These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1721 - 2014-12-23 20:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Altirius Saldiaro
Midnight Hope wrote:
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.


Listen to the latest hydrostatic podcast. Rise was on there talking about it. Can find a link at www.totaleve.com

Or here https://highdrag.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/hd-47-arise-high-drag-is-two/
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1722 - 2014-12-23 20:17:19 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:

You should also know that the lock delay means almost nothing if you bump your target out of alignment when you decloak.
Or you know, uncloak when the target it's in warp to the sweet relic side you are cloaky camping it.


In small gang/solo fights bumping out of alignment won't be a tactic because of the difficulty of doing so when everyone is moving around, and uncloaking whilst in warp shows up on dscan.

At the moment, in smaller fights the main defence to the Falcon de-cloaking is to get drones onto it before it can target and jam you.

In any case, if you think the change makes no difference because it is reproducible already, why argue for it?
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#1723 - 2014-12-23 20:24:52 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. 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.
    • Reasonable roll back. However, please roll back the shield nerf to the Curse as well.
    CCP Rise wrote:
  • 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.
    • This just means the Pilgrim won't be good at anything. It won't have the distance to hit anything that burns away, and it won't have the destabilization power to keep slow targets capped out. Caught between two decent choices, you picked the third terrible one.
    Jezza McWaffle
    Lazerhawks
    L A Z E R H A W K S
    #1724 - 2014-12-23 20:30:44 UTC
    With this change originally HAC + Recon fleet was looking very much interesting and viable, now with the reduction to resists ok just go back to T3's since theres still no use for Recons in a fleet.

    Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    Sigma Grindset
    #1725 - 2014-12-23 20:32:14 UTC
    Jezza McWaffle wrote:
    With this change originally HAC + Recon fleet was looking very much interesting and viable, now with the reduction to resists ok just go back to T3's since theres still no use for Recons in a fleet.

    I see recons still used alot in blops fleets whenever people can fly them however with the change to jump range we got 1 good jump an hour, so 1 kill a day after setup and waiting before we have to stand down.
    Orchid Fury
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #1726 - 2014-12-23 20:35:57 UTC
    please scrap the dscan immunity and give combat recons t2 resits instead. fleets really need viable support cruisers, currently combat recons implode if they receive a fart. and the only alternative are t3s.
    dscan immunity seems nice however force recons seem better suited for these roles.
    Lvzbel Ixtab
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #1727 - 2014-12-23 20:54:25 UTC
    Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
    Midnight Hope wrote:
    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.


    Listen to the latest hydrostatic podcast. Rise was on there talking about it. Can find a link at www.totaleve.com

    Or here https://highdrag.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/hd-47-arise-high-drag-is-two/


    He didn't said anything other than explain how you can get away if you are ratting in wh, but then he was confronted by how it will affect FW space and he had no answer for it, saying that limiting D-scan immunity in FW plexes would be ready on time for Proteus.

    Basically what i got from it, is that he is delivering something half done and not sure about the Pros or Cons
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #1728 - 2014-12-23 21:02:06 UTC
    Orchid Fury wrote:
    please scrap the dscan immunity and give combat recons t2 resits instead. fleets really need viable support cruisers, currently combat recons implode if they receive a fart. and the only alternative are t3s.
    dscan immunity seems nice however force recons seem better suited for these roles.



    I second that. If you want to keep concept of dscan then just make it so acceleration gates dont decloak force recons and give combat recons tech ii resistance

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
    Bronson Hughes
    The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
    #1729 - 2014-12-23 21:05:37 UTC
    While I like the 4/7/4 Lachesis, I'm not a fan of it being the only combat recon without a damage bonus. The first iteration of the Lachesis made up for this by having 5 turret hardpoints, but now with only 4 hardpoints it's primary weapon damage will be somewhat lackluster.

    The other developer-specific bonus in this case (Roden) is Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire. Could you consider swapping the tracking bonus to the RoF bonus? The tracking bonus is nice and will help apply damage to smaller targets, but the RoF bonus will help apply more damage to all targets, not just small/fast ones, and put it more on-par with the other combat recons in terms of damage potential.

    Thanks.

