These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ISD Supogo
ISD BH
#2041 - 2014-12-29 15:13:35 UTC
Removed a post.

Quote:
31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD BH Supogo

Bughunter

Equipment Certification and Anomaly Investigations Division (ECAID)

Interstellar Services Department

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#2042 - 2014-12-29 15:51:47 UTC
SuperSpyScoutGirl wrote:
Quick question just to ensure I am right.

Hypothetically if I am operating in hostile territory without docking rights, it will be possible for me to eject from my combat recon in order to change ships and the recon will still not appear on d-scan because the immunity is a property of the ship, not a property of the piloted ship?

Of course, the ship will still be scannable with combats (or within a scan inhibited area that will be scannable), but I can deal with that. Just want to be certain of the mechanics so I can plan to be able to use a couple of ships when I don't have any other support close at hand.

In theory, yes. I'd try this on the test server to verify once the changes become available though.

A rather interesting idea....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2043 - 2014-12-29 16:03:33 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
SuperSpyScoutGirl wrote:
Quick question just to ensure I am right.

Hypothetically if I am operating in hostile territory without docking rights, it will be possible for me to eject from my combat recon in order to change ships and the recon will still not appear on d-scan because the immunity is a property of the ship, not a property of the piloted ship?

Of course, the ship will still be scannable with combats (or within a scan inhibited area that will be scannable), but I can deal with that. Just want to be certain of the mechanics so I can plan to be able to use a couple of ships when I don't have any other support close at hand.

In theory, yes. I'd try this on the test server to verify once the changes become available though.

A rather interesting idea....


A very interesting and possibly abusable idea when you get 200+ recon pilots doing this.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#2044 - 2014-12-29 17:20:16 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
SuperSpyScoutGirl wrote:
Quick question just to ensure I am right.

Hypothetically if I am operating in hostile territory without docking rights, it will be possible for me to eject from my combat recon in order to change ships and the recon will still not appear on d-scan because the immunity is a property of the ship, not a property of the piloted ship?

Of course, the ship will still be scannable with combats (or within a scan inhibited area that will be scannable), but I can deal with that. Just want to be certain of the mechanics so I can plan to be able to use a couple of ships when I don't have any other support close at hand.

In theory, yes. I'd try this on the test server to verify once the changes become available though.

A rather interesting idea....


A very interesting and possibly abusable idea when you get 200+ recon pilots doing this.


Abusable as in free ships for me and 199 of my closest friends? Combats still work on them.

I would love to see the 200 pilot egg scramble to hop back in thier ships as my smartbombing raven of epic glory goes to work on them. This is the first positive for a bad idea in the whole thread.

I think the Baltec dude would be the only one to go for floating 200 recons in space... which would leave him roughly (not too good at maths) 199 pilots short of doing it.

Large scale I think it's something we can talk about, but no one is actually ever going to leave 200 combat scannable curse in space.... then again, if they were all in unique safe spots.... hmmm......
X ATM092
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2045 - 2014-12-29 17:54:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse.


I believe this process can be streamlined somewhat if you just make people's **** randomly blow up, call that content and then make a large animated middle finger appear in the middle of their screen. Content created where the normal desire for players to avoid losing ships would have forced them to be more cautious.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#2046 - 2014-12-29 18:24:38 UTC
X ATM092 wrote:
I believe this process can be streamlined somewhat if you just make people's **** randomly blow up, call that content and then make a large animated middle finger appear in the middle of their screen. Content created where the normal desire for players to avoid losing ships would have forced them to be more cautious.

Fot those who want fights d-scan immunity won't change anything, for those who don't flying will be even more paranoid.
A note about risk aversion:
I'm doing combat sites and anomalies in hisec lately, just chilling from my ventures to null. It's insane in caldari space! You know that story? "An Ishtar, Gila and Worm warped to guristas refuge?" I saw a higsec system with more than 40 players in it. Next jump was lowsec, 0 players, scanner was green.
I'm partially agree with Rise that knowing too much may spoil the fun (just like the time i jumped into whole pack of bnewbies, 600 mil in cargo, heart on the shoulder) but i don't think it's the right way to change it.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

X ATM092
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2047 - 2014-12-29 18:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: X ATM092
CCP Rise wrote:

Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse.

