These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1801 - 2014-12-24 02:19:47 UTC
Ehud Gera wrote:
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

Yeah, this is exactly what I was worried about, when I posted my feedback a couple of days ago, after Rise said "Dscan immunity is staying, but EHP is being looked into".

Seriously, for the love of god, if it has to be one or the other, drop the immunity and give us the resists.
Jonah KaMate
Aesir Executive Solutions
#1802 - 2014-12-24 02:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah KaMate
I'm not a big fan of the d-scan immunity but I'll learn to work around it in complexes or when i'm mining.

I do think the combat recon ships should get better eHP with the buffed damage resistances. For most applications the d-scan immunity is partially useful at best and I'll just run a T1 EWAR cruiser because I assume i'll get popped at first opportunity.

Bottom line: If the T2 resists were staying I would probably put some real training into Recon ships...the d-scan immunity just isn't that useful to me in how I play to make it an acceptable choice instead of T1 varieties.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#1803 - 2014-12-24 03:07:42 UTC
I will go ahead and throw my opinion in here:

Not a fan of dscan immunity. It makes flying the ship neat in a fleet because you can sit on a plex and surprise the hell out of a lot of solo players. Hide fleet numbers, etc.

It makes flying the ship fun but kind of defeats the purpose of all of the tools we rely on in wh space.

-1
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
#1804 - 2014-12-24 03:13:17 UTC  |  Edited by: h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
The thing that bugs me is, Recon ships could be so damn cool, with a bit of thought and some effort they could have a proper place in EVE fleets and solo.
But they are broken and we are being told they are being fixed under the guise of a new game mechanic by a dev team with thinned ranks over the holiday season. It's not that I am not grateful. That's hard word and dedication we can all respect, but that's hard to see when something is being rushed out the door.
Recons are broken....

Adding Dscan immunity won't fix it.

Recons are not going to be fixed, they are going to be edited to the point where they are different from before, because it was on their list of stuff to do.
I expect them to be looked at again when the next recon fix comes by in a few years.

I would love to see CCPs notes for Recon goals, in fact I would love them to release their goal lists before they release how they are going to achieve them. ( that's just me though i'm sure. )

DSCAN Immunity : it's a new mechanic which although shows new and innovative thinking sets a dangerous standard. What other ships will get this in the future? How will the creative EVE pilots use this to guarantee kills. I for one am going to sit on small plex gates and wait for frigates to warp in and make them pop while they can't lock me.
If it does need to be nerfed how will this be handled ? If it does need to be removed then what happens to combat recons without that skill? Will it even get nerfed if it proves to be OP, Ishtars anyone?

Can't you just add a cloak to them but change the bonuses it gets from a cloak? that way CCP still get their tear making machines and we don't have to invent a new mechanic just for one ship, everybody is happy.

Resists : I don't think I know enough about fleet mechanics to understand just how important HAC level resists are but I do know that solo a recon with those resists could be far too strong when you add in EWAR to that mix.
IMO squishy with range bonuses and only damage application bonuses would be okay.

TLDR:
Not really a solution but my point is that recons are broken because of the way they are used and treated, Strip them back to just the hull type then make a list of what you want recons to do and how you want them to be used in general then add bonuses and slot layout to them and make them an actual viable ship, they start to look pretty damn good I reckon.

Also cause I have nowhere else to put this...
Whats up with amar ewar?
- All other races ewar effects all ships 100% of the time
- Tracking disrupt only works on guns not missiles
- Neuts only work if they are active tanked and use heavy cap modules. ( unless you can cap them out )
- Neuts also are on ships that use cap for armor repairs and lazors, the two heavy ass cap using modules,
they are also high slot modules.

Always wondered.
Jaysen Larrisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1805 - 2014-12-24 04:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaysen Larrisen
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:


...

Resists : I don't think I know enough about fleet mechanics to understand just how important HAC level resists are but I do know that solo a recon with those resists could be far too strong when you add in EWAR to that mix.
IMO squishy with range bonuses and only damage application bonuses would be okay.

