2014-12-19 16:42:57 UTC
    X Gallentius wrote:
    S'No Flake wrote:
    Nyjil Lizaru wrote:
    The D-scan immunity sounds interesting, and the debate is educational. But I do not like my in-game tools lying to me.


    They don't :)

    Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are cloaky ships.
    After Proteus: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are either combat recons or cloaky ships.

    Plan accordingly ...

    Correction - Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => The rest are in cloaky ships, docked up, or outside of dscan range.

    This is very important since many fights are taken because you think they can potentially be over before the people not on D-scan can warp to you. The combat recons will be able to warp to you from a pounce AND be really effective combat ships.

    I think giving the Combat Recons the dscan immunity AND increased combat ability is over the top. Leave them as they were or decrease their power a little bit if you're going to give them dscan immunity.



    as several peopel pointed. Stratios can already do that.. and is barely used to do that.


    So this will happen, but not as much as some people believe.

    "If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
    Alekseyev Karrde
    Noir.
    Shadow Cartel
    #915 - 2014-12-19 16:43:41 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

    Yeah changes to tools like dcan and local have been talked about for a long time but as this thread demonstrates people freak out when you blind them a little. And nearly any change would be to move away from perfect information and into a more immersive sensor/intel/countermeasure/evasion ecosystem.

    I think the dscan immunity is a cool effect, one at least worth trying out. Might it be too OP? Sure. But since recons haven't been OP for like 5 years i think we can risk 1-2 months of them actually being too good on the chance of making them balanced.

    Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
    Ramona McCandless
    Silent Vale
    LinkNet
    #916 - 2014-12-19 16:43:49 UTC
    This is the greatest news ever

    "Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

    "A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #917 - 2014-12-19 16:46:29 UTC
    X Gallentius wrote:
    S'No Flake wrote:
    Nyjil Lizaru wrote:
    The D-scan immunity sounds interesting, and the debate is educational. But I do not like my in-game tools lying to me.


    They don't :)

    Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are cloaky ships.
    After Proteus: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are either combat recons or cloaky ships.

    Plan accordingly ...

    Correction - Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => The rest are in cloaky ships, docked up, or outside of dscan range.

    This is very important since many fights are taken because you think they can potentially be over before the people not on D-scan can warp to you. The combat recons will be able to warp to you from a pounce AND be really effective combat ships.

    I think giving the Combat Recons the dscan immunity AND increased combat ability is over the top. Leave them as they were or decrease their power a little bit if you're going to give them dscan immunity.


    You should assume the worse: They are in cloaky ships :)

    In WH you are stalking that guy mining / sucking gas or PI at planet X.
    You finally decide to uncloak and pound his a... err, ship only to find out a Proteus was stalking the same guy and now he gets two kills instead of one and you only get the chance to buy a new bomber in Jita :D

    I guess some people are too scared to have fun these days.

    Anyway, a T3 still does it better and it can nave a nullified drive too.
    CCP should give recons the same drive as interceptors ... then you will see the hell break loose in forums =))
    Rhea Rankin Nolen
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #918 - 2014-12-19 16:47:32 UTC
    Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
    Gryla and her Yule Lads are coming to eat all the FW kids.



    Oookay..all of the lowsec pvp-ers are FW guys. How about NOT!

    The immunity to directional scanner is a total kick in the groin.

    I roam alot on my main, doing 20-30 jumps around lowsec looking for fights. Usually fly assault frigs or cruisers. I enter the system warp to a celestial and then d-scan the nearby planets and belts for potential targets.

    Now since recons won't show on scan, every celestial is a potential trap!

    And whoopty friggin doo..imagine crazy me, I don't use combat probe launcher on my Wolf.

    This is a clear message to all the newbros too: "Don't go to low/null for pvp, you'll either get camped, killed if you don't know how to use a d-scanner, and actually no point in learning how to use one, cause you'll still be ****** by a recon anyway!" Bravo.

    No ship in EvE had that trait yet..and for a reason.

    D-scan immunity - please rethink!
    Speedkermit Damo
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #919 - 2014-12-19 16:48:07 UTC
    Dwaigon Aumer wrote:
    Make Huginn missile boat to just like the belli and rapier.


    No, Don't

    Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
    Marlona Sky
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #920 - 2014-12-19 16:55:37 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Yes, people are risk averse, they want to make good decisions when they're taking risks and that often leads being conservative. That's exactly why I like this kind of mechanic. People want to do the fun thing and take more engagements, but when they have enough information to know that they aren't the favorite they shy away from fighting. However, when some information is obscured they become optimistic and take more risks. I've seen players so willing to make decisions that are likely too risky simply because they lack perfect information. Jumping into gate camps where positional information isn't guaranteed, engaging on stations with people docked, fighting in systems with more in local than can be accounted for, etc. These mechanics that obscure information give people the excuses needed to take risks. 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.

    The negative side for me is your other bullet point. Because people don't want to take unnecessary risk they will work very hard, sometimes doing something very boring or difficult, just to get at those last pieces of information. And they should. But we would want to avoid mechanics that obligate people to this kind of behavior too heavily without enough positive side to make the mechanic worthwhile.

    I would be more worried with this mechanic that people have to spend a lot of time running probe scans when they really don't want to be than that they are avoiding engagements because of the possibility of Recons. I don't think this will be a problem but we'll have to wait and see.

    Literally what I have been saying for years. So happy to know you guys realize this too. Big smile