These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Thenoran
Tranquility Industries
#1701 - 2014-12-23 19:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Thenoran
Better changes for sure, but I'd still prefer if the Pilgrim kept the full 20% neut strength bonus.
Keep in mind that most Pilgrim fits can only bring two Medium neuts, the other two slots going to the cloak and a probe launcher. With a 10% bonus at V and two Medium neuts, you're still only neuting 540 cap every 12 seconds (which a cap booster can deal with).

With a 20% bonus it goes to 720 cap (which is what it does now), which is a more pressuring amount to deal with and allows the Pilgrim to holds its own more. It already suffers against the Curse in mobility, neut range and how many neuts can be fitted as well as not being dscan immune. (it has a cloak instead (which eats up a high slot) but that bring a decloak targeting delay)

That it has less range and mobility is fine (trade-in for the cloak) but at the very least the neuting target of a Pilgrim should really get their capacitor hammered or you'll still be better off flying a dscan immune Curse.
Ehud Gera
Wildcard.
Boundary Experts
#1702 - 2014-12-23 19:07:59 UTC
Consider this bonus:

Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.

What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.

It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.

But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.

Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.

Thoughts?
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#1703 - 2014-12-23 19:09:15 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:

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.


Yeah, that's what we did in here, ignored all the posts about real situations. I mean I certainly didn't explain how T3 cruisers were still more likely to get a kill on you. Nor did I include some tips to avoid recon ganks in that same post. Later on I didn't help a guy out who didn't understand his defensive options properly. Then I certainly didn't recap the first 52 pages and address the concerns about FacWar plexes. Nor did I present a comparison of being ganked in a wormhole by a combat recon versus a T3 cruiser.

That's just me, and I'm not the only one arguing in good faith in this thread. There have been some good situations brought up, and all have counters, but not everybody is happy with having to use counters where they didn't have to before. I can understand that, but this is EVE, things will change and sometimes they will get harder.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Equto
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#1704 - 2014-12-23 19:10:09 UTC
Ehud Gera wrote:
Consider this bonus:

Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.

What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.

It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.

But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.

Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.

Thoughts?

Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#1705 - 2014-12-23 19:13:27 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • 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/
    Thanks for the update! Those seem reasonable tweaks and arguments. Good to see the D-Scan inmunity is staying, and that you are open to further tweaking in case it does not work well.

    I wonder if they could get a bit more tank by slightly increasing their buffer (all of them), so they keep the reduced resists but a pinch more of buffer, without being that overtanked for smaller engagements.

    I'm not so sure about the kinetic damage bonus on the Rook. Sure, it also helps RLML, but it also reduces versatility, which should be missiles' trademark. Other Caldari ships already had that bonus removed for their improvement, such as the Phoenix. I understand a rate of fire bonus might not work that well with RLML, but what about a flat damage bonus, independant on warhead type? For example, 5%.


    BadAssMcKill
    Aliastra
    #1706 - 2014-12-23 19:19:06 UTC
    Can we stop with ****** kinetic damage bonuses tia
    Helene Fidard
    CTRL-Q
    #1707 - 2014-12-23 19:19:09 UTC
    So the design goal with the Pilgrim is to have a little bonus to everything and be good at nothing?

    Hey! I don't know about you

    but I'm joining CTRL-Q

    Grookshank
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #1708 - 2014-12-23 19:22:48 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

    Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • 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 do not understand the change on the resist profile. Recons will not be fleet viable compared to t3s without a serious buff to their tank, which was one of the stated goal of the balance change to them.
    Shaleb Heworo
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1709 - 2014-12-23 19:26:16 UTC
    just give the pilgrim its full range and neut bonus and give the curse a bonus to drone speed and tracking and maybe a bigger drone ba. As it stands now the pilgrim is pityful compared to its d-can invisible cousin AND to the other recons.
    Ehud Gera
    Wildcard.
    Boundary Experts
    #1710 - 2014-12-23 19:31:29 UTC
    Equto wrote:
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Consider this bonus:

    Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.

    What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.

    It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.

    But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.

    Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.

    Thoughts?

    Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it.



