Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

Make D-scan immunity valid only if you are farther than 1Million KMs or so.

Otherwise you goona lose most PVE players as you are already losing and exploration will suffer a lot.

My 2 cents, MRi

80 pages on this thread...

CCP Rise dropped by the High Drag Podcast to talk about Recon Ships. You can listen to it here. (Rises commentary starts at 42:40)

Having just a flat ability of D-scan immunity seems a bit strange to me as one of Eve's great strengths is the amount of variability in outfitting of ships you come across. Would it not be better to give combat recons an extra utility high slot and create a new module that only they can fit which grants D-scan immunity. if the module needs to be activated then the recons would be briefly visible on D-scan like Covert-Ops.

You could say that about bubble immunity.

No, I'm not saying bubble immunity should be moved to a high slot mod. I'm saying that eve shouldn't be only about modules on the ships. There should be things called "role bonuses", things that are just inherent to the ship hull, as they have been for many years.

I don't know what player behavior will be like, however this is my intuition:

Agree that risk aversion is a huge problem in terms of preventing engagements and/or forcing players to perform tedious tasks to a great length in order to gain an advantage / feel "safe", thus promoting uninteresting game play as opposed to fun fights which is what everyone wants.

Agree that less information may lead players to accept there is a certain degree of risk in what they do and therefore lead them to take "leaps of faith" into the unknown, thus fighting risk aversion and generating good fights.

Do not agree this will work since it acts in a one sided manner by benefiting campers (sitting on a beacon with 2 invisible to dscan friends ganking nerds) more than explorers (willing to venture into unknown by roaming).

It seems to me you are thinking correctly and have the correct intention but you are acting in a way that does not benefit what you intend to do.

Unless the lack of information is equal to everyone I don't think this will foster risk taking, instead it may promote risk averse behaviors even further - the issue of forcing everyone to bring a combat prober should be small when compared with the amount of players that will camp sites by sitting idly while waiting for easy kills, I suspect we will have much more of these than players that out of this change become willing to engage by accepting some degree of risk.

I don't have a solution to this problem, one way to do it seems to be treat dscan and local as enemies of more engagements and force everyone to play with less information, another way to do it would be allow everyone to see everything but rework the engagement commitment/escape mechanics, however it seems a rethink of the engagement model / intel+visibility tools available to players is required in order to nail it and that by using this incremental approach you may actually be taking a step backwards.

In general my gut feeling around this it that the more people roam around the better, since roaming is for sure a driver of engagements (it acts as a matchmaking queue of engagement possibilities); either you remove all information and then people will roam in the dark (what it seems to me you want to happen and will promote more engagements) or if you employ a piecemeal approach you may end up not achieving your desired objective or even worse, cornering players into the very same behaviors you wish to prevent (bad gameplay centered on defenders sitting idly, roamers docked and less overall fights).

Unless you already did the rethink of the engagement model and this is just a first step...

PS: please fix Pilgrim, it's slow armor ship that fights at close range so the neut range is kinda useless, even with MWD+point instead of AB+scram it will still be slower than everything else except what it cannot fight. Think U boat warfare in WW2 :)

Eve is hard. Most of us accept that.

If you die it should be because you are doing it wrong. Adding the immunity to d-scan means in many more cases of choosing to take the fight or take the acceleration gate, will be doing it wrong. Many situations which used to give us PvP will turn from a manageable risk into a bad decision.

Initially I like the sound of the new recon changes. However, consider the steps that will be necessary now to gather good intel and decide to take a fight... I think you will see a lot less fights happen in all areas of PvP, because people will be a lot less willing to engage.

Of course a lot more ganks will happen. There are plenty of PvPers who only take ganks, and who don't really want to find good fights. For them these changes will really improve the game. For those of us who will also take fights which are risky, but manageable... those of us who chose to try to turn up the difficulty when we can... it will make it even more difficult to find a good fight imo.

So in the end do you think this change will lead to more good fights, or more ganks? I will never say no to a free kill, but I would prefer changes that help generate good fights. I don't think this change will do that.

I have found that truly, good fights, have been a rarity in Eve mainly due to its sand box non-instanced no rules gameplay.

We are not playing a space version of football, American or that other one. We are simulating a space struggle where there is great risk of being overwhelmed, and sometimes great reward for those willing to take that risk.

It's a cold hard game, and it is rarely fair, and probably never should be.

I know players want to use this "creates less fights" as the new "I'll unsub if you do" complaint, but I don't think it will gain you much in the end.

At some point there is a critical mass of intel that say's we got most of what we need and you engage or you don't. Some want perfect information, which many of our tools give them now.

It should be more about of imperfect intel and the willingness to take a gamble, not about waiting for the perfect intel. The perfect intel should never come.

True!
But imagine you want to hide your fleet in a wormhole. You warp there - you jump in and...

then...

OMG, it's full of Recons!!!11

Can we get another updat3. For the love of jesus, we want resist profiles. We want to know specifics about wet her we will see them in overview if ongrid. We want increased EHP because the givenue bonus uve given them are so marginal you will not notice it in pvp. 50 hp? That is nothing compared to the damage application of medium guns. Reasonably we need to see a 400 to 500 he
P I crease on respective tank hp.