Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Go AFK off-grid in Dead Space all you want! Good luck finding the recon!

Why you keep calling those hulls: recon? They have nothing to do with a recon job. They are support vessels.


and countermeasure to this ship is what? Strong EWAR means you won't even target this thing while it keep spitting balls of fire at you. Poor EHP? You won't need that.

It would make more sense than d-scan imunnity for recon role.
Rise took strange way to balance them. We don't know how much T3 will be nerfed, i pressume role bonuses like ewar or dps will be worse than on T2 hulls. Thus we don't know in what state are bonuses on T2 hulls, should we nerf them or buff them?

What's "good" mean?
I agree with CCP that ships with more than one role shouldn't be best at both or more. So HACs best at dealing damage, logi and ECM ship at appropriate role, T3 medicore at every above in cruiser class but have ability to switch it. Your attack recon proposal give two role bonuses with high level to one ship, that's why i think it's unbalance. D-scan immunity must be tested on TQ to show it's worth. I don't presume sky will fall on our heads.

My prospect fit

Highs - 2 T2 huffers (no cloak)
Mids - cloud scanner thinger, invul field, mwd (i live in a pulsar, so....)
Lows - all stabs (that would be +3 which if my maths is correct is roughly 1 better than +2)

I'll take this fit and double the huff bay all day every day.

edit - and the cost at 25 mil is kind of meh for a wh guy - I'm more worried about getting bubbled and podded

also - I'm fitting out a pair of lachesis w/ sensor boosters and TS scramblers... just for ventures. I'm moving the TS scrams from my stratios to my lachesis and calling it an improvement on success chances vs ventures in gas sites. Huffers beware.

I think it depends on the EWAR being applied. Example...lots of folks beef about ECM and it's pretty strong if folks haven't skilled up their sensor hardening. More importantly, the hard counter to ECM is ECCM and that works very well but few folks want to mount the module.

You might get stung a time or too by guys that like to run jams but I bet you can bait them and use a little ECCM to help give them a bad day.

All that being said...i don't think we need a 3rd Recon Ship platform at the moment. I would just like to have clear and useful distinctions between the Force and Combat varieties and equally important just make sure that the T2 version is clearly more capable than the T1 version (i.e. Rook vs Blackbird).

while your at it remove local from all space.....................it will go down so well

You are still missing the point.

What is the difference between Force Recons, and Combat Recons? They provide the exact same desired role. Application of EWAR. Why do we have 2 ship lines providing the same role? One should be focused on providing Combat options from a Recon perspective, the other EWAR.

The fact you consider their DPS to be a tertiary factor is pretty much the whole point.

I mean if all you want is jam cycles you would be silly not to just use the BBIRD both ships are going to be Alphad off the field, at least the BBIRD (even armor fit) is going to be sitting well outside most engagement ranges, with an AB to mitigate any long range damage and only costs 1/10th that of a Recon. Heck if you want to get real amped up use a SEBO in a fleet role with a target range script and sit at 140 in you Bbird.

The simple fact is Combat Recons do not have a role in combat, they share a role with Force Recons, the latter of which is better suited to support a fleet, with its capacity for Covert Cynos, and of course Covert Ops Cloak.

Lets look at this from another perspective. What other cruisers exist in a combat recon like role...well there is the Stratios, and T3's. Both can fit Covert Ops cloaks, Both can pump out 500+DPS, Both can use Black Ops bridges, both can have tanks north of 70KEHP.

So if the above is true, why should Combat Recons not enjoy a similar capacity? Why should they be exempt from Black Ops? Or from having a tank similar to that of a T1 Cloaky Pirate Faction cruiser. So you have a ship class that offers inferior support, and inferior offensive options to comparable ships, and is marginally more effective at performing a support role than a dedicated T1 Cruiser is.

And DSCAN immunity is what CCP has come up with?

A Force Recon is still going to be better in a support capacity
A Stratios is still going to be better in an offensive capacity
A Blackbird is still going to be more cost effective than the rook not showing up on DSCAN.

It is a placebo change.

T2 Resists would absolutely give Combat Recons a shot in the leg in a combat role.
Changing the bonuses on the Recons to clearly split the two would be a good change, no toe stepping.
Giving Combat Recons a cloak and letting them Blops would be a good change.

All three of these things together would solve the entire cluster **** of Recons, and actually maybe make people value combat recons in a combat role, instead of just making a Force Recon wannabe that can't cloak.

But hey hiding from DSCAN is super intuitive because people can't AFK cloak like that!

I guess Combat Recons will always have their place though, hiding in FW plexes ganking easy targets because its the only engagements they can take without a 10 man Logi wing.

Stop hating dude. Whatever I did to you.... I'm sorry. I really am.

Recon (outside of eve) means to gather intelligence without being detected. Look at all the standing armies of the earth.... their recon forces don't roll around in tanks. They get dropped behind lines, gather intelligence and get out.

If a recon ship alerts everyone to their presence (by showing up in local) there is no stealth involved. My suggestion is to make recons not show up in local to parallel the real world stealth associated with recon activities.

Put away your vendeta and re read my post. I didn't say it would be better or worse. I just put out an idea for a feature. Liten up buttercup.

I don't hate you, it's just that I almost never agree with you. When you post things I think about them and I can't see where you are coming from or even how you think those things are good. So I respond and point that out. You may have noticed I agreed with you on something in another thread yesterday, because for once we actually had the same opinion.

This time I really didn't know what you were going for so I asked. I didn't even disagree, just asked for an explanation.



That's all I was asking for, an explanation of why you thought that was a good proposal. I'm not sure where I got "better" from, I must have mixed up a few posts. I still like d-scan immunity over not showing in local, but at least I now understand why you prefer the other one.