These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » [Proteus - January] Recon ships

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page8687888990Next pageLast page

[Proteus - January] Recon ships First post First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Generaloberst Kluntz

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 88

#1741 - 2014-12-23 21:52:43 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.

Removing local is the cure for nullsec, bear.

FT Diomedes

The Graduates

Likes received: 2,921

#1742 - 2014-12-23 21:58:53 UTC

Thank you for the update, Rise. Glad to see that you have listened to both sides in this contentious debate. I'm looking forward to the wrinkle presented by giving d-scan immunity to the combat recon ships. I understand the difficulties of giving recons the full T2 resistance profile. While it would have been great for fleets, it would have been tough for small gang.

Merry Christmas and may the New Year bring us all great content, fresh energy from CCP, and hopefully an adjustment to the Ishtar.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Equto

Imperium Technologies

Sigma Grindset

Likes received: 58

#1743 - 2014-12-23 22:00:08 UTC

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

Equto wrote:

Ehud Gera wrote:

Equto wrote:

Ehud Gera wrote:

Removing local is the cure for nullsec, bear.

That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything

Arline Kley

PIE Inc.

Khimi Harar

Likes received: 717

#1744 - 2014-12-23 22:00:35 UTC

Altirius Saldiaro wrote:

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?

Broken meaning unbalanced in relation to the rest of gameplay. I have full confidence that CCP can code them in. But it's balancing it against the rest of the game - that's the real rub.

"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

Lvzbel Ixtab

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 52

#1745 - 2014-12-23 22:05:23 UTC

Arline Kley wrote:

Altirius Saldiaro wrote:

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?

Broken meaning unbalanced in relation to the rest of gameplay. I have full confidence that CCP can code them in. But it's balancing it against the rest of the game - that's the real rub.

Even if it goes on Sisi It would not reflect real abuse and interactions

Generaloberst Kluntz

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 88

#1746 - 2014-12-23 22:08:57 UTC

From what i see, EvE playerbase (including myself) can be a big disappointment to the devs sometimes.
I mean, what are recons supposed to be? Subspecialty ships, highly specific ewar. They are supposed to be flown and warped APART from main fleets, they aren't supposed to take primary dps, therefore they aren't expected to be tanky or dps ships.
Nevertheless the average EvE (me too) player wants t2 resists and broad damage type in ze missiles.
Dudes they're not supposed to be fleet warped with main dps. They should land at range. Or, they should immediately try to pull range.
Rise I'm sorry for my incompetence.

Shaleb Heworo

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 55

#1747 - 2014-12-23 22:11:53 UTC | Edited by: Shaleb Heworo

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

nvm

Equto

Imperium Technologies

Sigma Grindset

Likes received: 58

#1748 - 2014-12-23 22:12:04 UTC

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

I don't want t2 resist as I think thats probably too much, however currently they are paper thin if you fit them for their ewar purpose or near useless for their ewar purpose if you fit them for tank. I believe that I shouldn't be afraid of other cruisers as a combat recon on a 1v1 because I have a 1/3 the health and 1/3 the dps they have.


Generaloberst Kluntz Viziam Amarr Empire Likes received: 88	#1749 - 2014-12-23 22:14:16 UTC 1 Equto wrote: That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything A PVPer fearing local chat removal.

Altirius Saldiaro

Doomheim

Likes received: 339

#1750 - 2014-12-23 22:15:09 UTC

Arline Kley wrote:

Altirius Saldiaro wrote:

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?

Broken meaning unbalanced in relation to the rest of gameplay. I have full confidence that CCP can code them in. But it's balancing it against the rest of the game - that's the real rub.

Then saying "broken" is using the wrong word.

Unbalanced is the better word to use. Although that is still opinionated. The balance is combat probes, scouts and intelligence. There are counters to it already in game. Players are just too lazy to want to use them.


Generaloberst Kluntz Viziam Amarr Empire Likes received: 88	#1751 - 2014-12-23 22:17:43 UTC Yeah put those damps, jams, webs, neuts to good use. Also I have no problem with buttlicking don't be racist.

Equto

Imperium Technologies

Sigma Grindset

Likes received: 58

#1752 - 2014-12-23 22:19:44 UTC | Edited by: Equto

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

Equto wrote:

That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything

A PVPer fearing local chat removal.

