These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lvzbel Ixtab
State War Academy
Caldari State
#961 - 2014-12-19 17:40:40 UTC
DFA200 wrote:
Major Margret McMurphy wrote:
This non-detectable recon ships on dscan is nothing more than catering to the pvp player and is pure crap and should not be allowed. This change will make WH mining impossible and expensive.


Yes, and they also bring two of the most uncounterable, frustrating and cheap mechanics in the game - neuts and ECM.


It will affect pvpers by not knowing what are we against specially in small gang pvp where having a combat prober is not viable
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#962 - 2014-12-19 17:43:17 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
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.


Sure, that's the case in the short term. In the long term, if this gets abused as much as everyone seems to think it will get abused, "engageable"-looking fights will be less likely to be engaged. Why?

Suppose my friends and I fly in a group of 3-4 Thoraxes. We run into 2 Vexors, and die to them because they were accompanied by 2 Rooks. The next day, with new Thoraxes, we run into 2 Ruptures, and die because we can't fire our guns since there's 2 Curses there. The day after that, we die to 2 Stabbers because a Lachesis and Huginn are scramming/webbing us from 30 km and we can't close range. The final outcome? One of the following:


  1. We stop roaming entirely.
  2. We get our own recons. Remember how fun (hint: not at all) this solution turned out for off-grid boosts, Falcon alts, and supercaps?
  3. We stop engaging anything when there are unaccounted-for neutrals in local, or stop fighting anything that isn't a single T1 frigate in our cruisers.


Ed: I should acknowledge combat probing, but it is not great counter-play for dscan-immunity. It is hard to fit, completely compromises the fit of the ship involved (or requires a dedicated ship), and adds little value to the other operations of the gang. If you were to reduce the fitting costs of Expanded Probe Launchers so they could be reasonably fit in a utility high slot of a ship, that might be OK balance as far as the new recons are involved. It would completely break other balance, though, so we're at an impasse.

It could be that I and the others on the forum are wrong, recons won't be abused in this way, and won't lead to a chilling of the PvP atmosphere by fear-of-recon. I cannot predict the actions of others. I can however predict my own actions, and as someone with Recon V trained, I will abuse this mechanic silly, and keep going until I stop getting easy-mode kills. I may even switch the training on one my alts to do the same thing.

So, as someone who would abuse this in order to make PvP unfun, I ask you: please do not let me make PvP unfun. Because I will. And I'm sure so will almost everyone else.


Spot on! This is the important bit people keep talking around. The problem isn’t so much of the individual fight scenarios that people are coming up with (although they do all seem to end in a “gank” rather than a “gud fight”) it’s what happens the next time that small gang of thoraxs see’s something they think they can take on a gate? How many “because of Recons” does it take to disincentivize being the aggressor without having a scan alt? How many “just bring more friends to counter” cycles does the argument go through until it’s not a small gang anymore?

Right now not many small gangs like loosing the fights that end with “because of Falcon” but will put up with it because it’s not too common. This change just ads a whole mess more of “because falcon” type fights to the mix and incentivezes them to be more common (hell I’m going to do this). If they become anything but the occasional edge case fights the overall effect I think will be to prevent frig gangs from engaging anywhere in system other than in a small-novice plex and small cruiser gangs (or frig gang with cruiser support) from engaging at all without first probing the system and checking the stations.

Right now small gang and solo fighting in lowsec is actually making a pretty good rebound from the barren wasteland it was a few years ago. I’d hate to see a mechanic that could (and in my opinion will) mess that all up, thrown in just for the sake of mixing stuff up.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#963 - 2014-12-19 17:48:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
DFA200 wrote:
Major Margret McMurphy wrote:
This non-detectable recon ships on dscan is nothing more than catering to the pvp player and is pure crap and should not be allowed. This change will make WH mining impossible and expensive.


Yes, and they also bring two of the most uncounterable, frustrating and cheap mechanics in the game - neuts and ECM.


It will affect pvpers by not knowing what are we against specially in small gang pvp where having a combat prober is not viable


You know theres more options than warp to 0 and approach right? bounce a celestial, warp at random distance (70-100), have a cloaky with you... OR bring your own recons. Door swings both ways.

And if someone else creates a strawman about combat recons at random celestials in random systems at random times.. seriously grow a pair. That scenario will be so remote at happening, its more luck than the spooky dscan immunity everyone is crying about.

And i fly solo 99.9% of the time. I am not worried whatsoever.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#964 - 2014-12-19 17:50:50 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
All covert ops cloak ships have utility high for the cloak so they don't really sacrifice fitting something else.

