These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#1681 - 2014-12-23 17:07:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Altirius Saldiaro
Good update, except for the kinetic damage bonus.

The way to deal with the FW issue is just simply not allow recons into sites.

I am happy you're standing your ground though and not giving in to FW complaints.
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1682 - 2014-12-23 17:11:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ivona fly
Quote:

ROOK
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to kinetic missile damage (was 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire)
10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost

Recon Ships Bonuses:
30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength
10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity

Slot layout: 5H, 7M, 3L; 2 turrets, 5 launchers
Fittings: 680 PWG(+80), 600 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2050(+262) / 965(+9) / 960(+359)
Capacitor (amount / capacitor per second) : 1250(+187) / 3.93/s(+.83)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / align time): 194(+24) / .61 / 10.76s(-.04s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km / 259 / 10
Sensor strength: 32 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 170(-3)


Please no, I hate this one damage type thing, and seeing as you say the changes are in part, to allow it to fight vs T3 and T2 well : Ishtar, Eagle, Cerb, Tengu and proteus will not even take damage from it because of 90% resists. and outside the Loki (used instead of recon) and Legion they are what I see used the most in these types of battles.



Well seen as you are not giving them any tank none of my my post matters, they will just get crushed in fleets now anyway put whatever weapons on them and leave them as the paranoia-cons :)
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1683 - 2014-12-23 17:15:15 UTC
Marlona Sky 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.

Targeting an enemy player is 99% of combat in this game. ECM and to an extent, dampeners are not healthy at all. You have the opportunity to change that. The end result should not be where the affected ship is unable to target anything when the EW is applied.

ECM is a terrible mechanic for a couple reasons:

  • Obviously not being able to lock a target means it functions as a 'Get out of jail free' card for the enemy of the person who is jammed resulting in less combat.
  • Out of all the EW drones being built, almost all are ECM drones. This is not because the other ones are worthless. It is just because ECM is so powerful. I mean after all; why damp/paint/web/tracking disrupt when you can make the target unable to lock anything?
  • Because ECM is so over the top powerful when it works, the fast dirty way of balancing it has been to reduce the chance it will work resulting in nothing happening when the module is activated. This is a terrible light switch mechanic. All or nothing.
  • There is no counter play for those who are jammed. For 20 seconds plus the amount of time it takes to relock the targets - there is nothing you can do. Sure some will go on about using drones, smartbombs and F.O.F. missiles, but no one is ever able to provide results where these things caused them to win the fight. The ship ECMing the target is almost always aligned so even if they put drones on the them, they will just warp to a ping (which is even easier now with on grid bookmarks visible) and they will be rejammed as soon as it lands. Smartbombs only work if the enemy ships are in range and again, decides to stick around long enough to die to them. Even if you killed the ECM drones with the smartbombs, chances are that 20+ seconds was enough to tip the scale in the fight anyways. Obviously F.O.F. missiles are a joke, especially considering if the person being jammed is not in a missile boat, they don't get to use them.

ECM is just a bad game mechanic. Notice how almost all of the arguments against combat recons not being on directional scanner uses the Rook in the example. It's not necessarily the Rook they fear, it is ECM.

ECM does not need to be nerfed. It needs to be replaced!

We have tracking disruption, a missile disruption EW would be welcomed. Everyone is so sick of Drones Online, where is the drone disruption? Would be nice to target that Ishtar/Dominix, turn on my Balmer series drone disruption and those sentries become less effective at those extreme ranges. Even if you guys are not ready to release new EW, at least replace ECM with a couple existing EW in the game until then. Target painting makes sense.

With ECM out of the picture, you can get rid of ECCM resulting in far less off grid boosting ships as well. (sorry slippery Petes. you were a cowards ship anyways)

There is no point in leaving in such a terrible game mechanic when you guys can easily pull it right now and replace it with existing EW that actually has counter play.


You really hate ECM don't you?
Why there are entire fleets flying celestis and not entire fleets flying blackbirds?

