These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1961 - 2014-12-27 00:45:52 UTC
Jaysen Larrisen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


This is a good post, but I think you are jumping too far along the spectrum from big fleets to solo. Small gang is in the middle of those two extremes. To me, small gang is ten-twenty ships. E-war is most devastating in these small gang fights. If my ten meets your ten, the struggle for e-war dominance may well determine the outcome of the fight. Recon ships, EAFs, and their T1 counterparts are valuable force multipliers. The harder it is to kill the utility ship - be it Curse, Huginn, Falcon, etc - the longer it is on the field. I don't necessarily agree that these ships should all be squishy, but I think that is why they left them squishy. CCP wants ships to die. I know from listening to Rise during the AT - which is its own little freakish world - that he hates fleet comps which are designed primarily to stay alive. It's boring. Loss is exciting to watch. Loss drives the economy.

Yet Eve players are generally very risk averse. We hate losing ships. Most of us will reach for whatever advantage we can get. That's why we bring OGB, Falcons, logistics, etc to most fights - or why the nano/kiting meta has been dominant for years.

So, consider the implications of the original proposal for Combat Recons - decent damage, T2 resists, faster, and generally more potent than what we have now. Consider the Rook - currently one of the worst ships in the game. How horrible it would be to fight a small gang of 6 of the originally-proposed buffed Rooks with 2 Scimitars, a Huginn, and a Lachesis, with OGB in support? They might not kill that much, but man would that suck to fight with a equivalent gang. As you started to add more tackle and more Rooks, it would just get worse to deal with. Until you get to the scale where we are no longer talking small gang.

There are other people in this thread with more well-established PVP resumes than me. Is what I am proposing a strawman? Do you think that is not a concern? Because if it is not a concern, than perhaps we can make a good argument for keeping the T2 resistances.


I don't think you are proposing a straw man but I don't think you are looking at the base issue. The d-scan immunity in the small gang scenario is moot unless the majority of your comp is combat recons. You would can still be seen in local so there shouldnt be serious surprise and it wouldn't be long before a response fleet got together and hunted you down on gates and started alpha striking to wipe you up with a quickness. The bigger issue for me is that the T1 equivalent cruisers can be equally if not more effective in the scenario you propose for dramatically less ISK outlay.

Consider a decently skilled Blackbird pilot with the range bonuses and selectable damage types available you get in the same scenario you posit. You probably wouldn't be able to even get tackle on the ship if he's got his business together. Also, tip of the day - ECCM is very effective against ECM and most folks don't mount the modules but gripe about it a fair amount.

If you are paying for T2 capability that should include some upgraded survivability. The d-scan immunity doesn't help you at all once the fights on; it might help you get the jump on some guys but it is in no way a trade off for the dmg resists in the long run. You still won't get near HAC survivability since your running mostly Ewar related mods and little in the way of tank and damage modules but they will help.

What is frustrating is that there is a totally mixed set of messages coming out for these ships. Do you want an Electonic Attack Cruiser or do you want a cloaky BLOPS capable EWAR ship. The cloaky BLOPS ewar ships are taken care of pretty well as a group with Force recon ships. The combat oriented electronic attack cruisers are stuck in some weird limbo where they are getting the worst end of both aspects. The term "recon" in these ship classes is total red herring as well.

I'm interested to see how the d-scan immunity works out but that doesn't really do anything to actually make the "combat recons" more viable in combat on the whole.


I agree with you, they should be regarded as Electronic Attack Cruisers. Then balance them to make them effective in that role.

The d-scan immunity is a gimmick. If it wasn't in this thread, we could be having a good discussion about the role these ships should fill in all scales of combat. The thread would also be about ten pages long, instead of nearly a hundred. I'm not saying the d-scan immunity needs to go - I'm saying that in two months it won't be an issue. In two months, I'll still be asking for Blackbirds in my gangs instead of Rooks. We'll still be relying on web Lokis and point Proteii in fleets (unless Tech 3 cruisers get nerfed so hard they are even worse then Combat Recons).

On the other hand, at least some of the other changes will make the ship class slightly less awful as a whole.

