These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2201 - 2015-01-07 13:20:38 UTC
Kynric wrote:
Before the change it is possible to fit the Huginn with weapons that project sufficient to match the webs without resorting to fitting modules. The proposed will have to use the new low for a reactor if arty is desired. A bit more powergrid to facilitate fitting artillery or a strong falloff bonus for autocannons or switching the ship back to launchers would make the vessel more attractive. As it stands it seems rather less interesting than the current version which rarely gets used as another ship always seems like a much better choice.


mm.. a cloaky RLML rapier with same layout seems a better option

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#2202 - 2015-01-07 14:46:02 UTC
Niskin wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Niskin wrote:
I don't know what kind of stasis field you people are operating in but the time between aligning or initiating warp and clicking the cloaking device is less than one second. That means at most you are on scan for one to two seconds. The fastest you can click d-scan is every two seconds. The only time people actually show up uncloaked for any length of time is when they are dropping probes.

So yes, if you click scan every two seconds, always, you might notice a cloaky ship entering your wormhole. People are arguing in here like that's always the case, and it's not even close. Try clicking scan every two seconds for 10 minutes, if you can even keep up with it your wrist will be burning in no time. Now do that for an hour, or multiple hours, for days.

The truth is that you can catch people sneaking up on you with d-scan, but that doesn't mean you always will.


You show up on scan long after you have clicked cloak on your client and disappear from grid. Your cloaky Proteus can be already in warp after cloaking, and still visible on dscan.


That has not been my experience. There will be inherent delays due to long distance communication with the server, and the 1 second server ticks will propagate that a bit. But I've never seen a case where somebody cloaked and still showed on scan for any length of time, even for 1 second.


I find your lack of knowledge disturbing. It's Wormhole 101 that you'll show up on dscan for at least 4-5 seconds even if you immediately re-cloak.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#2203 - 2015-01-07 15:19:17 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Niskin wrote:
That has not been my experience. There will be inherent delays due to long distance communication with the server, and the 1 second server ticks will propagate that a bit. But I've never seen a case where somebody cloaked and still showed on scan for any length of time, even for 1 second.


I find your lack of knowledge disturbing. It's Wormhole 101 that you'll show up on dscan for at least 4-5 seconds even if you immediately re-cloak.


I can't speak to off-grid d-scan results, because I only have one account and have been playing solo the last few years, but when on-grid you are dead wrong. When I sit and watch a wormhole connection and something comes in and cloaks, I click scan and they are gone. No delay, no 4-5 seconds. They are just gone.

Back when I played with a group, from 2006 to 2012, I never once heard of this delay. Maybe something has changed since then, I don't know. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing, and it's been 100% consistent so there was never a reason to doubt it.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Alexis Nightwish
#2204 - 2015-01-07 18:49:50 UTC
2D34DLY4U wrote:
Designing ships in EVE is a very hard thing to do, you have to think about solo use, small gang use, fleet use (same ship my have totally different fits/uses in these contexts and if possible should be useful in all of them to make for a richer game), further factor in how does this specific ship compare with it's same tiered peers (size wise among cruisers, isk wise bang for the buck versus T1, other T2, T3, Faction) and finally try to introduce new and interesting game play mechanics to make it fun / EVE a better game.

(snip)
Yeah. It's too bad the devs don't have a huge resource of experience and knowledge of the game they could draw upon to help them make better choices when modifying such a profoundly complex system. Something like hundreds of players with thousands of combined hours of playtime who would be willing to put forth their thoughts on how to make the game better based on experience and passion for the game.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2205 - 2015-01-07 18:57:36 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Kynric wrote:
Before the change it is possible to fit the Huginn with weapons that project sufficient to match the webs without resorting to fitting modules. The proposed will have to use the new low for a reactor if arty is desired. A bit more powergrid to facilitate fitting artillery or a strong falloff bonus for autocannons or switching the ship back to launchers would make the vessel more attractive. As it stands it seems rather less interesting than the current version which rarely gets used as another ship always seems like a much better choice.