Because ECM it's worst than damps? Right? :rolleyes:
Lvzbel Ixtab
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1684 - 2014-12-23 17:19:39 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
Marlona Sky 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.

Targeting an enemy player is 99% of combat in this game. ECM and to an extent, dampeners are not healthy at all. You have the opportunity to change that. The end result should not be where the affected ship is unable to target anything when the EW is applied.

ECM is a terrible mechanic for a couple reasons:

  • Obviously not being able to lock a target means it functions as a 'Get out of jail free' card for the enemy of the person who is jammed resulting in less combat.
  • Out of all the EW drones being built, almost all are ECM drones. This is not because the other ones are worthless. It is just because ECM is so powerful. I mean after all; why damp/paint/web/tracking disrupt when you can make the target unable to lock anything?
  • Because ECM is so over the top powerful when it works, the fast dirty way of balancing it has been to reduce the chance it will work resulting in nothing happening when the module is activated. This is a terrible light switch mechanic. All or nothing.
  • There is no counter play for those who are jammed. For 20 seconds plus the amount of time it takes to relock the targets - there is nothing you can do. Sure some will go on about using drones, smartbombs and F.O.F. missiles, but no one is ever able to provide results where these things caused them to win the fight. The ship ECMing the target is almost always aligned so even if they put drones on the them, they will just warp to a ping (which is even easier now with on grid bookmarks visible) and they will be rejammed as soon as it lands. Smartbombs only work if the enemy ships are in range and again, decides to stick around long enough to die to them. Even if you killed the ECM drones with the smartbombs, chances are that 20+ seconds was enough to tip the scale in the fight anyways. Obviously F.O.F. missiles are a joke, especially considering if the person being jammed is not in a missile boat, they don't get to use them.

ECM is just a bad game mechanic. Notice how almost all of the arguments against combat recons not being on directional scanner uses the Rook in the example. It's not necessarily the Rook they fear, it is ECM.

ECM does not need to be nerfed. It needs to be replaced!

We have tracking disruption, a missile disruption EW would be welcomed. Everyone is so sick of Drones Online, where is the drone disruption? Would be nice to target that Ishtar/Dominix, turn on my Balmer series drone disruption and those sentries become less effective at those extreme ranges. Even if you guys are not ready to release new EW, at least replace ECM with a couple existing EW in the game until then. Target painting makes sense.

With ECM out of the picture, you can get rid of ECCM resulting in far less off grid boosting ships as well. (sorry slippery Petes. you were a cowards ship anyways)

There is no point in leaving in such a terrible game mechanic when you guys can easily pull it right now and replace it with existing EW that actually has counter play.


You really hate ECM don't you?
Why there are entire fleets flying celestis and not entire fleets flying blackbirds?

Because ECM it's worst than damps? Right? :rolleyes:


Yes they are all you have to do is get closer with damps, with ECM there is nothing you can do
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1685 - 2014-12-23 17:24:07 UTC
Actually in a larger ship a bunch of resdamps + rangedamps + TIDI can mean you explode before you ever get a lock, seems like same effect if it happens to you.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1686 - 2014-12-23 17:25:50 UTC
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:
Madner Kami wrote:
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:
I hope CCP doesn't cave on a great new step in getting rid of perfect intel due to a bunch of players unwilling to adapt to such changes.


So D-Scan is perfect intel nowadays? Seriously?



It's one of the tools that gives you far too much information for free, like local.

You either know someone is in local or not.
On D-scan, you either know they ship type, name and if they are on grid or not.

There should be a point where their are more unknowns, than knowns.

D-Scan should act more like scan probes and show unknown contacts at extreme ranges instead of always returning perfect information when you are in range.

There should be a range of uncertainty.





IT should take into consideration sensor strength and sig radius.
The smaller your sig radius it is, a smaller angle should be needed to detect you.
The better sensor strength you have, you should only show on short range scan.
2D34DLY4U
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1687 - 2014-12-23 17:26:54 UTC
How about if we reduce the dscan immunity to while in warp only?

