These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alruan Shadowborn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1601 - 2014-12-23 02:01:32 UTC
Instead of making them invisible to D-Scan, why not make them un-scannable by Probes

They could know you are there, but could do nothing about it

OR

Make it a distance based effect, over 10AU there is nothing, 5-10 AU shows as unknown signature1-5 AU shows as a ship and under 1 AU it shows what ship it is, or what class of ship maybe
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#1602 - 2014-12-23 02:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:
Instead of making them invisible to D-Scan, why not make them un-scannable by Probes

They could know you are there, but could do nothing about it


Now is this satire or are you really ... ? Seriously. I mean... what?!
Stan Durden
Solar Forged
#1603 - 2014-12-23 02:45:35 UTC
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:
Stan Durden wrote:
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.


While it is not easy to find a good fight, it can be done. I have been in quite a few good fights during the years I have played Eve. I tend to believe that the people who can't find a good fight are simply unwilling to take them when they appear. If you are willing to take a truly good fight then you should be willing to lose your ship a lot more often then most people are.

A good fight does not mean it needs to be fair. It typically means that both sides have a different advantages they are working with, which they think will give them the edge. No one takes a fight they are certain they will lose. But there are some pilots who are willing to take fights when they are not certain they will win. Certainly, there are large groups of "PvPers" who will run from the first sign that the victim may shoot back. But there are plenty of PvPers who are willing and able to take a good fight if they are given the opportunity.

The point I was trying to make is lets not make it harder than it already is to find a good fight. Many good fights develop after some intel has been collected. A FC or a solo pilot can make a decision to engage based on a variety of information they may have gathered. Making it more difficult to gather accurate intel will not help people decide to engage, instead it will lead to a decision to withdraw more often because not enough information is available.


StuRyan
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#1604 - 2014-12-23 03:13:08 UTC
Worrff wrote:
Kmelx wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
  • Dscan immunity is staying.

    • Asking for player feedback and then ignoring that feedback for the win.

    I seriously wonder why you even bother...


    So that it gives the IMPRESSION that they are listening. They will do whatever they want regardless.

    All the feedback about the new UI went unheeded and ignored. Been the same for years, nothing new.


    And yet you are still playing the game?
    StuRyan
    Space Wolves ind.
    Solyaris Chtonium
    #1605 - 2014-12-23 03:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: StuRyan
    Personally recons needed a buff. With the UI changes to null sec anom runners it killed solo recons hunting ratters down.

    I am not sure this change brings that game play back but it for sure will make players actually pay more attention. CCP if I could encourage one further cry me a river change, make the UI in anoms ignore someone entering the plex with the same intention which is to kill their target.

    As I always say, HTFU or go play WOTs if want an easy gameplay.
    Barrett Fruitcake
    Doomheim
    #1606 - 2014-12-23 04:23:33 UTC
    StuRyan wrote:
    Worrff wrote:
    Kmelx wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
  • Dscan immunity is staying.

    • Asking for player feedback and then ignoring that feedback for the win.

    I seriously wonder why you even bother...


    So that it gives the IMPRESSION that they are listening. They will do whatever they want regardless.

    All the feedback about the new UI went unheeded and ignored. Been the same for years, nothing new.


    And yet you are still playing the game?


    A few players complaining about it doesn't warrant removing it.

    Yes, a 80+ page thread is only a few players complaining.
    Barrogh Habalu
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #1607 - 2014-12-23 05:54:06 UTC
    Okay, so now that Rise posted there somewhere that he's working on alternative suggestions, can we stop whining about d-scan immunity and focus of ships themselves? I, for one, am afraid of Pilgrim becoming/remaining not worth using, especially now that it's losing ability to fight heavier targets in favor of, uhm, what, being more consistent against faster cruisers and frigs? Not sure what we are looking at here.

    Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
    Orvmus
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1608 - 2014-12-23 06:27:35 UTC
    You have made Combat Recons stupidly powerful and refuse to so much as consider that making them d-scan immune is a bad idea.

    Where are the drawbacks to the immunity? Why not give it a hard-to-fit module which only combat recons can fit and make the ships give up a slot and fitting in order to use it? You are making them undetectable unless they are on-grid with you and there is zero counter to that. Much better resists, much better cap, faster across the board, more hitpoints, additional drone bay space for one of them AND being undetectable via d-scan? Solo players be damned, right?

    Not only that but you say that being undetectable in FW Plexes + Deadspace areas is something that you should look at but "won't be able to do before the next release" - So do what CCP have been touting as the main benefit of the new release schedule is and delay the damn update until you HAVE sorted it out, don't release a half-baked polished turd like you normally do. It was like listening to a child that thinks their ideas are the business and can't take criticism when I heard you on the podcast - "I have been waiting for a real reason that this is bad but haven't heard anything close so far." Start playing the game again Kil2, interact with those that don't have brown on their nose.

