These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1861 - 2014-12-24 19:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
The more I think about it, the more I am opposed to the D-Scan immunity for Combat Recons. Not because I think it's a bad idea, overpowered, "gimmicky", etc., but because it does nothing to meet CCP's stated goals of improving their viability in fleets. It's a pure scouting/solo/recon gang bonus, it doesn't add anything to Combat Recons in terms of fleet viability when T3s are available that will do the job better, in a far more survivable platform.

CCP, drop the D-Scan immunity bonus for Combat Recons and give them full T2 HAC resists instead. That will better meet your stated goals without overpowering Combat Recons in small gang situations. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I'd be fine with Combat Recons keeping the D-Scan Immunity bonus and getting the full T2 HAC resist profile. It just seems that CCP isn't okay with them keeping both, so if CCP has to choose, I'd rather have the one that will better meet their stated goals.


If you're looking for an appropriate platform to grant D-Scan immunity, consider Electronic Attack Frigates. They are sufficiently high-tech to warrant the bonus, it would give them additional an additional role as non-cloaky gang scout, and it would put your shiny new bonus into play.


CCP, please consider this. (In addition to compensating for the Lachesis having only 4 hardpoints and no damage bonus.)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Ehud Gera
Equitable Affront
#1862 - 2014-12-24 19:43:20 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Thinking about this, I realized that it may be a good idea to just give us "normal" T2 EWar cruiser in position of combat recon. Resists, 2 racial EWar forms - and that's it, no need for both recons to try to be sneaky... and even more sneaky.

I'm not against d-scan immunity or whatever mech like that, I just think that having something simple will go a long way, all the while we can test new ideas on new ships. For example, how about d-scan immunity on, say, Caldari and Minmatar T3 destroyers in one of their configurations?


There's a cool thought^ do something new with new ships, then DSCAN immunity can have a downside, like massively reduced tank until you get it switched to combat mode or whatever.

Stick with your real goal with recon. Call it an Electronic attack Cruiser, give it fleet ready resists and do some gimmickry with the new t3's (where you can apply downsides to the upside of immunity and not make it a gimmick but a tactical decision point)
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#1863 - 2014-12-24 19:53:00 UTC
Actually the saddest thing about a D-scan immune ship is that the best defense against it will turn out to be the reliable, free, and instant intel of Local.

Meaning that Local will never go away or stop being the instant free intel tool that it already is.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1864 - 2014-12-24 20:15:00 UTC
Wow CCP Rise that was some bad back-pedalling. 5 less sig radius will have no change result in fleet combat for recons. Scrap the d-scan immunity, give the full t2 hac resist bonus.

I was looking forward to this balance pass. Was.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1865 - 2014-12-24 20:28:12 UTC
gascanu wrote:
Quote:
FALCON

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

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost



Quote:
10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost
this is a frigate bonus, not a recon ship bonus...

you want to nerf ecm into the ground?


I don't think the current ship balance team knows how to deviate from having a fixed set of bonuses span a manufacturer's entire range of ships. It's the same stuff I complained about when they first started their rebalancing spree... they're turning EVE into a game where each race has like four basic ships, each duplicated in various sizes. So boring and so ineffective.

Individual hulls need to be designed and balanced on an individual basis so they can shine. That said, I also think ECM needs a complete re-work anyway, so there's also that...
Orange Faeces
Farbissina Industrial and Procurement
#1866 - 2014-12-24 20:39:50 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:

I know exactly what values they have and how they will be used. That is why i think they are ****.


You know the bonus will be used for solo/small-gang and non-consensual surprises, as well as camping plexes? I'll assume your problem is with the camping plexes part (because no real EVE player opposes solo/small-gang warfare). Why should you get to farm with almost no risk of getting killed in the face... repeatedly... in game?