    Excuse me for having an opinion that i reasoned out on the forum. "that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken." Like Dscan reliably picking up uncloaked ships lol?

    Please if you're gonna enter the argument don't tell me not to have an opinion, tell me why yours is more sound.

    Kalihira
    Ultramar Independent Contracting
    #1711 - 2014-12-23 19:32:43 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.


    Guess you will have to nerf T3 tanks into the ground, atleast when using their racial EWAR subsystems, else the current issues will presist. I dont get why you would hassle over the tank of Crecons, but insist on keeping the "unique" dscan immunity you invented, which, again, will break aspects of the game. Let them be abit more squishy then their HAC cousins, but only a tad, keep their DPS low, and maybe weaken them in some other way (low sensor strength, high sig, low speeds, low agility, low max locked targets, capacitor). my combat recons are gathering dust beceause if anyone sneezes at them, they pop....
    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    Sigma Grindset
    #1712 - 2014-12-23 19:39:51 UTC
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Equto wrote:
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Consider this bonus:

    Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.

    What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.

    It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.

    But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.

    Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.

    Thoughts?

    Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it.



    Excuse me for having an opinion that i reasoned out on the forum. "that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken." Like Dscan reliably picking up uncloaked ships lol?

    Please if you're gonna enter the argument don't tell me not to have an opinion, tell me why yours is more sound.



    Because in almost any rebalance thread all I ******* see is people saying remove it from local, remove local, you know it wouldn't be a problem if you removed local. NONE of that is helpful. Its not a viable rebalance, its not productive, and as you said unlike the d-scan immunity only TRUELY affects nullsec, in lowsec there is normally one to two people in systems you want anyways and in highsec there is too many to be useful. Wormhole already has no local but it also has no static gates. Removing local is not happening and likely never will happen because its not helpful to anyone and doesn't fix anything.
    Ehud Gera
    Wildcard.
    Boundary Experts
    #1713 - 2014-12-23 19:43:40 UTC
    Equto wrote:
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Equto wrote:
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Consider this bonus:

    Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.

    What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.

    It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.

    But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.

    Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.

    Thoughts?

    Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it.



    Excuse me for having an opinion that i reasoned out on the forum. "that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken." Like Dscan reliably picking up uncloaked ships lol?

    Please if you're gonna enter the argument don't tell me not to have an opinion, tell me why yours is more sound.



    Because in almost any rebalance thread all I ******* see is people saying remove it from local, remove local, you know it wouldn't be a problem if you removed local. NONE of that is helpful. Its not a viable rebalance, its not productive, and as you said unlike the d-scan immunity only TRUELY affects nullsec, in lowsec there is normally one to two people in systems you want anyways and in highsec there is too many to be useful. Wormhole already has no local but it also has no static gates. Removing local is not happening and likely never will happen because its not helpful to anyone and doesn't fix anything.



    Chill out. I said for one unique ship type. Recons won't break the game if they can't be seen in local. It will actually just open up a unique opportunity and roles. Farming in Sov null is easier than anywhere else. Plz....logic, not tears mate.
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #1714 - 2014-12-23 19:43:54 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile.
  • noooooooo......
    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    Sigma Grindset
    #1715 - 2014-12-23 19:46:13 UTC
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Equto wrote:
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Equto wrote:
    Ehud Gera wrote:
    Consider this bonus:

    Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.

    What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.

    It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.

    But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.

    Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.

    Thoughts?

    Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it.



    Excuse me for having an opinion that i reasoned out on the forum. "that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken." Like Dscan reliably picking up uncloaked ships lol?

    Please if you're gonna enter the argument don't tell me not to have an opinion, tell me why yours is more sound.



    Because in almost any rebalance thread all I ******* see is people saying remove it from local, remove local, you know it wouldn't be a problem if you removed local. NONE of that is helpful. Its not a viable rebalance, its not productive, and as you said unlike the d-scan immunity only TRUELY affects nullsec, in lowsec there is normally one to two people in systems you want anyways and in highsec there is too many to be useful. Wormhole already has no local but it also has no static gates. Removing local is not happening and likely never will happen because its not helpful to anyone and doesn't fix anything.