I don't buy that. Combat recons have an extra slot over force recons.

Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Recons do sacrifice something, DPS. All recons do terrible DPS. They are great force multipliers though. Which is the point. I feel this change will bring an interesting amount of unpredictability to EVE.

Again, my only real gripe here is that they get it for free. I've already adjusted my exploration Cov Ops to handle an expanded probe launcher (probably something I should have done earlier anyway, tbh) and I realize that recons face the same limitations that everything else does when it comes to deciding whether to engage, especially when flying solo. It's not like this is a huge game changer in the grand game of Falcons, but it certainly does feel a bit overpowered.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Dante Mystwerk
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#965 - 2014-12-19 17:55:13 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.



People with negative feedback always respond more; this is true in everything. Just because x percent of people respond that they don't like something doesn't mean that percent is representative of the entire playerbase. And not changing something after getting negative feedback doesn't mean that feedback was ignored, it just means despite your concerns, for one reason or another, the change is going through still. If you don't know how feedback works, don't post in a feedback thread.
Rhea Rankin Nolen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#966 - 2014-12-19 17:57:42 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
No ship in EvE had that trait yet..and for a reason.

Except for every one that can fit a covert ops cloak. The SoE ships come to mind here. As do the cloaky recons and stealth bombers. Oh and T3's and to some extent Black OPs.


Except that covert ops cloak has targeting delay after decloak. Roll
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#967 - 2014-12-19 18:02:36 UTC
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
No ship in EvE had that trait yet..and for a reason.

Except for every one that can fit a covert ops cloak. The SoE ships come to mind here. As do the cloaky recons and stealth bombers. Oh and T3's and to some extent Black OPs.


Except that covert ops cloak has targeting delay after decloak. Roll


Doesn't prevent me from killing with my proteus.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#968 - 2014-12-19 18:02:57 UTC
Can you please please please turn amarr, gallente and 1 of the minmatar recons into proper armor tankers with more low slots?
The current slots make no sense for the races and forces armor fleets to use t3s for webs and other ewar..
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#969 - 2014-12-19 18:04:21 UTC
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
No ship in EvE had that trait yet..and for a reason.

Except for every one that can fit a covert ops cloak. The SoE ships come to mind here. As do the cloaky recons and stealth bombers. Oh and T3's and to some extent Black OPs.


Except that covert ops cloak has targeting delay after decloak. Roll


Doesn't prevent me from killing with my proteus.


actually you can only catch idiots in a covops that isn't a bomber.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#970 - 2014-12-19 18:06:54 UTC
Director Blackflame wrote:
Edit: and for all the people saying the devs arent taking feedback the Rook likely would not have RLML bonuses if not for feedback here just because they arent changing a particular feature you want them to doesnt mean theyre ignoring feedback wholesale.
Not empty quoting. It's amazing how many people can literally stop reading an official post by a dev as soon as they read the thing they don't like is staying. If they did read the whole post, they would see the D-Scan inmunity is staying BECAUSE of player feedback. The reasons why it's not the horrible idea they think it is have been posted over and over again across the whole topic, yet they don't seem to be willing to read them. In my opinion, refusing to hear a reasoning, or just read it (which is even easier), means that it's not really that important for them, because if it was, they would be reading the hell out of the whole topic and all its pages, in order to debate properly.

Instead, they seem to prefer resorting to anger, ignoring the already posted reasonings, and insulting the devs. Imagine how would it be to be a videogame developer, having to read all that whining. I feel sorry for our devs in that regard.

Keep up the good work, CCP.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#971 - 2014-12-19 18:10:15 UTC
yes, thanks ccp. what we need is more ships with rlmls, because frigates are too relevant in actual fights.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#972 - 2014-12-19 18:11:48 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
I don't buy that. Combat recons have an extra slot over force recons.

You should. Force recons don't have enough weapon hard points to put another bonused weapons in their extra slot. The high slots are designed so that force recons will always have less DPS than combat recons while always having a spare slot for a cloak.

Karl Hobb wrote:
Again, my only real gripe here is that they get it for free. I've already adjusted my exploration Cov Ops to handle an expanded probe launcher (probably something I should have done earlier anyway, tbh) and I realize that recons face the same limitations that everything else does when it comes to deciding whether to engage, especially when flying solo. It's not like this is a huge game changer in the grand game of Falcons, but it certainly does feel a bit overpowered.

