These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1781 - 2014-12-24 00:23:09 UTC
Casirio wrote:
Oh don't worry CCP, we'll just keep using T3's and leaving the recons in the hanger.

Good job at removing T2 resists, you know, the one feature everyone in nullsec was excited about.

Literally ruined the viability of combat recons in large engagements.

and you ruined Christmas.

Thanks CCP


maybe when T3s get a -50% ehp nerf?
Lvzbel Ixtab
Dark Venture Corporation
#1782 - 2014-12-24 00:27:21 UTC
Ehud Gera wrote:
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:
We know there are going to be some problems but we don't really care. We are going to implement it anyway, because....

I want to.

Sorry to be blunt but it sounds like somebody in a job role that doesn't have the experience to be there. ( note: it's not just about the game )
According to the way this has been talked about from CCP then this is being rushed. Surely by now you have seen the effects of what happens when game developers rush things? You guys have no need to rush it, we have enough to play with for a few months.

There are a lot of arguments both ways, you would think at the very least, this would make the people taking your money to say, lets not rush it we should look into it more, we should test it ourselves .
Or at least come to the community and say we have an idea, it's game changing and we don't really know what will happen, we are going to implement it on the main server for a month and use that as feedback. If A happens then it stays, if B happens then we will review it.

But instead we have, what seems like a personal agenda to get something into the game, rather than something that is better for the game in general.

And before you get all excited this actually goes both ways. I think these changes will be bad but I actually have no idea. Even if it turns out to be the best EVE change ever I would still expect it to go through more testing than asking a forum full of over opinionated nerds what they think.

Rushed ideas are not resolved ideas. no matter how good they may seem.


I've said a lot in this forum, but this guy said everything right^^



Yes well said, just because CCP is in a 8 week cycle doesnt mean they have to release game changing mechanics every time, i mean cmon how many changes can you put up every 8 weeks.

Now CCP feels force to release big stuff every 8 weeks.
Cant tell Ifserious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1783 - 2014-12-24 00:50:40 UTC
Pulling the T2 resist is a terrible idea.....CCP WHY...

Recons are not used because they die way to fast ,its no fun to land on grid and get insta blapped before even having the chance to play :( Remove the immune to D-scan and keep the t2 resists or somthin...
Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#1784 - 2014-12-24 00:53:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhavas
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.


In other words, "We're going to nerf the **** out of the T3 tank."

*sigh*

Again, Rise, please balance for wormholes too, not just massive null blobs.

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary

Ehud Gera
Equitable Affront
#1785 - 2014-12-24 00:55:50 UTC
Overwhelming feedback might help guys...

Rise plz keep t2 resists and remove the DSCAN immunity +1

It seems like we're not being heard, so let's keep the thread naught alive
Casirio
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1786 - 2014-12-24 01:04:30 UTC
Rhavas 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.


In other words, "We're going to nerf the **** out of the T3 tank."

*sigh*

Again, Rise, please balance for wormholes too, not just massive null blobs.


yeah, I spent most of my Eve time in wspace. and flying t3's for literally every fight is ******* lame. it's gonna happen whether wormholers or nullsecers like it or not. or lowsecers like it or not.

why dont you ***** at CCP about bringing T2 cruisers like RECONS into play, so they can actually be used. and maybe T3's wont get nerfed to **** and everyone will be happy.

seriously whining about T3's is the wrong approach.
Cant tell Ifserious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1787 - 2014-12-24 01:06:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cant tell Ifserious
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/



    Thats fine..... we will continue to fit damps and TDs to our t1 frgs, domi and ishtars before we bring recons in to a fight. Good fight ccp rise good fight.
    Solaris Vex
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #1788 - 2014-12-24 01:08:44 UTC
    Most combat recons are still inferior to their t1 counterparts, the rook for example can only get ecm optimal range out to ~65km compared to the blackbirds more then 100km optimal. The descan immunity is only useful in very niche situations, like being a hard to find fighter bunny in anons and running relic/data wormhole sites with less risk.
    Rhavas
    Noble Sentiments
    Second Empire.
    #1789 - 2014-12-24 01:09:28 UTC
    Casirio wrote:
    Rhavas 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.


    In other words, "We're going to nerf the **** out of the T3 tank."

    *sigh*

    Again, Rise, please balance for wormholes too, not just massive null blobs.


    yeah, I spent most of my Eve time in wspace. and flying t3's for literally every fight is ******* lame. it's gonna happen whether wormholers or nullsecers like it or not. or lowsecers like it or not.

    why dont you ***** at CCP about bringing T2 cruisers like RECONS into play, so they can actually be used. and maybe T3's wont get nerfed to **** and everyone will be happy.

    seriously whining about T3's is the wrong approach.


    I think in the original post that could happen. You'd notice if you'd been paying attention that this is in response to the second round of alterations, where it has now been backpedaled far enough that the only way to achieve balance now is nerfing the crap out of T3s, rather than finding a balance as the original plan sounded like it was going.