So basically what happened here is you thought about how it makes people feel when they think they're having a really close fight and then a falcon decloaks and thought to yourself "Why limit that to just falcons? Why not all recons?". Now, in your example, they can have that feeling when they land on grid with two rooks without falcons even needing to be there. hashtag content created hashtag Rise2014.

I'll be scouting every gang with a cloaky nullified linkalt of course but there again I already take ambitious aggressive fights which could go either way while actively ignoring the people who have no chance against me because for me risk is a big part of what I pvp for. I don't get any joy from having someone land expecting to fight what I have minus recons, being dead before it starts, and basically being able to f1 afk which is apparently your idea of content. What I like is fighting even or against the odds and trying to persevere through skill and for that I'll need to stop relying so much on dscan and start getting cloaky nullified eyes on grid so I can get a better idea of what the odds are. Fights which are over before they're begun are not good content, making a larger proportion of fights a complete waste of time does not make eve a more content rich environment for the losers or the winners of said fights, even if more fights take place overall.
Alexis Nightwish
#2048 - 2014-12-29 20:13:12 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.
In other words, you're buffing the defenses of the cloak-capable force recons, while giving nothing to the non-cloaking combat recons (5 sig isn't going to make any difference to the non-Minmatar as they're still well above 125). The Cov Ops cloak is an extremely powerful offensive and defensive module. Please give the non-cloaking combat recons the full T2 resists so that the changes align with the realities of our internet spaceship game.

CCP Rise wrote:
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.
A lot of people are against this change, but I actually like it. In my mind, the cloaky recons shouldn't hit as hard (with DPS or EWAR) as their non-cloaky counterparts. Don't forget how strong a Cov Ops cloak is. Outside of metagaming, the most powerful tool to enable a pilot to choose when, where, and even if he/she is going to engage is the Cov Ops cloak. Having that module and good range, but a paper tank and weaker application of effects seems balanced to me.

CCP Rise wrote:
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.
Love the slot move :) Have you considered having Roden Shipyards selling the rights to CreoDron and giving the Lach a drone bonus? You could replace the med hybrid tracking bonus with a drone HP/damage/tracking/whatever bonus. This is a Gallente ship after all, and its drone bay is as large as the Curse and Pilgrim's. No drone bonus on either Gal recon seems odd to me.

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.
*groan*
That god damn kinetic lock in! Just change the "typical Kaalakiota bonus" to missile RoF and make a bunch of ships suck much less in one fell swoop! Also, give the Rook harder hitting ECM because at the moment, why use the Rook when you can use the Falcon (does it better) or the Blackbird (does it cheaper)?

CCP Rise wrote:
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/

So instead of putting in a weaker version of the Dscan immunity, and nudging up its power if it seemed too weak, you put it in as full strength, blanket 100% Dscan immune, combat-probing-alts-are-now-required bullshit. What?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#2049 - 2014-12-29 20:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: KIller Wabbit
CCP Rise wrote:
Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.


  • 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/


    A game breaking ******* bullshit mechanic. You should be ashamed.
    Faren Shalni
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #2050 - 2014-12-29 20:49:37 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.


  • 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/


    There is no middle ground on this, you either have it or you dont, same as bubble immunity. This bonus will be abused to hell in FW and WH space the 2 places where dscan is your primary (and only (yes yes yes I know about combat probes but you try fitting a probe launcer on a combat/pve ship just to see what's uncloaked just off grid is a joke) source of intel

    [quote=CCP Rise]

    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.

    [quote=CCP Rise]

    Im sorry but the tank on recons is terrible and really needed the buff. going back on this is a really poor decision same as keeping the dscan immunity

    So Much Space

    Niskin
    League of the Lost
    #2051 - 2014-12-29 21:18:59 UTC
    Serendipity Lost wrote:
    So based on the wh mass / range push back AND the push back on the D-scan immunity....

    CCP - the PVP community at large doesn't want ganking tools. We want PVP tools. These gimmicks we're pushing back on are gank tools.