mm.. a cloaky RLML rapier with same layout seems a better option


It is. 400dps with furies, double web with roughly 35-40k EHP and goes 2100 m/s cold. It can cloak to avoid camps or setup BM to pounce on unsuspecting victims. I dont intend to touch a huginn because of sacrifices youll need to make to get ****** 650s to fit, let alone trying to squeeze 720s on it. Ive considered a ac kite fit.. but the dps will be so anemic at kite ranges without falloff bonuses, its better to use RLML.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#2206 - 2015-01-07 23:39:08 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Have you nerfed Ishtars yet CCP Rise?

Have you nerfed Logi yet?

Getting bored with Ishtarceptors online.

they shoulda nerf logi 2 years ago. infact they shouldnt have even come out with logi. this isnt WOW. its a space game. and logi in a fight dont make sense at ******* all

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Topher Basquette Dusch-shur
Montana Freedom Fighters
#2207 - 2015-01-08 02:14:43 UTC
I can't find anything posted, but some quick and dirty math gives the 720mm Huginn an alpha of about 2300 with republic plasma ammo. Does that seem right?

What is the EHP of a Niarja?
Scheulagh Santorine
The Math Department
#2208 - 2015-01-08 06:21:52 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
2D34DLY4U wrote:
Designing ships in EVE is a very hard thing to do, you have to think about solo use, small gang use, fleet use (same ship my have totally different fits/uses in these contexts and if possible should be useful in all of them to make for a richer game), further factor in how does this specific ship compare with it's same tiered peers (size wise among cruisers, isk wise bang for the buck versus T1, other T2, T3, Faction) and finally try to introduce new and interesting game play mechanics to make it fun / EVE a better game.

(snip)
Yeah. It's too bad the devs don't have a huge resource of experience and knowledge of the game they could draw upon to help them make better choices when modifying such a profoundly complex system. Something like hundreds of players with thousands of combined hours of playtime who would be willing to put forth their thoughts on how to make the game better based on experience and passion for the game.


I want to give you a hug.

Its not sarcastic to think that devs could build on the experience of every player in the game. I tried to pursue this line of questioning at FanFest last year, trying to get Rise and Fozzie to explain what tools they use to categorize different play styles, and identify how different fits make ships more/less relevant for these different styles.

They do claim to look at KB statistics gathered with in-house tools, but they never publish statistics or metrics in their dev blogs to motivate the changes they make in ship balance. If this lack of visual information was present for PLEX prices, the economy, industry or sov, they would have a great deal of difficulty justifying intervention in those aspects of the game.

Perhaps we can advocate for more transparency in this area?


S. Santorine

============================== I used to shoot things. Now I do math.

S. Santorine

Writings on some formal methods in EvE-OnlineEVE Math & Physics Blog

Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#2209 - 2015-01-08 06:27:22 UTC
Niskin wrote:
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Niskin wrote:
That has not been my experience. There will be inherent delays due to long distance communication with the server, and the 1 second server ticks will propagate that a bit. But I've never seen a case where somebody cloaked and still showed on scan for any length of time, even for 1 second.


I find your lack of knowledge disturbing. It's Wormhole 101 that you'll show up on dscan for at least 4-5 seconds even if you immediately re-cloak.


I can't speak to off-grid d-scan results, because I only have one account and have been playing solo the last few years, but when on-grid you are dead wrong. When I sit and watch a wormhole connection and something comes in and cloaks, I click scan and they are gone. No delay, no 4-5 seconds. They are just gone.

Back when I played with a group, from 2006 to 2012, I never once heard of this delay. Maybe something has changed since then, I don't know. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing, and it's been 100% consistent so there was never a reason to doubt it.

If im reading this right you are speaking of physically watching a ship dissapear off overview while dscanning and seeing he disappears from dscan at the same time. What you are seeing is everything that takes place after the delay. Ie They clicked cloak 3ish seconds later they dissapear from your overview and dscan. It has always been this way.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#2210 - 2015-01-08 07:06:11 UTC
This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas in history, of all time.