This would not break the dscan tools, still make players have to deal with the uncertainty factor of a combat recon landing on them at any moment and would preventing camping abuse.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1688 - 2014-12-23 17:28:37 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
Marlona Sky 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.

Targeting an enemy player is 99% of combat in this game. ECM and to an extent, dampeners are not healthy at all. You have the opportunity to change that. The end result should not be where the affected ship is unable to target anything when the EW is applied.

ECM is a terrible mechanic for a couple reasons:

  • Obviously not being able to lock a target means it functions as a 'Get out of jail free' card for the enemy of the person who is jammed resulting in less combat.
  • Out of all the EW drones being built, almost all are ECM drones. This is not because the other ones are worthless. It is just because ECM is so powerful. I mean after all; why damp/paint/web/tracking disrupt when you can make the target unable to lock anything?
  • Because ECM is so over the top powerful when it works, the fast dirty way of balancing it has been to reduce the chance it will work resulting in nothing happening when the module is activated. This is a terrible light switch mechanic. All or nothing.
  • There is no counter play for those who are jammed. For 20 seconds plus the amount of time it takes to relock the targets - there is nothing you can do. Sure some will go on about using drones, smartbombs and F.O.F. missiles, but no one is ever able to provide results where these things caused them to win the fight. The ship ECMing the target is almost always aligned so even if they put drones on the them, they will just warp to a ping (which is even easier now with on grid bookmarks visible) and they will be rejammed as soon as it lands. Smartbombs only work if the enemy ships are in range and again, decides to stick around long enough to die to them. Even if you killed the ECM drones with the smartbombs, chances are that 20+ seconds was enough to tip the scale in the fight anyways. Obviously F.O.F. missiles are a joke, especially considering if the person being jammed is not in a missile boat, they don't get to use them.

ECM is just a bad game mechanic. Notice how almost all of the arguments against combat recons not being on directional scanner uses the Rook in the example. It's not necessarily the Rook they fear, it is ECM.

ECM does not need to be nerfed. It needs to be replaced!

We have tracking disruption, a missile disruption EW would be welcomed. Everyone is so sick of Drones Online, where is the drone disruption? Would be nice to target that Ishtar/Dominix, turn on my Balmer series drone disruption and those sentries become less effective at those extreme ranges. Even if you guys are not ready to release new EW, at least replace ECM with a couple existing EW in the game until then. Target painting makes sense.

With ECM out of the picture, you can get rid of ECCM resulting in far less off grid boosting ships as well. (sorry slippery Petes. you were a cowards ship anyways)

There is no point in leaving in such a terrible game mechanic when you guys can easily pull it right now and replace it with existing EW that actually has counter play.


You really hate ECM don't you?
Why there are entire fleets flying celestis and not entire fleets flying blackbirds?

Because ECM it's worst than damps? Right? :rolleyes:

There is a couple reasons why they choose the Celestis over Blackbirds. First, the Celestis is armor tanked and works well with their already existing logistics which is armor related. Then there is the fact the Celestis's bonus is so strong it means it can be effective at over 100km. Also having an armor buffer does not make your signature radius bloom which means you are less susceptible to bombing runs as opposed to say a shield buffer Blackbird.

As I said before, the issue with damps is a close second, but ECM overall is still the bigger problem. I did suggest changing damps to something that disrupts drones you know. Maybe you just have not read everything, which is fine. There is a lot of comments in this thread.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1689 - 2014-12-23 17:31:00 UTC
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:
Marlona Sky 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.

Targeting an enemy player is 99% of combat in this game. ECM and to an extent, dampeners are not healthy at all. You have the opportunity to change that. The end result should not be where the affected ship is unable to target anything when the EW is applied.