TLDR:
Not really a solution but my point is that recons are broken because of the way they are used and treated, Strip them back to just the hull type then make a list of what you want recons to do and how you want them to be used in general then add bonuses and slot layout to them and make them an actual viable ship, they start to look pretty damn good I reckon.

...




Reference the resists...really survivability period...it would make them a more formidable ship in solo work, however, a little bit of ECCM goes a very long way in countering ECM. The effects in small gang fights are real but they certainly aren't jamming any more targets or any more effectively just lasting on the field a little longer. They would be far from invincible but certainly more serviceable than they are now.

Additionally, they still sacrifice any serious tank lo run their primary functionality. The resists and mild eHP buff really gives them more cushion to GTFO or call for logi if you happen to have anything with reps handy. As I noted earlier the d-scan immunity frankly just isn't enough to make you want to run the ships over their T1 cousins for the vast majority of applications or the current Force Recon varieties.

Consider this...what if you are trying to make essentially an Electronic Attack Cruiser; in theory it would share a fair amount of mobility and shouldn't be left behind in survivability to apply it's "attack" effects the way other ships apply lethal effects.

As for the TLDR - well said and I tend to agree with you. As pointed out, treat it like what it is, a T2 EWAR Cruiser and that has nothing to do with Recon work. The bonuses should focus on applying its effects. If the intent is to make it more of a recon boat then focus the bonuses on that (i.e. bare bones offensive capability, good speed, very low sig, big bonus to scan range and resolution, target painting, cloak, etc).

"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

Orvmus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1806 - 2014-12-24 04:35:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Orvmus
For the love of all things holy, get rid of dscan immunity and keep the resists.

Even better would be putting some thought in to how Recons could be improved instead of just stat buffs and a ******** Cloak for the non-cloaky version.

Prior to this change people who are on the ball with d-scan know what they are coming up against, they know when something is creeping up on them. They are rewarded with knowledge for being active and vigilant, this change removes that reward.

Can you even see how many people there are against this change?? This entire thread is full of them, it has more replies than things 10 times its age. I mean seriously, it's looking like it will overtake the Jump Drive changes with it's current post count which should tell you something, the players are rallying and they are telling you that they don't like it. Listen to us for a change.

I also want to express how disappointed I am that this is being so rushed, you are saying that there will be problems and that you don't have the time to resolve them by next release. The entire point of this new release schedule is to stop things like that from happening, so that these game changing and possibly game breaking changes are actually fleshed out and the foreseeable problems have been resolved.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
Rote Kapelle
#1807 - 2014-12-24 04:49:10 UTC
D-scan immunity is staying because they figured out a chunk of legacy code and they're gonna prove it even if it kills us.
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#1808 - 2014-12-24 04:51:12 UTC
Ehud Gera wrote:
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


Threadnaughts are irrelevant.
CCP does what CCP wants to do.
The forum is simply a pressure release valve to mitigate the rage.


Having said that... My Christmas wish:


D-Scan immune seems a bit daft since 4 of the 8 ships get a bonus to Cloakyness.


Pilgrim is still not awesome

......Range...Neut amount

Curse 37k 30/s
Pilgrim 13k 30/s current
Pilgrim 25k 22/s CCP proposed
Pilgrim 18k 30/s CW's proposed

While the increase in range is nice, the reduced nueting efficiency is lame given that the Pilgrim only has 4H spots. That's not a lot of nueting power if you've got a Cloak & Cyno fitted. I've always thought the Pilgrims role is: decloak, scram, "OH HAI!" in local, cyno, neut, wave to fleetmates, loot target wreck.



The range increase does little for the surpise/decloak/scram/cyno.

On the flip side, in a fleet fight who would want a Pilgrim over a Curse? Less range and less neuting capacity.


I'd like to see the Pilgrim gain a high spot, have it's neut range modified to +7.5% per level making a medium neut good to aprox. 18k while retaining it's current drain bonus. Then bump it's scan resolution up above 300, so when it uncloaks, it has a chance to grabbing something before it warps away.

Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#1809 - 2014-12-24 04:52:15 UTC
Soo. Since everyone and their shmother already discussed the rest of the changes, I'm only going to ask this.

Okay, so lach gets the fourth low to "get a viable armour tank".
...Meanwhile since force and combat recons will have same resists, we already have a 4low lach. It's called Arazu and will have the very same lows and the very same resist profile.

The difference being one has a covops cloak and a covert cyno, the other has the stupid gimmick and 16% more mids.
So what's the actual difference between the two? Well, other then arazu being useful in blops.
Cant tell Ifserious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1810 - 2014-12-24 04:58:27 UTC
Please CCP keep the t2 resists and get rid of the D-scan immunity if something needs to get changed. Please Sad
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#1811 - 2014-12-24 05:19:56 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.

  • 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.


  • Have a great Christmas o/



    Ah yes, ye ol' stealth Caldari "nerf-bonus".


    No "free release" is complete w/o it.



    It's like the gift you receive @ the office Christmas party... the same tin of Fruitcake that's been making it's rounds for the past 12 years.


    Hooray Caldari !
    The Renner
    Canadian Operations
    #1812 - 2014-12-24 05:37:01 UTC
    So the one change recons really needed (increased ehp) gets dropped in favor of some gimmick change, meh.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1813 - 2014-12-24 05:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    As an additional complaint, why does the Pilgrim get stuck with terrible range on its primary offensive tool? You don't see the Rapier being stuck with shorter ranged webs than a Huginn. You don't see an Arazu being unable to point as far as a Lachesis. The Falcon and Rook get the same ECM bonus. Man up and give the poor Pilgrim the same neuting bonuses as the Curse.

    There's no reason for the Amarr force recon to get a special gimping, particularly since you've already gone and taken a dump all over the effectiveness of both their offensive tools (TDs don't work against drones or missiles-- the two best small-gang weapons systems at the moment-- and ASBs have seriously impacted the effectiveness of neuts vs active tanks in solo / small gang settings).
    Torgeir Hekard
    I MYSELF AND ME
    #1814 - 2014-12-24 06:04:57 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    As an additional complaint, why does the Pilgrim get stuck with terrible range on its primary offensive tool? You don't see the Rapier being stuck with shorter ranged webs than a Huginn. You don't see an Arazu being unable to point as far as a Lachesis. The Falcon and Rook get the same ECM bonus. Man up and give the poor Pilgrim the same neuting bonuses as the Curse.

    Quite frankly, current curse and pilgrim are more or less in a good spot. That is, they are 2 different ships, and each of them has a different use. One is a sneaky U-Boat brick, the other is a WTFPwnzor McKillah for small gangs.
    Meanwhile the other recons have an identity crisis. Huggin and Rapier are fleet long webs. One a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Lach and Arazu are fleet long points. One is a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Falcon is a falcon. And rook competes with the primae for the title of an ultimate joke of a ship.

    The proposed changes will only make it worse, though. The difference will be the one type cloaky and the other type cloaky. And all equally (un)tanky. And a pilgrim will be a curse ******** little brother.
    fox targaryen
    Doomheim
    #1815 - 2014-12-24 06:12:00 UTC
    10/10 troll on the market speculators; so much for getting recons to be used more in fleets
    Cant tell Ifserious
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1816 - 2014-12-24 06:35:12 UTC
    The Renner wrote:
    So the one change recons really needed (increased ehp) gets dropped in favor of some gimmick change, meh.


    So true it hurts my eve feelings. We were having so many great patches. I guess we were due for a bad one......
    Tira Janau
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #1817 - 2014-12-24 06:50:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tira Janau
    CCP "Mouthpiece" Rise is still here and active, good to know.

    You take a perfectly reasonable change (giving combat recons t2 resists or slot changes and even maybe *gasp* the ability to do combat), and say naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

    But the crappy, gimmicky and only abuse-able mechanic? Lets just keep that regardless of what the playerbase says, my god Rise. No dscan and cloaking is the cloaky recon's job, how freaking hard is that to accept? You don't need to slap a useless bow on the combat recon; you just have to make the product decent.

