These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1981 - 2014-12-27 17:24:29 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
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.


Thanks for the insights on the Minmatar.

Just so you know, I am betting the Strategic Cruiser nerf is going to be very extreme and cause more tears than this thread. I am also betting the T3 nerf comes in the next patch or two. So don't fret. They are a grand and unique idea and should not be removed from the game. But they should be nerfed hard. It will happen. Just when it does, don't go crying about your poor Loki.
Generaloberst Kluntz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1982 - 2014-12-27 17:55:11 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
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 *****. 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.


Best post in thread.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#1983 - 2014-12-27 18:12:09 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Presumably you would like to be able to kill the recon, not just know that he is there.

Knowing that he is there is the first step to killing him.

Besides, if you have no hope of scanning down a Combat Recon in a 60AU system, then you really have no hope of scanning any cruiser-sized vessel down, either, D-Scan immunity or no.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1984 - 2014-12-27 18:29:33 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.


You do realize that you don't even get a ship class indication on a poor-quality probe hit, right? Making a particular recon indistinguishable from some unpiloted Mammoth sitting in someone's POS somewhere, or whatever. Security through obscurity is nearly as effective as being entirely un-probeable.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1985 - 2014-12-27 18:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Just so you know, I am betting the Strategic Cruiser nerf is going to be very extreme and cause more tears than this thread. I am also betting the T3 nerf comes in the next patch or two. So don't fret. They are a grand and unique idea and should not be removed from the game. But they should be nerfed hard. It will happen. Just when it does, don't go crying about your poor Loki.


They should be removed. I don't see a way to nerf them enough to allow the T2 ships to shine without rendering the T3s totally worthless.

Regardless, I won't be shedding any tears for my Lokis if it means I won't have to deal with the 25% of nullsec that doesn't fly travel inties flying covert / nullified T3s.

Komi Toran wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Presumably you would like to be able to kill the recon, not just know that he is there.

Knowing that he is there is the first step to killing him.

Besides, if you have no hope of scanning down a Combat Recon in a 60AU system, then you really have no hope of scanning any cruiser-sized vessel down, either, D-Scan immunity or no.


It's vastly easier to probe down a ship that shows up on d-scan, since a prober can have their gang mates fly around the system and report where the target shows up on d-scan, allowing the prober to position their probes to pick up an initial hit very quickly. It's having to probe the entire volume of a solar system just to get an initial hit (remember, you need a strong enough hit to show that your target is the recon ship rather than some other piece of spacejunk) that's problematic to the point of absurdity.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#1986 - 2014-12-27 18:34:02 UTC
Damn, the kinetic bonus is rearing it's ugly head again? If I needed convincing that the Rook won't be worth the ISK, this was it.
Or maybe it was the lack of any kind of survivability bonus on a T2 "combat" hull.
Either way, I am underwhelmed again. Good job. Roll
Devil Seven
GeoCorp.
The Initiative.
#1987 - 2014-12-27 18:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Devil Seven
RAPIER

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

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Missile damage (was medium projectile turret rate of fire)
10% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness

Recon Ships Bonuses:
60% bonus to Stasis Webifier optimal range
20% reduction in Cloaking Devices CPU requirement

Slot layout: 4H, 6M, 5L; 1 turrets, 3 launchers(+2)

Should get a 5th low slot this will help a bit with the low resists it has and will put it on par with the rest in it's class and 1 or 2 more turret hardpoints even if unbonus it gives more options and better fighting opportunities
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1988 - 2014-12-27 18:59:43 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
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 *****. 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.


Reposting for visibility.
Among other things, this is because some points need not to be drown in DScan-related discussion. Sometimes I feel that this bonus warrants separate thread.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Kmelx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1989 - 2014-12-27 19:25:04 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.

  • 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.


    • And he swings...

    And he misses again...

    No one that I've noticed was complaining about the proposal to increase the tanks on these ships, so that they could be viable in fleets again.

    So what do you do, you propose to decrease the tanks on these ships.

    The outcry in this thread is about one thing and one thing only d-scan immunity.

    If you want to balance these ships which presumably you do, remove the d-scan immunity, leave the tank alone from the proposed levels and leave the cap as it was before the proposals, or maybe nerf it a bit, so that these ships have strong bonuses and a draw back to those bonuses, which is the cap.