O. Faeces
W Sherman Elric
Argentum Holdings
#1867 - 2014-12-24 20:48:53 UTC
FC you want a EWAR recon or a webby loki? Bring the loki the recon will just die to fast. That was the old answer. The short term answer was "cool bring your EWAR we can actually field them without them going insta pop" The new answer? "Bring the loki the recon will just die to fast"

Nice job you morons, you fixed a ship and then you killed it.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1868 - 2014-12-24 20:51:40 UTC
Eve Proteus: Better to just fly Protus.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1869 - 2014-12-24 20:55:29 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Man all these people crying about the resists, if they stayed, why would you ever fly hacs? Damage? In fleets damage output rarely matters, but the ewar utility would have dumpstered the hacs


Range, HACs have double a recons range in most instances.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#1870 - 2014-12-24 21:05:45 UTC
Varren Dar'khel wrote:
Lose the D-Scan and Keep T2 resists. The fact that we have to argue this hard for a design decision that a toddler could flaws in is pathetic.

The D-Scan change fundamentally breaks the available intel tools we use in WH space.
And the resists we're the only good change you made, the ships need them. They are T2 ships give them T2 resists.

Also fix the Pilgrim and give it +1 High Slot.


There's no change to dscan. 4 ships will be immune, but they arent changing dscan.

To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1871 - 2014-12-24 21:13:43 UTC
will these changes be put onto the test server? I'd like to test a few fits out and see if they're viable.
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
#1872 - 2014-12-24 22:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
[

To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole.



No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it.

Dscan at least gave you a chance. If you missed somebody on Dscan and you got ganked it was your fault and the ganker wins by a bit of luck and you not hitting Dscan at the right time. But you have a chance, the odds are not stacked 100% in the gankers favour now you never had a chance, unless of course you sub a new character and train him.

The game mechanics should at least be viable for a single character to play and participate above just being there to get ganked.

The great thing about EVE is that the mechanics allow those doing high risk activities the opportunity to survive. Even if it is a slim chance Dscan, local and experience means that as well as doing your task you must also focus on other smaller tasks to stay alive.

In contrast to that, the attacker/hunter must also use the tools at his disposal to find and attack the victim. But he must use these tools in a way that does not give him away and does not get him killed by other hunters doing the same.

Meaning, for those that can't follow. At a base value, before you apply skill and experience levels to that formula that the chances of each winning are 50/50. That goes for most activities on EVE.

Not being on Dscan makes that base value sway in the attackers odds, for no apparent reason other than to cause "tears" as you kids like to say these days.

So, the only people in favour of this mechanic are those that are already doing the ganking.
So we are clear, I think ganking is for those that still miss their mouth when they try to eat, but regardless of my thoughts on it everybody should be able to participate, even the special kids.
I just think they heave it easy enough as it is.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1873 - 2014-12-24 22:39:22 UTC
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:

No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it.


Nor should it be the sole point of balancing, either. Fun and innovative mechanics should not be held back merely because some people object to non-solo activities.


Quote:

The game mechanics should at least be viable for a single character to play and participate above just being there to get ganked.


Why? Last time I checked, this was a multiplayer game. Choosing to handicap yourself should not merit additional consideration when it comes to game balance.


Quote:

In contrast to that, the attacker/hunter must also use the tools at his disposal to find and attack the victim. But he must use these tools in a way that does not give him away and does not get him killed by other hunters doing the same.


Absolutely none of which aren't 100% mitigated by correct use of d-scan.

That's the point of this. To make it so there are more dimensions to this besides "Are they using d-scan or not?" Right now it's really binary, and that is a bad thing.


Quote:

So, the only people in favour of this mechanic are those that are already doing the ganking.
So we are clear, I think ganking is for those that still miss their mouth when they try to eat, but regardless of my thoughts on it everybody should be able to participate, even the special kids.
I just think they heave it easy enough as it is.[ /b]


Yeah, somehow I have my doubts as to your impartiality here. Just sayin'.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
#1874 - 2014-12-25 00:01:30 UTC
Quote:
Quote:
To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole.


Quote:
No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it.


Quote:
Nor should it be the sole point of balancing, either. Fun and innovative mechanics should not be held back merely because some people object to non-solo activities.


Ahhh, say what now? Choosing to fund one account is neither objecting to solo activities nor restricting yourself to them.
My point was a response to the counter about tools used in wormhole space.
For many many reasons you can find yourself solo in a WH doing various activites, if you can afford to have a tag along character
that just sits on or in a WH then good for you but your argument goes both ways,
Fun and innovative mechanics should not be enforced merely because some people object to solo activities.




h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
#1875 - 2014-12-25 00:02:15 UTC
Quote:
Quote:
The game mechanics should at least be viable for a single character to play and participate above just being there to get ganked.