    Chill out. I said for one unique ship type. Recons won't break the game if they can't be seen in local. It will actually just open up a unique opportunity and roles. Farming in Sov null is easier than anywhere else. Plz....logic, not tears mate.



    I tried to use logic but all I hear is screams for a removal of local, noone tends to listen to criticism of that idea just replying with the line "You know it wouldn't be a problem without local". Just because you can't see someone doesn't make them not a problem, obvious by the hate for d-scan immunity.
    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1716 - 2014-12-23 19:47:58 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

    Major changes:

  • We're going to go with a lighter resist profile than originally described, setting all eight recons at the former combat recon resist profile. While we still like the goal of making them more fleet viable, their tank was one of their only stand-out weaknesses and we felt that removing it could make them oppressive at smaller scales. To compensate somewhat we've trimmed 5 more sig radius of each ship.
  • With the Pilgrim we decided to split the difference between neut range and strength by wrapping both into one bonus. The amounts will be smaller than either of the singular bonuses but this should do a nice job of giving more engagement range flexibility while still allowing for plenty of cap pressure.
  • We are going to move one high slot on the Lachesis to a low slot, making armor slightly more viable while still preserving room in the mids for damps as well as long range warp disruption. The damage potential for the Lach is still on par with other combat recons even without the fifth high so we feel this fits better than giving up a mid.
  • The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
  • 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/


    Unfortunate that the resist buff doesn't look like it will go through. Honestly I think the resist buff is would have been more useful in the long run than the d-scan immunity for most uses.

    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

    2D34DLY4U
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1717 - 2014-12-23 19:48:26 UTC
    Thenoran wrote:
    Better changes for sure, but I'd still prefer if the Pilgrim kept the full 20% neut strength bonus.
    Keep in mind that most Pilgrim fits can only bring two Medium neuts, the other two slots going to the cloak and a probe launcher. With a 10% bonus at V and two Medium neuts, you're still only neuting 540 cap every 12 seconds (which a cap booster can deal with).

    With a 20% bonus it goes to 720 cap (which is what it does now), which is a more pressuring amount to deal with and allows the Pilgrim to holds its own more. It already suffers against the Curse in mobility, neut range and how many neuts can be fitted as well as not being dscan immune. (it has a cloak instead (which eats up a high slot) but that bring a decloak targeting delay)

    That it has less range and mobility is fine (trade-in for the cloak) but at the very least the neuting target of a Pilgrim should really get their capacitor hammered or you'll still be better off flying a dscan immune Curse.


    Agree, also remember there is no use for a Pilgrim vs. a Stratios since the latter is also cloaked, has more mobility, dps, basically everything...

    The only niche use for the Pilg comes IMO from the ship bonus allowing room for the combat probe launcher, cloak and 2 neuter that requires too much bling to fit on the Stratios IMO (barring offlining/on lining stuff all the time and/or mobile depot).

    I really like a design that can cloak, combat probe but when it fights has to be at close range and committed, the longer range is useless since if it has the two prior abilities and it can also fight at range it will become too OP (cloak, pick targets and escape at same time is too much), seems that by giving it range you are approaching this idea yet since you are unable to realize it fully you end up stuck in the middle with a useless design. Or perhaps there is some way to make it work that I don't see...
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1718 - 2014-12-23 19:49:27 UTC
    Orvmus wrote:
    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

    Wait, I though Interceptors having bubble immunity was going to ruin EVE and would be the only thing flown.

    Oh yeah, that didn't happen either. Smile

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1719 - 2014-12-23 20:03:48 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.


    Curious why you guys are going with the dmg type constraint on the Rook? That's a serious limiting factor for missile boats.

    Also...specifically for the Rook. Would you consider giving the Combat Recons the upgraded resist profile and not the Force Recon? This gives you a much more viable option for fleets but keeps the Force Recon side from getting to out of hand.

    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

    Yuri Thorpe
    Volatile Restability
    PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
    #1720 - 2014-12-23 20:07:51 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.

    So blackops will be getting love




    >:D