    If they appear on d-scan, have strong bonuses, but a cap limit to the amount of time they can run those bonuses or they have to make fitting compromises to use the aforementioned bonuses then the ships would be balanced. The outcry would stop and we could all get on with doing something other than complaining about these changes.
    Komi Toran
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #1990 - 2014-12-27 20:10:19 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    It's vastly easier to probe down a ship that shows up on d-scan, since a prober can have their gang mates fly around the system and report where the target shows up on d-scan, allowing the prober to position their probes to pick up an initial hit very quickly. It's having to probe the entire volume of a solar system just to get an initial hit (remember, you need a strong enough hit to show that your target is the recon ship rather than some other piece of spacejunk) that's problematic to the point of absurdity.

    That's a load of BS.

    if you set your scan probe selection to Ships, then you're only going to see Ship signatures, not random space junk. Furthermore, the scan IDs of your fleet mates don't change from scan to scan, and you can set your list to ignore them. And that also means once you get a hit identified as a combat recon (not that hard, really) you now know what scan ID to look for, regardless of the signal strength.

    The only thing that's going to thwart your scanning is if the ship's pilot is paying attention and warping from safe spot to safe spot, but that would ruin your efforts to narrow his location down through D-Scan just the same.
    flaming phantom
    Unlimited LTD
    #1991 - 2014-12-27 21:02:54 UTC
    I also wish that they didn't remove the projectile turrets from the rapier. I really liked it with Artys. Now I am going to have to train t2 Heavy missiles. Not a big deal, just a minor rant

    All great men have mustaches
    Paynus Maiassus
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #1992 - 2014-12-27 21:04:05 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    Paynus Maiassus wrote:
    Just so you know, I am betting the Strategic Cruiser nerf is going to be very extreme and cause more tears than this thread. I am also betting the T3 nerf comes in the next patch or two. So don't fret. They are a grand and unique idea and should not be removed from the game. But they should be nerfed hard. It will happen. Just when it does, don't go crying about your poor Loki.


    They should be removed. I don't see a way to nerf them enough to allow the T2 ships to shine without rendering the T3s totally worthless.


    Actually you can nerf them pretty severely and they will still have a lot of uses. Their intended use is to be able to mix and match functions so they can provide combinations of functions but not as well as T2 single function ships. For instance, if you want a cloak logistics ship, you need to go with a T3. There isn't anything that can provide that function other than a T3. Should they logi as well as a Guardian? No. For the price and the skill point loss, maybe as well as an Auguror. But to have an interdiction nullified and/or cloaky logi ship in itself is useful.

    Having an interdiction nullified combat ship is useful. Look at the slippery pete. The problem is they are the best combat ships in the game. That's the problem. A Tengu should be able to be interdiction nullified and fight, but about like a Moa or a Caracal. Not better than an Eagle or a Cerb.

    So actually, the nerving will probably be pretty straight forward. You can still do what you could, but crappier. They should not have the same scan bonuses as a scan frig. They should not have the same logi bonuses as logi. Etc.

    But this is a Recon thread, not a T3 thread. Just continuing the discussion. I'm sure there will be more talking about this either in preparation for the T3 nerf or as soon as the initial nerf is announced.
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #1993 - 2014-12-27 22:58:05 UTC
    Paynus Maiassus wrote:
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    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.


    Thanks for the insights on the Minmatar.

    Just so you know, I am betting the Strategic Cruiser nerf is going to be very extreme and cause more tears than this thread. I am also betting the T3 nerf comes in the next patch or two. So don't fret. They are a grand and unique idea and should not be removed from the game. But they should be nerfed hard. It will happen. Just when it does, don't go crying about your poor Loki.

    It's not necessarily the Loki I'm too worried about, it's the tengu in the proteus
    McChicken Combo HalfMayo
    The Happy Meal
    #1994 - 2014-12-27 23:10:58 UTC
    Paynus Maiassus wrote:
    The Amarr recons don't need their EWAR bonuses changed. They just need the HAC resists. They should never engage far away.

    This guy.

    Since they announced ditching the higher resist profile, 15-20% more armor HP and a hairs increase in PG would be fine.

    There are all our dominion

    Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
    Ganthrithor
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #1995 - 2014-12-27 23:23:15 UTC
    Komi Toran wrote:
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    It's vastly easier to probe down a ship that shows up on d-scan, since a prober can have their gang mates fly around the system and report where the target shows up on d-scan, allowing the prober to position their probes to pick up an initial hit very quickly. It's having to probe the entire volume of a solar system just to get an initial hit (remember, you need a strong enough hit to show that your target is the recon ship rather than some other piece of spacejunk) that's problematic to the point of absurdity.