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

Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1962 - 2014-12-27 02:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Wynta
ArrowI think that it must be said that the Force Recon ships are pretty well balanced and their role is laid out well. They do not need the T2 resists because they are not a combat ship. They are a Black Ops ship whose tank is ECM and the element of surprise. If the cruiser class consists of different specialities (Logistic Cruiser=Logistics, HAC=Damage, HIC=Pure Tackle, Recon=Racial EWAR) then why is the Recon so absurdly outclassed by the T3, which, from my understanding, was supposed to be an adaptive hull that was good at everything but master of nothing.

Now my last post may have gotten a tad bit disorganized the further down I got but let me try to rephrase my argument.

1. The D-Scan Immunity offers both a defensive and offensive advantage.

  • A. The Offensive advantage is like a cloaked bomber, in that they can drop in on a victim and instantly lock them.
  • B. The Defensive advantage is like a normal cloak, in that they cannot be located via D-Scan.

2. The Offensive advantages can be countered by being aware of local, and by prealigning, because even if they are able to drop in on a victims, those victims paying attention and prealigning will not die.
3. The Defensive advantages can be countered by any cloaked ship that does on-grid scouting and any combat prober.

Since every advantage offers counterplay, it is balanced.

Next lets talk about T2 Resists.

This argument stems from the previous statement about cruiser roles and how Recon should be the premiere Racial EWAR ship.

1. Fleets are made up of different roles: Damage, Logistics, Tackle, and EWAR.
2. Each hull size (Frigate and Cruiser especially) have a T2 class that specializes in each of these roles.
3. These T2 ships are designed to fulfill these roles in fleet combat with a similar sized fleet.

  • A. I'm trying to make these points apply as universally as possible. Cruiser vs Cruiser fleets or small gang.

4. Multiple problems arise with the Cruiser EWAR.

  • A. T3 Strategic Cruiser can perform the EWAR role almost as well as Recons, but with a laughably stronger tank.
  • B. T1 Cruiser EWAR ships can perform the EWAR role almost as well as Recons with similar amount of tank, from a safer range, and at 10% of the cost.

5. In order to alleviate the problems that arise with 4a and 4b there needs to be a massive rebalancing of Combat Recons. They need to be able to survive fleet combat, and have EWAR that outclasses T1 enough to justify the cost difference.
6. HAC resists provide enough tank for the Combat Recon to survive fleet combat, IDK what to do about the EWAR balancing.
Jaysen Larrisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1963 - 2014-12-27 03:37:45 UTC
Wynta wrote:
ArrowI think that it must be said that the Force Recon ships are pretty well balanced and their role is laid out well. They do not need the T2 resists because they are not a combat ship. They are a Black Ops ship whose tank is ECM and the element of surprise. If the cruiser class consists of different specialities (Logistic Cruiser=Logistics, HAC=Damage, HIC=Pure Tackle, Recon=Racial EWAR) then why is the Recon so absurdly outclassed by the T3, which, from my understanding, was supposed to be an adaptive hull that was good at everything but master of nothing.

Now my last post may have gotten a tad bit disorganized the further down I got but let me try to rephrase my argument.

1. The D-Scan Immunity offers both a defensive and offensive advantage.

  • A. The Offensive advantage is like a cloaked bomber, in that they can drop in on a victim and instantly lock them.
  • B. The Defensive advantage is like a normal cloak, in that they cannot be located via D-Scan.

2. The Offensive advantages can be countered by being aware of local, and by prealigning, because even if they are able to drop in on a victims, those victims paying attention and prealigning will not die.
3. The Defensive advantages can be countered by any cloaked ship that does on-grid scouting and any combat prober.

Since every advantage offers counterplay, it is balanced.

Next lets talk about T2 Resists.

This argument stems from the previous statement about cruiser roles and how Recon should be the premiere Racial EWAR ship.

1. Fleets are made up of different roles: Damage, Logistics, Tackle, and EWAR.
2. Each hull size (Frigate and Cruiser especially) have a T2 class that specializes in each of these roles.
3. These T2 ships are designed to fulfill these roles in fleet combat with a similar sized fleet.