Quote:
Why? Last time I checked, this was a multiplayer game. Choosing to handicap yourself should not merit additional consideration when it comes to game balance.


Where is this choice coming from? it isn't for you to say who can and can't afford to pay for multiple accounts Its also not for you to debate the validity of others choices about how they spend their real life money.

Yes this is a multi player game, that means at least one attacker and one defender, or two parties. You and me. you don't have to roam in big fleets just to participate in the multiplayer facets of Eve.

Your argument here is about balance? Dscan immunity does not bring balance.


Quote:
In contrast to that, the attacker/hunter must also use the tools at his disposal to find and attack the victim. But he must use these tools in a way that does not give him away and does not get him killed by other hunters doing the same.


Quote:
Absolutely none of which aren't 100% mitigated by correct use of d-scan.

That's the point of this. To make it so there are more dimensions to this besides "Are they using d-scan or not?" Right now it's really binary, and that is a bad thing.


I am finding it hard to understand your sentence structure, are you saying it is 100% mitigated by Dscan?
If so then shouldn't Dscan itself be looked at? Shouldn't we be looking at different ways for everybody to survive or get killed?

The game is quite old, it is bound to seem binary as we repeat the process so many times. I don't think anybody is suggesting EVE should not evolve but we are suggesting that this change will bring a huge gain by one group of players which have no need for the gain.



h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
#1876 - 2014-12-25 00:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Quote:
Yeah, somehow I have my doubts as to your impartiality here. Just sayin'.


That statement has nothing to do with being impartial.
I am however impartial to changes being made.

Quote:
Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.


The funny thing is I think we all agree that recons need to be updated, I just see gankers so blinded with joy at the change that they can't see or refuse to look at the picture as a whole.
Yes Dscan immunity could be cool, but it's not the buff recons need, its just a rushed change under the guise of recon balancing.


Also if you are so partial to team activities or just roaming with your 5 alts, then keep dscan immunity and remove combat recons damage dealing potential. So then at least you have an ewar tackle boat that has some tank while you get your other five characters into the WH.
Seems like a pretty fair trade of to me.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1877 - 2014-12-25 00:56:23 UTC
You screwed up those quotes right royal.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
Hardcore Pwnography Inc.
#1878 - 2014-12-25 01:07:57 UTC
Yeah sorry about that, to many wines to figure out what i'm doing.Roll
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1879 - 2014-12-25 01:09:40 UTC
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:

That statement has nothing to do with being impartial.
I am however impartial to changes being made.


No you are not. You have explicitly said that you are against d-scan immunity because it impacts positively on something you don't like.

That's about as far from impartial as it's possible to be.


Quote:

The funny thing is I think we all agree that recons need to be updated, I just see gankers so blinded with joy at the change that they can't see or refuse to look at the picture as a whole.
Yes Dscan immunity could be cool, but it's not the buff recons need, its just a rushed change under the guise of recon balancing.


Every little bit helps, since they're damned determined to not give them workable hitpoint levels. You seem to be under the assumption that the hitpoint boost would have happened without the d-scan immunity, and you're mistaken.



Quote:
Also if you are so partial to team activities or just roaming with your 5 alts, then keep dscan immunity and remove combat recons damage dealing potential. So then at least you have an ewar tackle boat that has some tank while you get your other five characters into the WH.
Seems like a pretty fair trade of to me.


Quit bolding for emphasis on entire paragraphs, it's obnoxious.

And no, I'll take the d-scan immunity with a viable dps platform, thanks. Nevermind that I don't run five alts, it's two at most.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#1880 - 2014-12-25 01:20:48 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Man all these people crying about the resists, if they stayed, why would you ever fly hacs? Damage? In fleets damage output rarely matters, but the ewar utility would have dumpstered the hacs



Shocked

Just can't imagine Shadoo shouting Armor Recons, Armor Recons, ARRRRMMMMOOOOR RECONS.



Fleet DPS - totally overrated. Roll