    To be clear: A Curse is going to be the first thing I'm flying post patch, followed by the rest of the Combat Recons as these ships are going to be ******** good. Combat Recon gangs here we come. What a terrible idea. /rant
    Gwydion Voleur
    Anarchic Exploration
    #1609 - 2014-12-23 06:49:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Gwydion Voleur
    Pilgrims need to keep the neut amount bonus. As I posted earlier, add the "old Nos" effect (or something) to buff the ship. Old Nos effect would at least free up another mid-slot for Ewar by eliminating the need for a cap booster, making it more effective without destroying the thing for which it is most known.

    As for the D-scan changes, if some type of immunity is inevitable, how about limiting the D-scan range for detecting Combat Recons? (Sorry if this has been said before, I can only read so many pages.) For example, Recon 1 and you are detectable at 10AU, then subtract 2AU for each level trained, so that diligent D-scanners pick up highly trained Recon pilots at 2 AU? Or even start at 5AU and get them at 1AU? Whatever. Blanket immunity largely (but not completely) removes the need for CovOps cloaks and overlaps the Combat and Force Recon roles too much.
    Axloth Okiah
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1610 - 2014-12-23 08:35:04 UTC
    Im loving dscan immunity. Finally it will be possible to catch nullbears in those gated plexes.

    SSC Brokering Service
    Squatdog
    State Protectorate
    Caldari State
    #1611 - 2014-12-23 08:54:07 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.


    Hopefully this revised proposal will be:

    "All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, which is a terrible idea".
    Zumbul Cvetkov
    Your Loss
    #1612 - 2014-12-23 09:06:48 UTC
    I dont like the idea of that D-scan immunity..
    IF you at CCP wanna do something funny, then try this:

    I hereby ask CCP to remove D-Scan and Local chat from EVE completly !!!!!
    Make the fun for all the same....

    CCP REMOVE D-SCAN AND LOCAL FROM EVE !!!
    Marlona Sky
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #1613 - 2014-12-23 10:18:34 UTC
    Squatdog wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.


    Hopefully this revised proposal will be:

    "All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, we are changing it to not appearing in local chat.".

    FTFY
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #1614 - 2014-12-23 10:40:25 UTC
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    Squatdog wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.


    Hopefully this revised proposal will be:

    "All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, we are changing it to not appearing in local chat.".

    FTFY


    Sounds funBig smile
    Gully Alex Foyle
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #1615 - 2014-12-23 11:03:02 UTC
    Barrett Fruitcake wrote:
    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.
    Depends on what you mean by 'good fight'.


    If a good fight is one where both sides have a 50% chance to win - then yes, you won't get many fights. Players estimate odds very differently, if both sides are looking for at least even odds you'll spend all your time deciding whether to engage or not and very little time actually fighting and having fun.


    If you're willing to engage with a 10-20% chance to win and enjoy the challenge, then your engagement range is much higher, you'll find many 'good fights', lose several but win some and have a lot of fun.


    That excludes only super-pussies that won't even fight with 80-90% odds in their favor (yes, there are several, but they really should be playing some other game, or sticking to highsec missions).

    Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #1616 - 2014-12-23 11:21:53 UTC
    Some of the best fights I've had are hopelessly outnumbered where we all die but take chunks of the enemy with us. 'Here we go, kill as many as we can - primary ....'

    Best fights ever, sure we could evade - but that's not what is all about is it?
    Fromtheold
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1617 - 2014-12-23 11:42:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Fromtheold
    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 resists are much needed. recons are way too squishy.
    Tuscor
    13.
    #1618 - 2014-12-23 12:18:25 UTC
    Please CCP Rise - don't give into the fear mongering - this needs to go live for a full test of the d-scan immunity.
    Tuscor
    13.
    #1619 - 2014-12-23 12:19:39 UTC
    baltec1 wrote:
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    Squatdog wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.


    Hopefully this revised proposal will be:

    "All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, we are changing it to not appearing in local chat.".

    FTFY


    Sounds funBig smile


    Or this as an alternative! One or the other... dscan immunity or not appearing in local.
    Tuscor
    13.
    #1620 - 2014-12-23 12:22:28 UTC
    Gwydion Voleur wrote:
    Pilgrims need to keep the neut amount bonus. As I posted earlier, add the "old Nos" effect (or something) to buff the ship. Old Nos effect would at least free up another mid-slot for Ewar by eliminating the need for a cap booster, making it more effective without destroying the thing for which it is most known.

    As for the D-scan changes, if some type of immunity is inevitable, how about limiting the D-scan range for detecting Combat Recons? (Sorry if this has been said before, I can only read so many pages.) For example, Recon 1 and you are detectable at 10AU, then subtract 2AU for each level trained, so that diligent D-scanners pick up highly trained Recon pilots at 2 AU? Or even start at 5AU and get them at 1AU? Whatever. Blanket immunity largely (but not completely) removes the need for CovOps cloaks and overlaps the Combat and Force Recon roles too much.


    I disagree. You will never be able to be on grid but invisible in a combat recon (unless you fail fit a non-covops cloak). You will not be able to slow boat right up to a target to bump and grab them in a combat recon. You will not be able to jump and cloak and evade a gatecamp in a combat recon. I think there are sufficient differences.