  • A. I'm trying to make these points apply as universally as possible. Cruiser vs Cruiser fleets or small gang.

4. Multiple problems arise with the Cruiser EWAR.

  • A. T3 Strategic Cruiser can perform the EWAR role almost as well as Recons, but with a laughably stronger tank.
  • B. T1 Cruiser EWAR ships can perform the EWAR role almost as well as Recons with similar amount of tank, from a safer range, and at 10% of the cost.

5. In order to alleviate the problems that arise with 4a and 4b there needs to be a massive rebalancing of Combat Recons. They need to be able to survive fleet combat, and have EWAR that outclasses T1 enough to justify the cost difference.
6. HAC resists provide enough tank for the Combat Recon to survive fleet combat, IDK what to do about the EWAR balancing.


That is a pretty distilled and at least from my perspective accurate argument. +1

The concern that CCP Rise noted when stepping back from the T2 resists was the concern that it might be too powerful in small gang combat. I honestly don't see it getting to that point or certainly not more powerful than many other currently available ships.

Again, nice pithy capture of the issue and a clean logical argument. I honestly hope CCP Rise and team take look at the discussion and at least give it full consideration. They may or may not put in the T2 resists at least for the Combat Recons but it won't be for lack of very solid and well thought out arguments for them being in.

"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

Michael Oskold
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#1964 - 2014-12-27 03:43:37 UTC
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/


    Meybe drop the dscan immunity and give combat recons hac resists so they actually do what they are already only used for. right now i see no difference between the two recons. 1 runs a cloak and the other isnt visible on dscan. why are they both attempting to do the same thing?
    Iam Widdershins
    Victory or Whatever
    #1965 - 2014-12-27 03:55:48 UTC
    Serious post:

    These changes are pretty neat and all, but the Huginn just hasn't been the same since you nerfed its engine trails from verdant green to the current Minmatar standard. The removable of a discernible engine signature from combat recons presents an excellent opportunity: Make all four ships have green engine trails.

    Green is objectively the best color, after all.

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

    Tipod Incognito
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1966 - 2014-12-27 04:26:35 UTC
    Most common misconceptions are:

    -Carebear A: "This will benefit the evil piratez D="
    -Carebear B: "You haz cloaky stuff outside d-scan anyway, just have to watch local"

    Now the evil solo/small gang pilot cant trust dem d-scans anymore and their only chance of counterplay is praying to god. What used to be falcons will turn to rooks offgrid, this is a game changer, you could expect to get jumped by cloacky stuff but you knew it would be risky for them too as they're weak and expensive. Now the hidden aces comes with quality tank.

    To achieve a similar combat weight pre-proteus you had to dump shitloads of extra isk just for the cloak feature (T3, stratios), and lets face it, even if you did nothing turns the tides of a fight like ewar.
    Wynta
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1967 - 2014-12-27 07:25:26 UTC
    Michael Oskold wrote:
    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/


    Meybe drop the dscan immunity and give combat recons hac resists so they actually do what they are already only used for. right now i see no difference between the two recons. 1 runs a cloak and the other isnt visible on dscan. why are they both attempting to do the same thing?


    D-Scan Immunity and cloak are two different things. The Force Recon is primarily a Black Ops scout, it can fit a covert cyno and has cyno bonuses, because of this, they must have a cloak inorder to fly with other cloaking ships. D-Scan immunity acts like a cloak but is not a cloak, and therefore the Combat Recon cannot fly with these types of fleets without decloaking them. Since the Force Recon is primarily a BLOPs ship they get the cloak and EWAR but sacrifice almost all their damage and tank. I think D-Scan immunity is as close to a Cloak as CCP could give without giving them one, because a blackops fleet with a cloaked Combat recon would be overpowered.
    Orange Faeces
    Farbissina Industrial and Procurement
    #1968 - 2014-12-27 07:33:52 UTC
    Wynta wrote:
    D-Scan Immunity and cloak are two different things. The Force Recon is primarily a Black Ops scout, it can fit a covert cyno and has cyno bonuses, because of this, they must have a cloak inorder to fly with other cloaking ships. D-Scan immunity acts like a cloak but is not a cloak, and therefore the Combat Recon cannot fly with these types of fleets without decloaking them. Since the Force Recon is primarily a BLOPs ship they get the cloak and EWAR but sacrifice almost all their damage and tank. I think D-Scan immunity is as close to a Cloak as CCP could give without giving them one, because a blackops fleet with a cloaked Combat recon would be overpowered.