Its stupidity far exceeds that which was previously established by decisions unsupported by facts, data, or common sense.


" D-scan immunity" The most Blasphemous words ever spoken in an MMO.

While being forced to bring a prober may be more of an inconvenience for roaming fleets of lets say 20-50+, it gimps small gang pvp, and renders solo activities utterly useless without the use of alt. Seeing how probe scanning takes significantly longer than d-scanning and both are manual, and the need to scan every time someone enters system, why freaking bother. Its seems like an "I Win" button in far too many scenarios. At least with cloakies, theres a targeting delay, plus they cant enter a system, warp to a beacon, and button in without so much as being detected.

Fail.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Hellrain Choochoo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2211 - 2015-01-08 08:45:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Hellrain Choochoo
Why Curse is having less low slot than the Pilgrim ? fighter recon aren't supposed to be more resistant than their cloaky counterpart ?

Also why not a drone EV drain amount bonus ?
Keno Skir
#2212 - 2015-01-08 11:10:17 UTC
Not sure about the dscan thing tbh. I'll enjoy it, but isn't that just what a cloak is for?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2213 - 2015-01-08 14:19:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Hellrain Choochoo wrote:
Why Curse is having less low slot than the Pilgrim ? fighter recon aren't supposed to be more resistant than their cloaky counterpart ?

Also why not a drone EV drain amount bonus ?


it is ridiculous that they are happy with the curse being shield tanked,
- it has -1 lowslot on the pilgrim, 4 slots is hard too armour tank with
- lacks pg too effectively armour tank
- pilgrim has more Armour HP
- why do they need 2 droneboats? .. even the gallente don't have a drone based recon why?
- curse should be treated as khanid thus missiles and strong armour tank

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#2214 - 2015-01-08 14:36:00 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
As of two day ago the Recon changes are on SiSi for review.

My first impressions so far are mixed and give me the headache. What most of them in common is that force recons are inferior versions of the combat recons / electronic attack cruisers (which is a far better name for them).

Curse

This one is cursed.. Though the increased drain and neut range is nice and the drone damage is not to ignore here.

Pilgrim

Lesser Curse with a covert ops cloak.

Why both of them even have a tracking disruption bonus escapes me but both of them are nice shield tankers, as always with the Amarr line of ships.

Lachesis

This one is an amazing railgun boat at very long ranges.

Arazu

Inferior Lachesis with covert ops cloak.

Both Gallente recons do just fine as always with shield tanks.

Rook

The worst of the recons with a weapon system that still hurts my feelings but no ship in New Eden. If you are lucky sometimes you can jam someone.
The ancillery missile launcher range bonus was forgotten to put on - who might that have been??

Falcon

Yeah Falcon oh Falcon, why wasn't you changed?

As long time running gag in Island, both Caldari recons didn't change at all. I am almost surprised..

All recons still have terrible capacitors, mobility but as racial flavor they all have some shield tanks. Maybe the Curse should move one low back to the meds again, so that the common shield Amarr doesn't look so weird in the line of Amarr ships.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2215 - 2015-01-08 16:12:18 UTC
mm.. maybe renaming combat recons to Electronic Attack cruiser would make more sense and perhaps you could tie them in with the EAF's give them the same d-scan bonus and give them a stronger combat focus too match.

maybe even separate the recon skillbook from the combat recons change it to Electronic Attack cruiser skillbook in its place.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Jaysen Larrisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2216 - 2015-01-08 16:32:27 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
mm.. maybe renaming combat recons to Electronic Attack cruiser would make more sense and perhaps you could tie them in with the EAF's give them the same d-scan bonus and give them a stronger combat focus too match.

maybe even separate the recon skillbook from the combat recons change it to Electronic Attack cruiser skillbook in its place.


Agreed on the EAC point. Several of us discussed the point in this thread.