Where have I said I fear it? Maybe you can point me to that comment. I said it solves nothing and does nothing but allow you to get cheap ganks on bears. I would rather have meaningful small gang combat than managing to get a drop on a 30 day old character because he has no idea what local is. D-Scan removal allows me to strategically make perches and engage fights that I have a rough idea at winning rather than no local which would require 99% of eve both for wars, lowsec, and nullsec to get more alts in cloakies to sit on gates.

EDIT:

Not to mention me spending extra time in each system to determine if anyone is there when looking for kills in an area of space with only a few major hotspots every 10 jumps or so. I would rather jump in and know, hey there isn't anyone here, lets not launch probes.

Generaloberst Kluntz

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 88

#1753 - 2014-12-23 22:26:09 UTC

Equto wrote:

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

Equto wrote:

That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything

A PVPer fearing local chat removal.

1. If you're 30 days into this game and still don't know what local is, WoW is that way------->
2. Pls don't come to wspace you'll put shame on yourself and your bros because you depend on local to breathe.
3. Balls come back pls I miss you.

War and Order 2,054
Crosi Wesdo War and Order Likes received: 2,054	#1754 - 2014-12-23 22:27:38 UTC 4 So you are keeping the d-scan immunity whos use is hard to imagine outside of easy ganks on the smaller scale of things. And basically keeping the tanks as they are which is the only reason no one uses them. Well, i can see what they pay you guys for.

Lvzbel Ixtab

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 52

#1755 - 2014-12-23 22:33:26 UTC

Equto wrote:

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

I think they are ok as they only way to deal with current Recons specially the falcon is try to get your drones on the Falcon before it jams you out, because if you dont blap them right away they have the potential to disable multiple ships at once.

So being paper thin is good trade off for being D-scan immune and Ewar ships

Crosi Wesdo

War and Order

Likes received: 2,054

#1756 - 2014-12-23 22:36:55 UTC | Edited by: Crosi Wesdo

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.

You can test it works on SISI but you cant prove how dumb dscan immunity is since everyone is in just one nullsec system.

Altirius Saldiaro wrote:

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.

Funny thing is that outside of FW sites, theye going to be pretty much as useless as they are now.
Losing the tank means they probably wont be viable for pve as people were hoping, not useful for fleets. Still handy for warping into plexes and dropping 90km webs and points on whoevers in there though.

Lvzbel Ixtab

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 52

#1757 - 2014-12-23 22:45:35 UTC

Crosi Wesdo wrote:

Arline Kley wrote:

CCP Rise wrote:

You can test it works on SISI but you cant prove how dumb dscan immunity is since everyone is in just one nullsec system.

Altirius Saldiaro wrote:

At the end they will end up as Troll ships use to pull out those cheesy kills because not still have not found a viable role for them. I would much rather see them having an exteded D-Scan range and some decent tank and actual act like REAL Recon ships

Roel Yento

Republic University

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 65

#1758 - 2014-12-23 22:49:16 UTC

Equto wrote:

Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:

Equto wrote:

That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything

A PVPer fearing local chat removal.

Removing local adds the necessity of having scouts in your fleets that know how to actually scout. It also makes having a combat prober in your fleet that knows how how to do so important. It also means you need to pay attention to details and people that actively scout help keep your pve efforts safer as opposed to relying on local chat to know if you are safe or not. It makes eve harder having no local but it also increases the chances of fights happening lopsided or equal.

What is wrong with spending time hunting for people? Right now you jump into system and know your risk level. No local, the side with better intel and planning has upper hand. Also, you don't need alts on all gates, it's okay to take the chance that no one swings by or pay a new player in corp or alliance to watch gates while you make money. Could even ask someone ship spinning to listen for sound. Not wanting to take risks or share profits is because of greed, not because of needing alts to scout.

Oblivion's Pendulum Top Tier 122
Azazel The Misanthrope Oblivion's Pendulum Top Tier Likes received: 122	#1759 - 2014-12-23 22:49:54 UTC I think that the combat recons should at least have a significantly reduced sensor strength to compensate for this.

University of Caille Gallente Federation 3,623
Omnathious Deninard University of Caille Gallente Federation Likes received: 3,623	#1760 - 2014-12-23 22:50:23 UTC 4 Losing the resists is disappointing, keeping the d-scan immunity gimmic seems questionable considering the amount to negative feedback it has received. Careful with this change it seems to be treading the same water as loot spew, and we all know how that turned out. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.