    Also, consider the role the Force Recon plays when scouting for a larger.... Force. It needs to be able to provide warp-ins, which means it has to be able to cloak on grid or it will get blapped by towers or whatnot. D-scan immune combat recons wont be suited for scouting anything that requires on-grid knowledge.

    o.F.
    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1969 - 2014-12-27 10:16:37 UTC
    Orange Faeces wrote:
    Wynta wrote:
    D-Scan Immunity and cloak are two different things. The Force Recon is primarily a Black Ops scout, it can fit a covert cyno and has cyno bonuses, because of this, they must have a cloak inorder to fly with other cloaking ships. D-Scan immunity acts like a cloak but is not a cloak, and therefore the Combat Recon cannot fly with these types of fleets without decloaking them. Since the Force Recon is primarily a BLOPs ship they get the cloak and EWAR but sacrifice almost all their damage and tank. I think D-Scan immunity is as close to a Cloak as CCP could give without giving them one, because a blackops fleet with a cloaked Combat recon would be overpowered.


    Also, consider the role the Force Recon plays when scouting for a larger.... Force. It needs to be able to provide warp-ins, which means it has to be able to cloak on grid or it will get blapped by towers or whatnot. D-scan immune combat recons wont be suited for scouting anything that requires on-grid knowledge.

    o.F.


    You just cited one of the key points why I think the d-scan immunity really isn't the bogey man that some have made it out to be.


    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1970 - 2014-12-27 10:18:26 UTC
    Wynta wrote:
    Michael Oskold wrote:
    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/


    Meybe drop the dscan immunity and give combat recons hac resists so they actually do what they are already only used for. right now i see no difference between the two recons. 1 runs a cloak and the other isnt visible on dscan. why are they both attempting to do the same thing?


    D-Scan Immunity and cloak are two different things. The Force Recon is primarily a Black Ops scout, it can fit a covert cyno and has cyno bonuses, because of this, they must have a cloak inorder to fly with other cloaking ships. D-Scan immunity acts like a cloak but is not a cloak, and therefore the Combat Recon cannot fly with these types of fleets without decloaking them. Since the Force Recon is primarily a BLOPs ship they get the cloak and EWAR but sacrifice almost all their damage and tank. I think D-Scan immunity is as close to a Cloak as CCP could give without giving them one, because a blackops fleet with a cloaked Combat recon would be overpowered.


    Why do you think a combat recon would be overpowered with a cloak? It is no more effective at Ewar or DPS than a Falcon already is?

    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

    Mister Holder
    Faceless Men
    #1971 - 2014-12-27 11:15:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Holder
    Welp, them removing the t2 resist profile just made them useless again.


    I would rather use a t1 ewar cruiser fully fit at 10% the cost and damn near the same effectiveness as a recon hull, or a t3 with infinity more tank/versatility, and the same effectiveness.


    Recon:
    -Terrible dps - check
    -Terrible tank- check
    -Similar Ewar to t1/t3 cruiser based hull - check

    But hey, at least they won't see you coming on d-scan.

    Being sneaky, and all is great, but when you have **** poor dps, **** poor tank, and no real advantage you just get ate up by most other ships. This is why Black Ops battleships are used for bridging, and that's about it. Until CCP realized that being sneaky isn't such as large an advantage as they think it is maybe things will start to get correctly balanced in the covert lines.

    Why spend 200m on a Recon hull when a t1 ewar bonus hull is what, under 10m for slightly less tank, and same ewar effectiveness? Is being unable to be seen on d-scan worth 190m? IMO, not even remotely close to being worth it.