    I support the original proposal, with increased resists.

    Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary

    Zappity
    Exit-Strategy
    Unchained Alliance
    #1790 - 2014-12-24 01:11:15 UTC
    I listened to Podside 266 - yes please for cloaking granulation! Local cloak and d-scan cloak would be awesome. And a special upgrade for the Nestor d-scan so it can detect cloaked ships and decloak them if it isolates to 5 degrees!

    Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

    Alruan Shadowborn
    Unleashed' Fury
    The Initiative.
    #1791 - 2014-12-24 01:15:23 UTC
    Shaleb Heworo wrote:
    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.


    CCP Rise already said it, albeit in a different way, and he is not wrong.

    Once the dust settles, people will choose the path of simplest execution. Could they probe out every entry and exit, yes, will they, probably not as people fly a plethora of ships not just Recon's and so it is simpler to take a risk. If no-one was prepared to take a risk in this game, like everyone keeps whining, then there would be no losses, as every engagement is a risk.

    Everyone bangs on how a whole range of ships are broken, Inties, the Ishtar, T3's, etc. So why do we not only see those being flown??

    People still make choices, and over time laxity leads to people ignoring even obvious dangers, ie i know there is a gate camp but my inty will land at 0 and get through the gate before they can do anything. Then on the otherside they get pointed by the instalocker and die. Sh|t happens

    Maybe rather than whining, people should work on a counter to these ships too
    scimichar
    Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
    #1792 - 2014-12-24 01:24:56 UTC
    Thanks for giving the Rook a kinetic only bonus. Now it won't ever be useful against most ships.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1793 - 2014-12-24 01:26:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    Alruan Shadowborn wrote:
    Everyone bangs on how a whole range of ships are broken, Inties, the Ishtar, T3's, etc. So why do we not only see those being flown??


    If you ever flew in nullsec, you'd see that 90% of the ships you see taking gates are now interceptors (if only there were a mechanic where every time a travel-fit inty warps out of a camp with impunity, the devs responsible for nullifying them got punched in the unmentionables-- it's certainly what I want to do when I watch them insta-warp off), that Ishtars and their ridiculous droneboat bretheren (VNI, Gila, and to some extent the Worm) are by far the most compelling ships to bring to a small gang fight, outclassing every other HAC / faction cruiser option by miles (they do tons of damage to targets of any size, don't have to worry about optimal ranges or tracking, don't use ammo, get tons of free utility highslots, and their one downside-- destructible drones-- was dealt with when CCP added mobile depots that allow you to use a communal prowler alt to shove unlmited numbers of replacement drones into the ships if you somehow lose them).

    T3s are also broken in that they do everything a force recon does, but do it while being un-catchable while traveling (yay interdiction nullification) and actually fitting a tank, at the expense (if you can call it that) of shorter EWAR range (but not short enough to render them unviable).
    Tiberian Deci
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #1794 - 2014-12-24 01:40:08 UTC
    So I'm new to this thread, but has anyone chimed in on how it may be abused in wormholes?

    Does that sound a little carebear-y, yes. But If I'm willing to put the time in to watching my dscan to stay safe its kinda scummy that there will be one class of ships I can't do anything about.
    Alruan Shadowborn
    Unleashed' Fury
    The Initiative.
    #1795 - 2014-12-24 01:42:23 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    Alruan Shadowborn wrote:
    Everyone bangs on how a whole range of ships are broken, Inties, the Ishtar, T3's, etc. So why do we not only see those being flown??


    If you ever flew in nullsec, you'd see that 90% of the ships you see taking gates are now interceptors (if only there were a mechanic where every time a travel-fit inty warps out of a camp with impunity, the devs responsible for nullifying them got punched in the unmentionables-- it's certainly what I want to do when I watch them insta-warp off), that Ishtars and their ridiculous droneboat bretheren (VNI, Gila, and to some extent the Worm) are by far the most compelling ships to bring to a small gang fight, outclassing every other HAC / faction cruiser option by miles (they do tons of damage to targets of any size, don't have to worry about optimal ranges or tracking, don't use ammo, get tons of free utility highslots, and their one downside-- destructible drones-- was dealt with when CCP added mobile depots that allow you to use a communal prowler alt to shove unlmited numbers of replacement drones into the ships if you somehow lose them).

    T3s are also broken in that they do everything a force recon does, but do it while being un-catchable while traveling (yay interdiction nullification) and actually fitting a tank, at the expense (if you can call it that) of shorter EWAR range (but not short enough to render them unviable).


    Thanks for making my point.

    There are still wide ranges of ships used, all the tears are because people might need to change their playstyle or do something different, the horror.