    We're not looking to log in and gank folks (sure we all do it pretty much every time it comes up, but it's NOT the thing we log in to do), we're looking to log in and PVP. Please just knock it off w/ the gank stuff. We're not 100,000 14 year olds that continually get a kick out of ganking. You are sequentially ruining a great PVP game with cheesey gank mechanics.


    Ganking is an important aspect of any open PvP world. And I say that as a person who is more likely to be the gankee than the ganker. There has to be a level of risk to the ways we earn ISK, and balancing that level is just as important as anything else.

    My apologies if I'm remembering this wrong, but I believe I've previously seen you post something along the lines of "we should be able to spend a little time earning money and then use that to go out and do consensual PvP." That goes along with what you said about PvP versus ganking. But the truth is that they are both important aspects of the game. Without ganking we'd just be lazily earning money and effectively be playing some kind of hybrid between WoW Arena's and Counterstrike.

    I've done open world PvP in other games and hated it. There wasn't any real warning, if somebody wanted to gank you they could probably pull it off without you having a chance to avoid it. EVE balances that out pretty well, there are tools for the ganker and tools for the gankee. In both cases, if those tools aren't used they put that person at a serious disadvantage.

    The D-scan changes for Combat Recons shake that up a little bit, but they don't break it. They gain advantages offgrid but gain nothing on grid. So while you can call this a tool for ganking, it's also a tool that can be easily mitigated. That's been covered repeatedly in this thread. The folks in FacWar will likely have to work a little harder than us wspacers to mitigate it, but plenty of options have been presented for that.

    Without ganking, legitimate forms of PvP would be nullified, like baiting, or surviving due to their fear of being baited. Now that I've made this post the chances that my Drake will get blown up tonight will be magically increased, but that is what keeps the game alive. The mechanics are what make the game fun, but the risk is what keeps it interesting.

    It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

    Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

    -MooMooDachshundCow

    Jaysen Larrisen
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2052 - 2014-12-29 21:47:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaysen Larrisen
    I'm pretty curious to hear from CCP Rise soon.

    As much as folks have thrown rocks at him (and I was tempted) he has tried to respond to our feedback earlier in the thread and adjust. We may not like some of the proposed adjustments based on how they effect us but I do appreciate the work the balance team are putting in.

    That said, from my narrow perspective of the Caldari Recons...I like any positive change but I'm concerned if we don't get these right it will be years before Recons are effectively touched again to repair or optimize something that could be done here.

    1) d-scan immunity...I'm ok with either way. I think there are some creative things we can pull off with it and it ups the ante for certain activites for sure but it's not a make or break thing for me at all.

    2). The kinetic damage lock in for the Rook is a pain point. It directly attacks one the biggest strengths (selectable damage) of a weapons line that honestly probably Needs a little help already. Either go back to the 5% damage buff per level or increase the damage of kinetic warheads from the 7.5% per level to 10% per level.

    3). T2 resists for the combat recons...this is a critical addition that I honestly think needs to go through. Without them there isn't much "combat" staying power, particualry when compared to other T2 hulls. The d-scan immunity simply isn't enough to come near justifying the ISK cost of a T2 Rook over a T1 Blackbird.

    4) Compared utility to like ship hulls... As noted above the Falcon does just as well, has full cloak & cyno capability and the Blackbird is far far cheaper and arguably has a better ECM bonus focused on increased range. You could make a case that the Blackbird might be more survivable than the Rook because of that. I would recommend looking at a similar bonus structure to what was proposed in the Amarr line: give a combined range and jam strength bonus but at an obviously reduced level.

    "Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

    Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

    Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

    Nyjil Lizaru
    Federal Defense Union
    Gallente Federation
    #2053 - 2014-12-29 21:52:08 UTC
    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
    I think i would have rather had the resists over D-scan immunity


    2nd

    Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law:   "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."

    SFM Hobb3s
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #2054 - 2014-12-29 22:16:46 UTC
    3rd. CCP Rise you won't be seeing more recons in fleet unless they get those resists. Remember what the whole point of the balance pass was.