    The only plus side to this is that I feel as if CCP will be applying the "d-scan immunity" to Black Ops when they get their time in the spotlight.
    War Kitten
    Panda McLegion
    #1972 - 2014-12-27 12:53:05 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:

  • 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.

  • You know what might be neat? If Kaalakiota decided to upgrade their technology, or be innovative, or skill up, or maybe even steal real technology from another corporation so they could have a decent launcher bonus on their ships.

    Get some storyline people on this asap!

    I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

    Barrogh Habalu
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #1973 - 2014-12-27 13:08:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
    FT Diomedes wrote:
    I agree with you, they should be regarded as Electronic Attack Cruisers. Then balance them to make them effective in that role.

    I agree as well. It would be a good to have a focused baseline of designs before making more "hybrid" (as in, middle ground between specialist ships) ships. Who we are kidding, after all, there are plenty of specialist ships in EVE already, especially T2. Honour of performing several roles with one fit (giving up some effectiveness at each ofc) can go to new T3s - they can be already built like that, all that is needed tbh is to make sure different SSs don't promote stacking bonuses for a single role, but with huge min-maxing roof.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1974 - 2014-12-27 15:58:18 UTC
    I still get the feeling that most of the people in this thread saying, "Dude, all you need is a ship with combat probes," have never had to probe anything. Have fun when you get to some ~60au system and need to probe out a recon that's moving around the system periodically. Hint: the only way you'll ever get a fix on the recon is sheer luck.
    Paynus Maiassus
    Silvana Innovations
    #1975 - 2014-12-27 16:21:25 UTC
    To chime in again, I personally think the Lachesis and Rook don't particularly need HAC resists because their tank should be their incredible range. In large fleets they should have a separate anchor and FC and just be used smartly.

    In my short time in Brave I've noticed the extreme positive tactical effect of bringing a largish fleet of Tengus and Eagles to an engagement with our more experienced players plus bringing a second fleet of a gazillion noobs in Mauluses. I am not strategically in the know, and I guess maybe the idea was to bring them in so they can feel like they are participating and KM whore. Regardless the reason, PL has become extremely reluctant to engage, even in slippery petes. Being able to shut down an enemy from 80K away is a pretty impressive force multiplier.

    Previously, the Pilgrim was something of a niche ship, not preferred to hunter-killer for SB fleets because its neut bonus would not take much effect before the enemy was zapped by the 50 SBs. However, as a solo hunter or as a HK for a small BLOPs gang it was great because of its superior tank and the extreme effectiveness of its neuts in situations where the enemy is not expected to die instantaneously. I personally would prefer a neut strength bonus to a neut range bonus like it was but just bring the resists up to HAC level making it attractive in situations where tank matters. You just warp up to your target at zero anyway. You want to neut faster. And you want tank to survive longer.

    I haven't really thought about the Huginn and Rapier. I suspect that their 'problems' are more along the lines of not being properly used by the player base really.

    I guess in summary, I think the pre-Proteus Caldari and Gallente recons don't need balancing. They just need to be properly used by the players. They should never engage up close. The Amarr recons don't need their EWAR bonuses changed. They just need the HAC resists. They should never engage far away. I have no comment on the Minmatar ships.

    I've already commented on it, but to restate, I like the DSCAN immunity for the combat recons. I like encouraging CCP to be bold and increase options. Yeah, it may break some stuff, but they always have the option to pull it on the one hand, or more exciting even, to modify the characteristic, or even more exciting than that, develop modules and ships that will provide a counter to the new threat. Instead of screaming for them to keep things just as they are, we need to be saying, 'if you're going to implement X, it's going to break Y, so then you'll also need to implement Z.' We do not need to be saying, 'if you're going to implement X, it's going to break Y, so don't implement X.'

    If we don't let them be bold with these recons, and we whine every time there's a major change, then we will NEVER get them to make changes to blob warfare, logi chains, etc. I love Eve more than I've ever loved any game, but there's some seriously lame parts of it. If we scream every time there's a major upset to the mix and insist they leave things as they are, we'll be stuck forever. So let them do the DSCAN immunity, let's see what it breaks, provide feedback, use the CSM to influence them, and see how they fix it.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1976 - 2014-12-27 16:40:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    The problem with the Rapier is that its only viable niche is as a screening ship for a gang, but because it has no tank, no cap, and is too slow, it can't even be useful there.