    P.S. Love the rlml change to the rook, still peddling your crappy RLML base to the public.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1818 - 2014-12-24 06:54:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    Torgeir Hekard wrote:
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    As an additional complaint, why does the Pilgrim get stuck with terrible range on its primary offensive tool? You don't see the Rapier being stuck with shorter ranged webs than a Huginn. You don't see an Arazu being unable to point as far as a Lachesis. The Falcon and Rook get the same ECM bonus. Man up and give the poor Pilgrim the same neuting bonuses as the Curse.

    Quite frankly, current curse and pilgrim are more or less in a good spot. That is, they are 2 different ships, and each of them has a different use. One is a sneaky U-Boat brick, the other is a WTFPwnzor McKillah for small gangs.
    Meanwhile the other recons have an identity crisis. Huggin and Rapier are fleet long webs. One a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Lach and Arazu are fleet long points. One is a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Falcon is a falcon. And rook competes with the primae for the title of an ultimate joke of a ship.

    The proposed changes will only make it worse, though. The difference will be the one type cloaky and the other type cloaky. And all equally (un)tanky. And a pilgrim will be a curse ******** little brother.


    Except the Pilgrim is in a terrible place right now. Its effectiveness has been stealth-nerfed into the ground:

    - Its neuts no longer affect a big slice of active tanks (most people fitting gimmicky solo ships use ASBs)
    - Its local tank is no longer competitive with the DPS output of modern ships (lots of T1 stuff has been buffed, and a ton of combat and PvE fits now lean towards drones and missiles-- neither of which the Pilgrim can mitigate)
    - Its DPS output is pathetic, especially if it has to devote slots to an armor tank

    I used to fly the Pilgrim way back in the day-- back when people had skillpoint-based troubles fitting perfect ratting ships, when rats weren't programmed to defend ratters by switching targets to gankers, etc-- and even then it was a pretty touch-and-go, niche ship. If you stumbled across the right ratting battleship, you could kill it (barely). I remember engaging a ratting Apoc back in ~2009: I killed it, but it was a very close fight (Pilgrim in structure), and that was against literally the Pilgrim's ideal target (heavily cap-dependent, tracking-limited, only packing a very rudimentary ratting tank, etc). These days they apparently have trouble with un-defended mining barges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzIoG0MqUxw

    I'd be fine if they kept the Pilgrim as a U-boat (I'm hard for U-boats), but if they want that to work it needs to get a big bonus to local tanking, an afterburner speed bonus, a lot more DPS, or some combination of the above. As it stands it just doesn't cut it. Plus, giving the Pilgrim the same double-bonus as the Curse wouldn't *prevent* it from being used in scram range, like a U-boat-- it would just give it additional options.

    As for the Curse, well, I can't recall the last time I saw one fielded. I'd be curious to see what its usage numbers are compared to the other recons, but I'd wager it's one of the least-flown T2 cruisers in the game. I've played with fits in EFT, but there's no way to make one useful for small gang work: they're too slow, too fat, and not tanky enough-- especially given how close they have to be to their targets.

    If Curses did ~2200m/s with a couple of nanos fit and could neut to ~50km instead of ~37km, one might be tempted to fly one. As it is, though, you're stick in a hull that maxes out at 1700m/s, turns like a brick, and has to sit frighteningly close to its targets to be effective. It's sad because cap warfare on a skirmishing platform could be really useful, but because of the way the Curse is implemented it's just not practical as a skimisher.
    Wynta
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1819 - 2014-12-24 06:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Wynta
    Might as well put in my thoughts even though they probably won't get read.

    First, lets start with the role of the Recon ships. There are two type, the Force and the Combat Recon. They both share EWAR bonuses, but the Force specializes in Covert Cyno's for BLOP fleets, and the Combat focuses on being an actual combat vessel. These roles, for the most part, are clear if somewhat oddly implemented. Since I focus on Caldari ships I'll use them as examples.