ECM is a terrible mechanic for a couple reasons:

  • Obviously not being able to lock a target means it functions as a 'Get out of jail free' card for the enemy of the person who is jammed resulting in less combat.
  • Out of all the EW drones being built, almost all are ECM drones. This is not because the other ones are worthless. It is just because ECM is so powerful. I mean after all; why damp/paint/web/tracking disrupt when you can make the target unable to lock anything?
  • Because ECM is so over the top powerful when it works, the fast dirty way of balancing it has been to reduce the chance it will work resulting in nothing happening when the module is activated. This is a terrible light switch mechanic. All or nothing.
  • There is no counter play for those who are jammed. For 20 seconds plus the amount of time it takes to relock the targets - there is nothing you can do. Sure some will go on about using drones, smartbombs and F.O.F. missiles, but no one is ever able to provide results where these things caused them to win the fight. The ship ECMing the target is almost always aligned so even if they put drones on the them, they will just warp to a ping (which is even easier now with on grid bookmarks visible) and they will be rejammed as soon as it lands. Smartbombs only work if the enemy ships are in range and again, decides to stick around long enough to die to them. Even if you killed the ECM drones with the smartbombs, chances are that 20+ seconds was enough to tip the scale in the fight anyways. Obviously F.O.F. missiles are a joke, especially considering if the person being jammed is not in a missile boat, they don't get to use them.

ECM is just a bad game mechanic. Notice how almost all of the arguments against combat recons not being on directional scanner uses the Rook in the example. It's not necessarily the Rook they fear, it is ECM.

ECM does not need to be nerfed. It needs to be replaced!

We have tracking disruption, a missile disruption EW would be welcomed. Everyone is so sick of Drones Online, where is the drone disruption? Would be nice to target that Ishtar/Dominix, turn on my Balmer series drone disruption and those sentries become less effective at those extreme ranges. Even if you guys are not ready to release new EW, at least replace ECM with a couple existing EW in the game until then. Target painting makes sense.

With ECM out of the picture, you can get rid of ECCM resulting in far less off grid boosting ships as well. (sorry slippery Petes. you were a cowards ship anyways)

There is no point in leaving in such a terrible game mechanic when you guys can easily pull it right now and replace it with existing EW that actually has counter play.


You really hate ECM don't you?
Why there are entire fleets flying celestis and not entire fleets flying blackbirds?

Because ECM it's worst than damps? Right? :rolleyes:


Yes they are all you have to do is get closer with damps, with ECM there is nothing you can do



Logis fear damps a HELL of a lot more, but by all means worry about a 'maybe' from ECM.
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1690 - 2014-12-23 17:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ivona fly
Honsetly I thought Blackbird was mostly amour tanked, where it gets 30k+ tank (be that with crap resists) a lot of gangs dont bother to even logi them unless they are the only thing taking damage.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1691 - 2014-12-23 17:34:35 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Not ANOTHER kinetic lock in :(


Yes. I hate this too.
At some point they say they want to go away from the damage type bonus on caldari and they are doing pretty much the same old thing thing since then.

Thanks god for Kestrel.
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1692 - 2014-12-23 17:37:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ivona fly
S'No Flake wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Not ANOTHER kinetic lock in :(


Yes. I hate this too.
At some point they say they want to go away from the damage type bonus on caldari and they are doing pretty much the same old thing thing since then.

Thanks god for Kestrel.


and caracal..... oh yeah rapid light missiles ... heavy missiles etc etc, can we get just turrets on the caracal with a range bonus ccplz

:)
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1693 - 2014-12-23 17:39:43 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:
Marlona Sky 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.

Targeting an enemy player is 99% of combat in this game. ECM and to an extent, dampeners are not healthy at all. You have the opportunity to change that. The end result should not be where the affected ship is unable to target anything when the EW is applied.