I don't know that you need to split the skill books. I think the CovOPs frigs are an excellent example for this class of cruisers to have followed. The frigs give you a stealthy surveillance and exploration platform in one boat and the bomber in an other under the same skill branch...two massively different boats that were split in function quite well.

I seriously wished they had considered doing the same for the Recon ships. The d-scan piece I can take or leave, either way I'm fine. I tend to fly in small to medium gangs mostly and I was far more interested in the Electronic Attack aspect of the ships...my beef is that the T2 options are simply less desirable in many cases (cost vs difference in performance) than the T1 options.

I'm still not sure why I would fly a Rook in a gang instead of a Blackbird or Falcon. Maybe I don't see it but I'm struggling a bit with that.



"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2217 - 2015-01-08 17:13:13 UTC
Jaysen Larrisen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
mm.. maybe renaming combat recons to Electronic Attack cruiser would make more sense and perhaps you could tie them in with the EAF's give them the same d-scan bonus and give them a stronger combat focus too match.

maybe even separate the recon skillbook from the combat recons change it to Electronic Attack cruiser skillbook in its place.


Agreed on the EAC point. Several of us discussed the point in this thread.

I don't know that you need to split the skill books. I think the CovOPs frigs are an excellent example for this class of cruisers to have followed. The frigs give you a stealthy surveillance and exploration platform in one boat and the bomber in an other under the same skill branch...two massively different boats that were split in function quite well.

I seriously wished they had considered doing the same for the Recon ships. The d-scan piece I can take or leave, either way I'm fine. I tend to fly in small to medium gangs mostly and I was far more interested in the Electronic Attack aspect of the ships...my beef is that the T2 options are simply less desirable in many cases (cost vs difference in performance) than the T1 options.

I'm still not sure why I would fly a Rook in a gang instead of a Blackbird or Falcon. Maybe I don't see it but I'm struggling a bit with that.





dps mainly .. a 400 plus dps rook could be quite handy in a small fleet, with much higher jam strength than the bb which is more about ecm range than strength, and the falcons strength is the cloak ofc, shame they don't want it too do any decent dps.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#2218 - 2015-01-08 17:15:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
Harvey James wrote:
Kynric wrote:
Before the change it is possible to fit the Huginn with weapons that project sufficient to match the webs without resorting to fitting modules. The proposed will have to use the new low for a reactor if arty is desired. A bit more powergrid to facilitate fitting artillery or a strong falloff bonus for autocannons or switching the ship back to launchers would make the vessel more attractive. As it stands it seems rather less interesting than the current version which rarely gets used as another ship always seems like a much better choice.


mm.. a cloaky RLML rapier with same layout seems a better option


I have no complaints with the rapier. I use it now and it seems to only get better. The Huginn on the other hand goes from worse than the rapier to much worse than the rapier for anything other than c5 escalation fleets. I played with it in and cant find a fit for the new one which seems useful, I kept end up with dual reactor cores or dual t2 ancil current routers and still showed really bad dps. What is the reason for adding a low if the weapon change gobbles both it and another one? It is a weak ship which is getting weaker. @ Rise, is there a fit or use case which I am missing that makes the new Huginn useful?
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#2219 - 2015-01-09 04:55:13 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
As of two day ago the Recon changes are on SiSi for review.

All recons still have terrible capacitors...



That's disturbing.


I was thinking the changes to plus-raw-cap, plus-cap-regen, & minus-warp-initiation would finally address one of classes most glaring faults.
Samchitto Ormand
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2220 - 2015-01-09 12:21:22 UTC
The D-SCAN immunity just doesn't make sense to me. The thing is, that when using a cloaking mod, you have to pretty much make the whole fit around it and it kind of makes the ship pretty specific, when it comes to what it actually can do. Not that they might not have a specific use when this rebalance will be released as it is, but it just doesn't suit the game IMHO. It looks to me like these ships might be used a lot more to set up traps and just wait for somebody to get caught, which is not my kind of play style. There are more interesting things, that could be done with these ships, that might result into more fun gameplay. Just my opinion though Cool