    The Falcon can fit a Cloak, Cyno, and two guns, or a Cloak or Cyno and 3 Guns. It does receive bonuses to Guns as well as ECM and Cyno. Because of the abysmal damage, it is probably best to use the Falcon for Cynos and ECM only. A well equipped Falcon can have a ECM reach of 100km, far outreaching it's guns range. My understanding of the Falcon is this, it is a forward scout of a Black Ops Fleet or maybe just a normal small, that once the fleet engages, the Falcon can provide some EWAR at a safe range. It is by no means a combat vessel and as such, should rely on aligning as a defense. My suggestion is to move the Falcon and its Force Recon brothers into this more niche role of forward scout. Here are my suggested changes for the Falcon.

    Caldari Cruiser bonuses:
    10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost
    30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength

    Recon Ships bonuses:
    20% bonus to Combat Scanner Probe strength
    20% reduction in Cloaking Devices CPU requirement
    10% reduction in scan time of Combat Scanner Probes.

    Role Bonus:
    80% reduction in Cynosural Field Generator liquid ozone consumption
    50% reduction in Cynosural Field Generator duration
    • Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device and Covert Cynosural Field Generator
    • Cloak reactivation delay reduced to 5 seconds

    With these changes would be -1 High, better base agility and time to warp. So the standard build would have 3 Highs of Cloak/Cyno/Expanded Scanner. Mids of a Prop Mod, ECM (Or other EWAR), small buff tank. And lows being DCU and other utility (or tank for Armor ships)

    The Combat Recon is as different to this as the Covert Frigates are to each other. Where as the Buzzard and Falcon would be scouts, the Rook would be like the Manticore. The Rook is the evolution of the Blackbird, a fleet EWAR boat. Because it is supposed to be part of a fleet as Logi is, it has to be able to survive a fleet environment more that just warping at the first sign of aggression. The Combat Recon ship is a HAC that trades damage, and some tank, for utility. Now the HAC is a damage dealer, almost all of its ship bonuses go toward damage. The Eagle gets range and the Cerb gets more damage, then the Rook gets the Utility. That is the Combat Recon role, EWAR while in fleets, and some damage. Here are my suggested changes for the Rook.

    Caldari Cruiser bonuses:
    5% bonus to Light, 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 Light, Heavy Missile, and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity

    Role Bonus:
    Cannot be detected by directional scanners

    +HAC Resist Profile

    This would be the initial suggested change plus the addition of light missiles to the ROF bonus to encourage RLML on it. Now the Rook needs a means to survive outside of instantly warp out on yellow boxes so T2 resists are necessary if the Rook doesn't inherit the Blackbird's ECM range. These changes would be the less severe changes that would morph the Rook into a fighting vessel with utility instead of the gun and run vessel that the Falcon would be.

    Another option would be completely change the Combat Recon's role to Purely a EWAR boat. And that could be done multiple ways but here is one I liked.

    Caldari Cruiser bonuses:
    10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost
    4% bonus to all shield resistances

    Recon Ships Bonuses:
    30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer and Lockbreaker Bomb strength
    10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer Range and Lockbreaker Bomb flight time

    Role Bonus:
    95% reduction in afterburner powergrid requirement
    • Can fit Bomb Launcher

    With this you could add a couple more EWAR bombs, like a bomb that slows in a radius for 5-10sec for Minmatar, one that either warp disrupts for 5-10 for the Gals or a 5-10 sec disruption, and then void bombs for Amarr. Where Stealth Bombers are for hit and run bombing runs, Combat Recons can utilize EWAR bombs in either a bombing run fashion or as part of a normal fleet, in that they would be part of a standard fleet, burn into bomb range then burn back out after they are release the bomb. With the role bonus they'd be able to equip a battleship AB for a slow acceleration into a high top speed.
    Squatdog
    State Protectorate
    Caldari State
    #1820 - 2014-12-24 07:16:31 UTC
    Quote:
    For the love of all things holy, get rid of dscan immunity and keep the resists.


    This.