    Orange Faeces
    Farbissina Industrial and Procurement
    #2055 - 2014-12-29 23:14:01 UTC
    SFM Hobb3s wrote:
    3rd. CCP Rise you won't be seeing more recons in fleet unless they get those resists. Remember what the whole point of the balance pass was.



    It wasn't the whole point. It was part of the point.

    Hopefully Rise will keep sufficient resists to make Combat recons useful for more than just one new use.


    O.F.

    Irya Boone
    The Scope
    #2056 - 2014-12-29 23:15:23 UTC
    NOOOO !!

    give them the T2 tank back

    CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

    you shall all bow and pray BoB

    Mei Khlolov
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #2057 - 2014-12-29 23:22:18 UTC
    I will use them either way, but I also think the t2 tank should come back. Based on the pyfa files I was messing with, it really didn't add so much to be overpowered.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #2058 - 2014-12-29 23:28:01 UTC
    Komi Toran wrote:
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    It is absolutely relevant, because it vastly decreases the effort threshold required to not get caught,

    Oh please. You look at D-Scan. Do you see combat probes within x AU? Warp off. That's the effort it takes now. That's the effort it will take in the future. Actually, scratch that, it will take more effort in the future as before you could actually wait until there were ships on D-Scan before warping off. Now, you have to consider that the prober is warping combat recons of their own on top of you.
    Arla Sarain wrote:
    Do you know how combat probing works?
    Half of it relies on D-SCAN.

    You rely so heavily on D-Scan because it is the most convinient tool available. Remove it, and suddenly the spread formation has a use (among several other strategies).
    Arla Sarain wrote:
    No Combat recon is going to get probed down unless they are AFK.

    Strange. That's exactly how it is now, and yet the game has survived.


    Ah yes, the HTFU/adapt crowd. Be honest: you'd applaud any change no matter how ridiculous if it gave you the chance to smugly denounce everyone else as a bunch of nullbear whiners.

    The spread formation can suck a girthy carrot. Combat probing only works as a mechanic because you can use d-scans to get an initial fix. Without it you're looking at a lengthy, tedious process just like scanning signatures. Pro-tip: this works better for things that move once a day than things that move once a minute. Not to mention the fact that it now mandates that people bring a probing alt just to get the most basic combat intel. Talk about a pain in the dongue.

    Wynta wrote:
    If it is constantly hopping around system wont it also be difficult to DSCAN it


    Not unless the system you're in is absolutely massive. It's fairly easy to spread a few gang members across celestials and have them pick targets up on somewhat narrow scans (often with approximate ranges as well). This can tell you within a few seconds where to put your probes.
    SuperSpyScoutGirl
    MV Corporation
    #2059 - 2014-12-30 01:16:09 UTC  |  Edited by: SuperSpyScoutGirl
    Soldarius wrote:
    Bronson Hughes wrote:
    SuperSpyScoutGirl wrote:
    Quick question just to ensure I am right.

    Hypothetically if I am operating in hostile territory without docking rights, it will be possible for me to eject from my combat recon in order to change ships and the recon will still not appear on d-scan because the immunity is a property of the ship, not a property of the piloted ship?

    Of course, the ship will still be scannable with combats (or within a scan inhibited area that will be scannable), but I can deal with that. Just want to be certain of the mechanics so I can plan to be able to use a couple of ships when I don't have any other support close at hand.

    In theory, yes. I'd try this on the test server to verify once the changes become available though.

    A rather interesting idea....


    A very interesting and possibly abusable idea when you get 200+ recon pilots doing this.

    For a fleet of 200+ pilots to do this, that's at least 400 ships you are moving into a hostile area in order to implement it. Combats would be out looking for the ships well before the operation is setup, ready to go.

    The logistics around used this for a large fleet would be a nightmare.

    Small scale tactic.
    Jenshae Chiroptera
    #2060 - 2014-12-30 03:11:10 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:

    Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse.


    Nope.

    Check local.
    See 10.
    D-scan - see 5.
    Assume 5 are Recons.
    Avoid fight.

    CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

    Not even once

    EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.