    If you want to gatecamp and keep things from burning back to gate, you need a Daredevil (for the scan-res and web that actually stops things).

    If you want to stop things dead while being able to tank, you need a Vigilant.

    If you want to attend a fleet fight, you need a Loki (for the tank).

    If you want to skirmish, you don't really have a good option (the recons are squishy and slow, the Loki is slow and fat with bad web range).

    If you want to do recon-y things, you want a Loki (since it does everything that the Rapier does, but has a better tank for holding tackle on targets it catches, and is also bubble immune, which renders it basically an invulnerable scout).

    As a side note, they should really just remove T3 cruisers from the game. They don't make any sense from a balance perspective (90% of their potential configurations are just expensive garbage, while the few configurations that DO work out-perform their T2 equivalents by a large margin) and their re-configurability gimmick doesn't really work either since you can't swap rigs around-- I've ended up with four Lokis because it's just so wasteful having to dumpster full sets of rigs all the time to change one hull to a different fit.
    Dun'Gal
    Myriad Contractors Inc.
    #1977 - 2014-12-27 17:06:39 UTC
    Man so many butt hurt bears here, and listening to these wormholers crying about dscan immunity makes me wonder if I missed an update that prevents people who live in wormholes from using these ships to there advantage? I mean, if you are worried about a ship with no cloak catching you because it's not on dscan, what exactly is preventing you from hiding one of these ships to counter gank? The potential for surprise buttsex goes both ways. And honestly if your only argument is that this forces you to have an alt/friend help you, especially when you complain about having to share rewards with your fleet mate, then the problem here isn't dscan immunity... it's your lazy, greedy and self-entitled attitude.

    They really should bring back the T2 resists, but I can work around that much like (as a primarily solo pilot) I am going to have to work around the possibility of a sneaky combat recon pilot making an appearance in my pvp encounters with no warning.
    Dun'Gal
    Myriad Contractors Inc.
    #1978 - 2014-12-27 17:11:57 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    I still get the feeling that most of the people in this thread saying, "Dude, all you need is a ship with combat probes," have never had to probe anything. Have fun when you get to some ~60au system and need to probe out a recon that's moving around the system periodically. Hint: the only way you'll ever get a fix on the recon is sheer luck.

    Also this is about as short sighted a post I've seen here. There's no need to get a fix on it because the complaint has so far been that dscan immunity makes it too hard to know that one is there. Simply picking one up with combat probes should be enough to make you err on the side of caution. Getting a 100% warpable hit is not necessary for that intel.
    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #1979 - 2014-12-27 17:18:29 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    I still get the feeling that most of the people in this thread saying, "Dude, all you need is a ship with combat probes," have never had to probe anything. Have fun when you get to some ~60au system and need to probe out a recon that's moving around the system periodically. Hint: the only way you'll ever get a fix on the recon is sheer luck.


    Yes, this will be a serious problem unless the dude is actually afk.

    When you are combat probing, having your friends say, "he is within 10 AU of Planet 10, but not visible on d-scan from the sun" is very useful. Even then, it can be very hard to locate a reasonably agile ship."

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

    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #1980 - 2014-12-27 17:23:46 UTC
    Dun'Gal wrote:
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    I still get the feeling that most of the people in this thread saying, "Dude, all you need is a ship with combat probes," have never had to probe anything. Have fun when you get to some ~60au system and need to probe out a recon that's moving around the system periodically. Hint: the only way you'll ever get a fix on the recon is sheer luck.

    Also this is about as short sighted a post I've seen here. There's no need to get a fix on it because the complaint has so far been that dscan immunity makes it too hard to know that one is there. Simply picking one up with combat probes should be enough to make you err on the side of caution. Getting a 100% warpable hit is not necessary for that intel.


    Presumably you would like to be able to kill the recon, not just know that he is there.

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