    Relatively Notorious By Association

    My Many Misadventures

    I predicted FAUXs
    Shaleb Heworo
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1730 - 2014-12-23 21:07:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaleb Heworo
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Equto wrote:
    CCP Rise is the shield amount on the curse a typo? you say its going down by 187 to 1650 but the curse currently only has 1238 shields, that would be a massive increase not a decrease


    Sorry, yes. 1650 was the armor amount and it got pasted twice :( Fixed now.


    can you please adress cargo holds? Please at least make them big enough have an extended range of operation. This would finally be something individual players would benefit from. This also could be a feature exclusively for the force recons since as it stands now they lookpretty pale compared to combat recons
    TuCZnak
    Cyber Dong Industries
    #1731 - 2014-12-23 21:08:49 UTC
    Wow, so change that everyone was applauding (HAC resists) gets scraped, and change generating this threadnought (d-scan immunity) is staying. Apparently only because CCP Rice likes it and doesn't have problem with ignoring opinions different from his own. Nice going.
    Bronson Hughes
    The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
    #1732 - 2014-12-23 21:10:44 UTC
    Jezza McWaffle wrote:
    With this change originally HAC + Recon fleet was looking very much interesting and viable, now with the reduction to resists ok just go back to T3's since theres still no use for Recons in a fleet.

    I can understand rolling back the Force Recon buff back to current Combat Recon levels. They're meant to be stealthy support, not front-line support.

    But if your CCP's is to actually get Combat Recons on the field and in fleets in favor of T3s, they would be much better served by leaving Combat Recons with T2 HAC resists. Without them, folks will just keep flying T3s for fleets and swap to Combat Recons for semi-cloaky ambush situations.

    Relatively Notorious By Association

    My Many Misadventures

    I predicted FAUXs
    Arla Sarain
    #1733 - 2014-12-23 21:11:37 UTC
    Instead of making them desirable in fleets where they are weak, you decided to settle with making them even stronger in small gangs and yet still weak in fleets.

    Cool.
    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1734 - 2014-12-23 21:14:24 UTC
    TheMercenaryKing wrote:
    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.


    For ships like the Rook, shield tanked but most mids are used for ECM. With dropping of the resists, are there any thoughts of adjusting the Missile Velocity bonus to 4% shield resist per level?


    That might be a legit trade off. I would like to retain a damage bonus of some sort but the missile velocity exchange for resists would work fairly well.

    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen
    Altirius Saldiaro
    Doomheim
    #1735 - 2014-12-23 21:19:45 UTC
    For FW, the smart players will have friends scouting the acceleration gate while they capture the site. Going into the site, the smart players will have a scout go in something fast to see if its clear.

    Being lazy and trying to do FW solo is just going to place yourself at a higher risk.

    FW will have to just adapt or die.
    XvXTeacherVxV
    Be Nice Inc.
    Prismatic Legion
    #1736 - 2014-12-23 21:37:41 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Hopefully no typos or weirdnesses but its always possible so just let me know if something looks funny.

    15:02 - I have to step out for a meeting. Back in an hour to start responding.
    15:49 - fixed typos in Huginn and Curse slot layout =/
    16:51 - heading out for the day, will keep reading and post responses to your feedback tomorrow
    Friday - update post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5322500#post5322500
    Tuesday - update two: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5335877#post5335877


    I really like these changes, d-scan immunity included. I had hoped the huginn would get the same high-slot treatment as the fleet scythe, but I'll take a missile rapier instead I suppose.

    The way you're going with the Pilgrim could work, but I think it would be better if the Pilgrim had another high-slot and the same neut bonuses as the curse but half the dronebay and bandwidth (25/75 instead of 50/150). Or maybe a 5% bonus to drone damage instead of 10%. That would cut back on the DPS it can field without limiting it's EWAR as much, which would bring it more in line with the rest of the force recon class when compared with combat recons (cloak + full ewar but limited damage).
    Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE
    Arline Kley
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #1737 - 2014-12-23 21:40:48 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.


    Are the design team actually going to roll this out on SiSi first before release, get the test results so you can actually see how broken it is before you release it to TQ? or are you just going to take a blind leap of faith and then shrug when everything goes wrong?

    I hope to heavens that you choose the better option.

    "For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
    Warde Guildencrantz
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1738 - 2014-12-23 21:42:20 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    black ops rebalance


    Fix_the_widow.jpg

    Second_line_of_blops.jpg

    TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
    Altirius Saldiaro
    Doomheim
    #1739 - 2014-12-23 21:48:56 UTC
    Arline Kley wrote:
    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.


    Are the design team actually going to roll this out on SiSi first before release, get the test results so you can actually see how broken it is before you release it to TQ? or are you just going to take a blind leap of faith and then shrug when everything goes wrong?

    I hope to heavens that you choose the better option.


    Broken? Hasn't even released on SiSi yet. Broken means it doesnt work. Are you saying that CCP will not be able to make Combat Recons immune to dscan?
    Otto Kring
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1740 - 2014-12-23 21:51:36 UTC
    Big smile Now I want to fly these Big smile