    You are right though, I am not a “super-leet blue donut pvper” and I am sure I will die to some of these, but I bet I will die to plenty of other things too.
    You can understand why Dev’s move on from CCP from time to time with the toxic community that whines about EVERYTHING

    Things will change, people will adapt, welcome to EVE
    Dun'Gal
    Myriad Contractors Inc.
    #1796 - 2014-12-24 01:46:51 UTC
    Dscan immunity sounds awesome, it's fresh, interesting and adds a new dimension to both solo and fleet combat. It's a good change, and if you argue otherwise, you need your head checked.

    Getting rid of the resists on combat recons is... a bit of a kick in the junk. You want to make them more viable/used platforms, but instead you make them significantly more vulnerable (especially for ships which are typically pretty light on the tank anyway.) I fail to see the logic here, but if it was to be a choice between dscan immunity and lighter tank.... I guess I can accept a lighter tank, though not happily.

    Updated changes to the pilgrim are a step in the right direction but I still don't see that as being much of an improvement. Giving it range is kinda meh, as in most cases, particularly for the solo pilots they want to be up close and personal anyway, abusing tracking scripts and neuting to take little to no damage. Reducing the neut strength (even if not as harshly) and giving it a marginal boost in range is a bit silly for the reason I just posted. It's generally going to want to be up close and personal with it's target and for those that can effectively stay outside of that range, well the marginal increase in neut range isn't enough for it to make any difference for the pilgrim, it's still getting kited and killed in the end. I can see some edge cases where having that extra range might be nice for scram kiting but those will be some rare engagements for the pilgrim indeed.

    TL;DR

    I think your original proposal was a much better proposal than your recently updated changes, and in the case of the pilgrim I think you need to go back to the drawing board entirely.
    Marlona Sky
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #1797 - 2014-12-24 01:53:05 UTC
    Tiberian Deci wrote:
    So I'm new to this thread, but has anyone chimed in on how it may be abused in wormholes?

    Does that sound a little carebear-y, yes. But If I'm willing to put the time in to watching my dscan to stay safe its kinda scummy that there will be one class of ships I can't do anything about.

    Bro, do you even combat probe?
    Crosi Wesdo
    War and Order
    #1798 - 2014-12-24 01:58:04 UTC
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    Tiberian Deci wrote:
    So I'm new to this thread, but has anyone chimed in on how it may be abused in wormholes?

    Does that sound a little carebear-y, yes. But If I'm willing to put the time in to watching my dscan to stay safe its kinda scummy that there will be one class of ships I can't do anything about.

    Bro, do you even combat probe?


    And the award for CCP sycophant of the thread goes to ...
    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1799 - 2014-12-24 02:03:17 UTC
    Infrequent wrote:
    I retract my previous applause of these changes, some of them are great still yes, but the T2 resist profile was needed to make recons actually viable in a fleet or in most situations infact. Yes you can still trick a fleet into thinking there is no recon on field (If they're dumb enough not to put eyes on you) but they will still die as soon as they see you on field and they will still die solo to that ratter they were trying to catch for their friends to gank. So we will still see swarms of EWAR T3s and nothing will change (Yes yes they're going to rebalance T3s but not to the point where you would pick T1 tank over actual tank).

    Honestly if you want a combat recon to be any form of combat ship, give it the resists, if you want to give a stealth gimmick, give it to the force recon. Don't screw over both.

    -1


    The more I've been considering the updated post from CCP Rise I think my initial instincts were correct that the T2 resists were really what I was keen to have on the Recon boats.

    The d-scan immunity could in fact be a pretty nifty tool to use for small gang operations or raiding mining areas and w-space. I will have a pretty fun time of working out ways to take advantage of the new capability.

    That said, I saw far more utility in the updated resistance profile, cap & fitting room, and adjustment in weapons profiles...particularly for the Combat Recon ships. A few other folks have mentioned it but really they are E-War cruisers, not actually recon specialists. They often get called as primary targets for upon arrival on the field and rightly so - they can create some havoc if not dealt with quickly.

    If you do a quick cost benefit analysis of the Blackbird vs a T2 Recon ship...right now not a lot of incentive to fly the dramatically more expensive and arguably equal or lesser effective ship. If you increase it's survivability noticeably (comparable resists to HACs and perhaps the MWD sig reduction) that would be worth the outlay in ISK per ship.

    Even with some tune-ups to a few stats and the d-scan immunity its just not that attractive of ship without the combat survivability. I'm positive that some folks will have some creative uses for the ship and see some nice successes i'm just not convinced it's going to be worth the SP investment for the Combat Recons.

    I think if you split the difference and the Combat Recons were supplied the HAC level combat survivability and you left the Force Recons truly rely on stealth and cloaking for survivability that would be a very solid way to provide some unique options for the Recon class ships. Let the d-scan immunity go in as well and monitor that ship capability closely and see if that's what needs to truly be tuned, removed, or iterated on but don't walk away from the opportunity to supply some real interest and life into the Recon Class ships.

    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

    Murdok46
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #1800 - 2014-12-24 02:11:28 UTC
    bring back the T2 RESISTS ... would be great to fly a recon in a fleet but i dont guess they want recons used in fleets ... Just t3's???