ECM is a terrible mechanic for a couple reasons:

  • Obviously not being able to lock a target means it functions as a 'Get out of jail free' card for the enemy of the person who is jammed resulting in less combat.
  • Out of all the EW drones being built, almost all are ECM drones. This is not because the other ones are worthless. It is just because ECM is so powerful. I mean after all; why damp/paint/web/tracking disrupt when you can make the target unable to lock anything?
  • Because ECM is so over the top powerful when it works, the fast dirty way of balancing it has been to reduce the chance it will work resulting in nothing happening when the module is activated. This is a terrible light switch mechanic. All or nothing.
  • There is no counter play for those who are jammed. For 20 seconds plus the amount of time it takes to relock the targets - there is nothing you can do. Sure some will go on about using drones, smartbombs and F.O.F. missiles, but no one is ever able to provide results where these things caused them to win the fight. The ship ECMing the target is almost always aligned so even if they put drones on the them, they will just warp to a ping (which is even easier now with on grid bookmarks visible) and they will be rejammed as soon as it lands. Smartbombs only work if the enemy ships are in range and again, decides to stick around long enough to die to them. Even if you killed the ECM drones with the smartbombs, chances are that 20+ seconds was enough to tip the scale in the fight anyways. Obviously F.O.F. missiles are a joke, especially considering if the person being jammed is not in a missile boat, they don't get to use them.

ECM is just a bad game mechanic. Notice how almost all of the arguments against combat recons not being on directional scanner uses the Rook in the example. It's not necessarily the Rook they fear, it is ECM.

ECM does not need to be nerfed. It needs to be replaced!

We have tracking disruption, a missile disruption EW would be welcomed. Everyone is so sick of Drones Online, where is the drone disruption? Would be nice to target that Ishtar/Dominix, turn on my Balmer series drone disruption and those sentries become less effective at those extreme ranges. Even if you guys are not ready to release new EW, at least replace ECM with a couple existing EW in the game until then. Target painting makes sense.

With ECM out of the picture, you can get rid of ECCM resulting in far less off grid boosting ships as well. (sorry slippery Petes. you were a cowards ship anyways)

There is no point in leaving in such a terrible game mechanic when you guys can easily pull it right now and replace it with existing EW that actually has counter play.


You really hate ECM don't you?
Why there are entire fleets flying celestis and not entire fleets flying blackbirds?

Because ECM it's worst than damps? Right? :rolleyes:


Yes they are all you have to do is get closer with damps, with ECM there is nothing you can do



Logis fear damps a HELL of a lot more, but by all means worry about a 'maybe' from ECM.


Yeah I have to think about a sensor booster or remote sensor booster, even at the expensive of tank sometimes because of damps, or you have to ball up :( the scythe has crap locking range to start with
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1694 - 2014-12-23 17:56:18 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Finally, I will say again that the directional scan immunity is staying, though we are very aware of concerns (especially concerning FW site abuse) and will watch closely to see how this new capability is used and make any necessary adjustments.

Have a great Christmas o/


I admit I did not read all 85 pages in the thread, and it may have already been covered, but it would be nice to know what motivates this. Why do you think recons need to have scan immunity? What issue is this addressing?

Perhaps explaining the reasons behind the change would help us understand (digest) it better.
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1695 - 2014-12-23 17:58:15 UTC
It is NOT aybout fw complexes. If you enforce uncertainty on people they will just retreat to the next level of relative certainty meaing they won't warp to places without preprobing it. This will severly limit the freedom of movement for small gangs and solo players since the smaller the gang the less likely they can afford a dedicated prober/fit an expanded probe launcher on their breacher

You have to give people TOOLS that create margin for error and you have to create and environnement where people move freely under the pretense of relative security. I'm sorry, but there seem to be basic misundertstandings of player/human behaviour that drive these changes. It's really hard to watch.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1696 - 2014-12-23 18:00:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
J

  • 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.



    • I don't understand what you are talking about here. Most of the people who have raised concerns have had very definitive points they were making about situations that are very real (wh's, fw). Meanwhile the only argument being made against it is 'mm tears" and 'nom nom nom gonna love killing bears now' neither of which contributes anything. The Faction Warfare concern is very legitimate in that it doesn't even favor those who are playing the game for faction warfare. In fact it benefits those who simply wish to be a nuisance to those participating in faction warfare.