    That's a load of BS.

    if you set your scan probe selection to Ships, then you're only going to see Ship signatures, not random space junk. Furthermore, the scan IDs of your fleet mates don't change from scan to scan, and you can set your list to ignore them. And that also means once you get a hit identified as a combat recon (not that hard, really) you now know what scan ID to look for, regardless of the signal strength.

    The only thing that's going to thwart your scanning is if the ship's pilot is paying attention and warping from safe spot to safe spot, but that would ruin your efforts to narrow his location down through D-Scan just the same.


    All your points only apply if the prober has pre-scanned the system before the recon shows up, and then happens to catch the recon on a scan just as it jumps in.

    If you haven't pre-scanned (thus getting signature IDs for all your gang mates as well as every random ship floating around in space in that system-- piloted or not--, you're gonna have a bad time. If you're just chillin and you see a recon ship jump through a gate and warp off, and you launch probes to find it, it's gonna be next to impossible in a large system since you'll have no idea at all where to put probes to start looking.

    If someone in a normal ship is rolling safe spots, you can at least spread a few people around the system and have them use their D-scanners to call out ROUGHLY where the target is warping. You can then look for patterns and figure out approximately where to start running probes. It at least makes sure that your target has to move safes very frequently and avoid using the same spots repeatedly in order to evade you. With a d-scan immune recon ship, people will just warp off to a random safe and it will take several minutes for the prober to even figure out what half of the solar system the target is sitting in. It will be a MUCH slower process to find a recon than it will be for any other kind of non-cloaked ship.
    Devil Seven
    GeoCorp.
    The Initiative.
    #1996 - 2014-12-27 23:54:13 UTC
    The D-scan immunity is fine because any good fleet has a scout that is worth a damn and can prob the system down in less then 5 minutes. And can find who he is with only reason this is going to be a problem is for the solo players which suck at the game anyways as this is a mmo so having a friend will always be helpful
    Komi Toran
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #1997 - 2014-12-28 00:37:31 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    All your points only apply if the prober has pre-scanned the system before the recon shows up, and then happens to catch the recon on a scan just as it jumps in.

    Unless you're doing this in a high-traffic system, no. It will take you all of 10 seconds to exclude non-target ships.
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    If someone in a normal ship is rolling safe spots, you can at least spread a few people around the system and have them use their D-scanners to call out ROUGHLY where the target is warping. You can then look for patterns and figure out approximately where to start running probes. It at least makes sure that your target has to move safes very frequently and avoid using the same spots repeatedly in order to evade you. With a d-scan immune recon ship, people will just warp off to a random safe and it will take several minutes for the prober to even figure out what half of the solar system the target is sitting in. It will be a MUCH slower process to find a recon than it will be for any other kind of non-cloaked ship.

    And this is all irrelevant: If he's paying attention, he will avoid you. If he isn't, you will catch him. This is exactly as it is now. D-Scan immunity only provides the illusion of safety, which is why after this change you will find more combat recons being successfully probed down and killed than before.

    You know, I'm kinda concerned what would happen if I told you the impact cloaks have on both D-Scan and probing.
    Kmelx
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #1998 - 2014-12-28 00:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kmelx
    Devil Seven wrote:
    The D-scan immunity is fine because any good fleet has a scout that is worth a damn and can prob the system down in less then 5 minutes.


    So basically it would be like roaming is now, only much slower and more tedious. Your selling it to me as a gameplay change that will really benefit eve.

    So if you wanted to roam a fleet 10 jumps, and for arguments sake it takes 3 mins to fully probe a system as you have an alt with maxed skills and a virtue set or even a main willing to do it, it would only take you a large isk and skillpoint investment and 30 mins to do 10 jumps, plus you lose either the dps output of that character or the utility that player could bring to the gang.

    That's incredibly worthwhile from a gaming standpoint and probing those systems would be incredibly speedy and fulfilling...oh wait what.
    Kmelx
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #1999 - 2014-12-28 00:52:36 UTC
    Double posting ftw
    Jon Joringer
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #2000 - 2014-12-28 03:36:16 UTC
    Not all that thrilled at the redacted HAC resists. They were one of the more exciting of the proposed changes.