I suppose we will have to see what happens when this hits TQ.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#973 - 2014-12-19 18:12:48 UTC
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
Except that covert ops cloak has targeting delay after decloak. Roll

Unless you are talking about a stealth bomber.
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#974 - 2014-12-19 18:17:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Devereux
What about extending the trend for the dual weapon systems to the Amarr and Gallente lines. Make all
the cloaky recons be turret based (Pilgrim, Falcon, Arazu, and Rapier) and make the combat recons the other racial weapon system:

Curse: Drones
Rook: Missiles
Lachesis: Drones
Huginn: Missiles

I know there are issues with the manufacturers of the ships, but can't we over look that for some cool game play rather than it being a game design restriction? Also since space objects can't you easily switch the skins/models to accommodate this?

EDIT:
In fact wouldn't this give them a weakness to counter their disruption? Drones can be destroyed. Missiles can be smartbombed.
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
#975 - 2014-12-19 18:20:18 UTC
Oh I've been dying for a Recon buff, let's see what we've got

CCP Rise wrote:
  • Combat Recons will now be permanently undetectable by directional scanners

  • The average maximum velocity across the class is going up by around 20m/s

    • PILGRIM
    We decided that the Pilgrim really needed Nos/Neut range, rather than strength, to give it the engagement flexibility that other Recons enjoy.

    Straight

    godammit Rise

    Hey! I don't know about you

    but I'm joining CTRL-Q
    Captain Semper
    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Pandemic Horde
    #976 - 2014-12-19 18:21:48 UTC
    Quote:
    Close the gap somewhat between Recons and T3 Cruisers, though this will also be a goal during the T3 Cruiser rebalance


    And where armor tank tackler? Arazu with insane 4 armor slots?

    Why fleet that basic have less spead coz of tank type still have short range tackler and cant normaly reach enemy fleet?

    Where balance between proteus and arazu/lache?
    Make arazu armor tanked.

    BTW amar have no choise in armor fleet too but not like gallent with 4 low arazu.
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #977 - 2014-12-19 18:22:32 UTC
    also curse needs to be armour and missile based its khanid Rise!!!!!

    please reduce the crazy high sig radius please

    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
    Hamish McRothimay
    Norse Complex Inc
    #978 - 2014-12-19 18:24:01 UTC
    Jori McKie wrote:
    [quote=Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron][quote=Daneel Trevize][quote=Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron

    ]SNIP....


    I mark every Falcon, Rapier pilot i encounter in game, everyone. If i see a marked one in local i won't blind warp into any medium plex at all, just warp to a nearby celestial and see if something decloaks.



    That's another thing that needs looking at - The free intel available from being able to put anyone you want on a watch list.

    The D-Scan invisibility is really a minor buff with the largest effect being seen in WH space - and unlike the ability to add some unknowing player to a watch list, its is available to all players who can fly the Recon.
    Lucius Regall
    CTRL-Q
    Ushra'Khan
    #979 - 2014-12-19 18:24:44 UTC
    Instead of Combat Recons not appearing on D-Scan at all, how about something slightly less game breaking?

    Combat Recons appear on D-Scan at 4AU or closer.

    Combat Recons appear as [Combat Recon] not as the usual ship type.

    Combat Recons can be adjusted to appear as some other type of ship.
    Ele Rebellion
    Vertex Armada
    The Initiative.
    #980 - 2014-12-19 18:31:26 UTC
    CCP Rise

    Can I put a scenario in your head?

    Faction Warfare. Medium Site. There are +3 or +4 people in local so you decide to try a medium site. D-Scan is clear. Land on gate. D-Scan is still clear. Take gate..

    .. As you land you see Lachesis, Huggins, Rook at 30-100km. Lachesis is remote sebo'd. Triple scrams you as soon as you come out of warp. the huggins gets webs and target painters second later. Finally you are perma-jammed.

    Scrammed, webbed, target painted, and jammed.

    FW will change heavily when the D-Scan immunity goes into effect. People will avoid mediums like the plague, it will become a hunting ground of Force Recons. (might settle after first couple months, but will there be much left when the dust settles?)

    True D-Scan immunity will be game breaking. Now if there was a mechanic of kinds where the ship becomes visible if within range of an object or using prop mod or something.

    Most importantly they shouldn't be allowed to be "invisible" in a FW Plex. Didn't you just make it to where you can't cloak for this reason? The scenario is part of a doctrine I put together as soon as I heard about to D-Scan immunity, but as I've thought about it more I feel that it is OP, unfair, and game breaking.