    Wormhole are also a major concern considering they do not even have a local to see if the people are present. The only argument I have seen is that 'the warp landing time is about the same as a decloak time". This is only part of the problem though, Combat recons also in general put out more dps than a force recon. not to mention the argument is "you can still probe them!" Great so now everyone is going to be expected to carry expanded probe launchers? The fitting requirements on these alone mean you are going to be sacrificing a significant portion of your CPU rendering your ship near useless if you ever get in any kind of fight. If they're going to implement this change a MINIMUM combat probes should be loadable into regular probe launchers.


    Also I agree with CCP in that the recons suffer from an identity crisis. For large fleet battles this feature is pretty much irrelevant other than enemy fleet composition from dscans. Even this though is more for observational sake.

    Finally with the weapon uniformity across ship manufactures you also just created the EXACT problem which you alleviated with the command ships. Players have to choose either a weapon type, or play style but not both. the minmater you either are combat and projectiles or missiles and cloak, caldari are the opposite with missiles for combat and hybrids for force recon. IMO they should have made the ships like the command ships in that either variant can cloak, but at the sacrifice of a weapon slot. with that you can just throw the d-scan immunity into the trash where it belongs. It is a feature that is useless in the majority of the situations, but VERY op in niche roles.
    Aureus Ahishatsu
    Deadspace Knights
    #1697 - 2014-12-23 18:05:39 UTC
    To add to my previous comment, what exactly is CCP's goal with the combat recon? You can't just say you want it to be unique it already is. Everyone was fine with the buffs to hp and the changes to slots etc. but this d-scan immunity had to have some type of gameplay goal in mind. IF you could share it with us that would be more useful than "we wanted to make it UNIQUE!" Furthermore if you want to make it unique, stop calling the damn things recon ships and just call them what they really are, electronic warfare cruisers (EWAC's).
    Cassius Invictus
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1698 - 2014-12-23 18:28:17 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    We are disappointed too with having to pull back the resists for fleets. These ships just need that drawback to balance them at smaller scales where they are more likely to get used anyway.

    We have T3 rebalance, black ops rebalance, and potential ewar module changes on the horizon to help address this as well.


    CCP Rise form one side I completely agree, from the another I was hoping that recons could now be used in T3 gangs instead of neut legions or ECM Tengus. If you pull back resists it won't happen. Maybe decreasing their e-war a little is a way to go?

    Also do we really need both tracking disruption and neut on curse and pilgrim? Maybe curse should get another bonus instead (resists. drone speed and tracking)?

    Maybe T2 resists should stay only on Combat recons but be romoved from cloaky ones?

    Keep working guys Blink.
    Ehud Gera
    Wildcard.
    Boundary Experts
    #1699 - 2014-12-23 18:45:59 UTC
    Why DSCAN immunity? Why? Please, tell us.

    Is there a well thought out reason for this besides "moar ganks will happen"?

    I liked the resist bonuses because it lent something to the fleet role this ship could take, but the Dscan thing threw a monkey wrench in and now it's the priority thing.

    Can you tell us why you want this ship to be a gankers paradise but not fill out the much more practical role of fleet recon EWAC (Ewar Cruiser)
    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #1700 - 2014-12-23 18:51:46 UTC
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Why DSCAN immunity? Why? Please, tell us.

    Is there a well thought out reason for this besides "moar ganks will happen"?

    I liked the resist bonuses because it lent something to the fleet role this ship could take, but the Dscan thing threw a monkey wrench in and now it's the priority thing.

    Can you tell us why you want this ship to be a gankers paradise but not fill out the much more practical role of fleet recon EWAC (Ewar Cruiser)


    I'd venture, and this is but a guess, that they are meant for small work. In the fleet setting there's no real point in not using the T1s. The bonuses are the same (unless you're failing and using ecm), the life expectancy isn't enough of a gap to justify the cost on a hull liable to be primary/secondary.

    It'd be nice to have them in larger fleets, but I imagine practical bounds/considerations will always prevent it. Plus it gives low skilled people something useful to fly (t1 variants) in large fights.