These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
#1161 - 2014-12-20 12:16:48 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:
People will not quit, just be more risk averse, D-Scan immunity is dumb idea with dumb explanation. Where is the massive drawback for a so massive OP trait ?

No drawbacks

Just further buffs, like the HAC resist profile to boot.



The drawback is implicit hat all other cruiser sized hull got massively buffed on last 18 months.


Sorry i didn't know only cruise hull can't scan them.. Roll
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1162 - 2014-12-20 13:04:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
D-scan immunity is too much of a buff for a ship that's quite powerful in the first place. They already get stats increases, increased resists and "less dumb" bonuses and layouts. There is no reason, nor need, to give it something like this other than "wouldn't it be cool if". Anyone who has any sense of history with EVE knows (or should know) how cool stuff like that generally pans out.

I'm not saying it'll be super overpowered and it'll massively change the landscape or anything but at the same time there's simply no need for it. Not showing up on D-scan should have downsides, be it how covert ships come prenerfed or how a cloak will affect locking stats etc. With these changes there'll be quite powerful cruisers with a lot of tricks up their sleeves, HAC resists AND, oh yeah... you can't see them.

Prenerf combat recons and keep the D-scan stuff or keep the stats and remove the d-scan immunity. If you want to give them "something to stand out" (as if that's somehow needed in the first place, they seem quite potent to me) then give them increased warp speed. THAT way they are actually Recons and they get something that enables them to chase a target.
Kmelx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1163 - 2014-12-20 13:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kmelx
rhiload Feron-drake wrote:
Seeing all this small-gang pvp players who mostly never post on forums are actually posting on a balance thread. this is a sign that these changes will be DEVASTATING towards the small gang pvpers. also rip medium plexing in fw. going to have fun warping into 2 curses in my vexor.

dont let these changes go through, there is a reason why people are actually taking time to post on this forum and you act like you blatantly ignore what these people are actually saying.


It wasn't announced as a consultative measure.

CCP did not announce it because they wanted our views on this, they announced it so that they could say they have consulted us about a decision they have already made.

If you look at their behavior in this thread, you will see that it was announced without a full explanation of CCP's rationale for introducing this change, we've been promised this by Rise but he has not provided it.

You will see within less than a day there was a 38 page thread of people posting their concerns about this change, along with all the worthless gankers high fiving each other and going around saying f**k yeah we can abuse the s**t out of this when we blob people.

If you look at the timings, Rise's initial post was made at 2014-12-18 14:57:04 UTC. His we've noticed you don't seem to like this change but zero f**ks given reply was made within less than a day at 2014-12-19 11:15:14 UTC and then CCP Seagull announced it as a the number one feature of Proteus at 2014-12-19 16:15. They "consulted" with the wider playerbase for less than 26 hours about this change before they made it the top features/balance announcement in Seagull's dev blog.

No clearer indication that they had no intention of taking the players viewpoints on board was needed, it was a fait accompli, we've decided to inform you were are doing this announcement, taking into account the Christmas and New Year holidays and the intransigence of Rise's reply to the concerns raised, this "balance" change is going out in Proteus.
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#1164 - 2014-12-20 13:34:04 UTC
The only problem with combat recons is their tank and in some cases their slot layout. Shouldn't they be like the EWAR equivalent of HACs? Right now, either T3's or some faction cruisers (hello ashimmu) are used in this role.
Joni Hariere
The Imperial Fedaykin
#1165 - 2014-12-20 13:42:15 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:


  • Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.


  • Thanks for all the feedback.


    MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK .

    D-Scan immunity destroys solopvp, prevents anyone flying cruisers in fw (medium plex) , not to talk about small gang pvp on lowsec.

    and how this is against common sense and everything in in game mechanics.

    *checks prices of Elite Dangerous*
    Gregor Parud
    Imperial Academy
    #1166 - 2014-12-20 13:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
    Joni Hariere wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:


  • Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.


  • Thanks for all the feedback.


    MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK .

    D-Scan immunity destroys solopvp, prevents anyone flying cruisers in fw (medium plex) , not to talk about small gang pvp on lowsec.

    and how this is against common sense and everything in in game mechanics.

    *checks prices of Elite Dangerous*



    That's a bit over the top. There isn't much difference between a Falcon uncloaking on you or a Rook warping in on the fight, and the same goes for the other factions. It creates an out of whack balance where none is needed but it's not solo pvp shattering in any way, it's just a gimmick bonus that is in the realms of "well, it has to be sneaky somehow" where I personally would go for the "lets be more aggressive" with a warp speed bonus.
    Mandrozolizus Hauptutus
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1167 - 2014-12-20 13:59:20 UTC
    Joni Hariere wrote:


    MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK .



    "Never [enter] into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another. ... When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury.." Thomas Jefferson

    CCP aplies this, so the community should...
    Kalihira
    Ultramar Independent Contracting
    #1168 - 2014-12-20 14:09:26 UTC
    Gregor Parud wrote:
    Joni Hariere wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:


  • Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.


  • Thanks for all the feedback.


    MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK .

    D-Scan immunity destroys solopvp, prevents anyone flying cruisers in fw (medium plex) , not to talk about small gang pvp on lowsec.

    and how this is against common sense and everything in in game mechanics.

    *checks prices of Elite Dangerous*



    That's a bit over the top. There isn't much difference between a Falcon uncloaking on you or a Rook warping in on the fight, and the same goes for the other factions. It creates an out of whack balance where none is needed but it's not solo pvp shattering in any way, it's just a gimmick bonus that is in the realms of "well, it has to be sneaky somehow" where I personally would go for the "lets be more aggressive" with a warp speed bonus.


    There is, a rook, if YOU warp in on it (i.e. you enter a site) has no locking delay, has better tank and dps in addition to its ewar. It does not only screw with FW plexing, but also normal plexing. If im roaming in low/null to DED plex, in every system with neutrals, a site might be camped. You are giving a completely different (and non relevant) situation for the concerns he adresses, and I dont think you realize how this bonus might be abused.
    I thought CCP was being more reserved with buffing ships, instead of totally changing they way a certain class is flown which can might break certain aspects of the game. As I said a few posts back, combat recons should be the EWAR equivalent of HACs, leave the sneaky stuff to the force recons, they are quite good allready in this respect. The changes to those ships will make them abit more robust, which is good.
    Araxmas
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1169 - 2014-12-20 14:19:42 UTC
    I get the feeling this is one of those "wait and see" changes. It will either add a lot of variety to pvp or completely frack stuff up.

    Personally I think the HAC resists are prob a bit much but I'd rather see their impact when live, then speculate what MIGHT happen.
    Also pretty much 99% of the doomsaying you can read here is repeated on nearly every eve change there has been.
    Elisk Skyforge
    Caldari Provisions
    #1170 - 2014-12-20 14:25:33 UTC
    Now it makes sense calling them "recon" ships, I approve.
    Gregor Parud
    Imperial Academy
    #1171 - 2014-12-20 14:26:19 UTC
    Kalihira wrote:
    There is, a rook, if YOU warp in on it (i.e. you enter a site) has no locking delay, has better tank and dps in addition to its ewar. It does not only screw with FW plexing, but also normal plexing. If im roaming in low/null to DED plex, in every system with neutrals, a site might be camped. You are giving a completely different (and non relevant) situation for the concerns he adresses, and I dont think you realize how this bonus might be abused.
    I thought CCP was being more reserved with buffing ships, instead of totally changing they way a certain class is flown which can might break certain aspects of the game. As I said a few posts back, combat recons should be the EWAR equivalent of HACs, leave the sneaky stuff to the force recons, they are quite good allready in this respect. The changes to those ships will make them abit more robust, which is good.


    The covert recons get a Cloak Reactivation Delay change meaning they can recloak faster after having decloaked. It has NOTHING to do with a Rook and NOTHING to do with locking delay after decloaking or locking speed or anything you just mentioned.
    Adrian Dixon
    Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction
    -affliction-
    #1172 - 2014-12-20 14:27:06 UTC
    I am excited to see how this will work out.

    This is a good point;
    Diivil wrote:
    Combat recons should at least show up in dscan if you are on the same grid with them. Majority of Eve use dscan tools and it would be extremely frustrating to not be able to copy a certain ship type from dscan list when you can clearly see it in your own overview.

    Yahrr
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1173 - 2014-12-20 14:27:21 UTC
    I like how people think that the d-scan immunity will help them when ratting in an anomaly. When ratting you create wrecks, wrecks can be d-scanned. As everyone and their mother will be flying these new recons, scanning for wrecks will become routine, so the only advantage of the d-scan is to the attacker. It's nice that the attacking party gets some love, but this really is too much.

    Though not actually cloaking the model, it will be just as, or more effective than the covert cloaked force recons. It won't decloak when you hop a gate and it has the ability to run and repair modules while cloaked. Added to that will be HAC resists and a huge ewar range with no reserved utility highslot for the cloaking module.

    Why would you still use a force recon? Combat recons will be better in almost any way. Skipping camps is the only advantage of the real cloakers I can think of.
    Why would you still use a HAC? A Hac might dish out a little more damage, but the ewar and cloaking of the combat recon will make dps a secondary priority.
    Why would you still use an interceptor or bomber? A Lachesis has a much longer point range, can damp the target for immunity and won't be on d-scan like an interceptor would be.
    Why would you still fly any other combat ship? None will stand a chance. 1v1 you can still for example outrun certain ships in a nano, but there won't be any fighting going on as it would be suicide. Against multiple recons it's always game over. You can't run, you can't shoot, you can't repair and wait for backup... and it appeared without warning.

    The force recons have strong limitations in their tank, dps and decloaking delay which balanced the surprise factor. The new combat recons won't have those limitations and will work like a roaming logonski.
    Kalihira
    Ultramar Independent Contracting
    #1174 - 2014-12-20 14:33:47 UTC
    Gregor Parud wrote:
    Kalihira wrote:
    There is, a rook, if YOU warp in on it (i.e. you enter a site) has no locking delay, has better tank and dps in addition to its ewar. It does not only screw with FW plexing, but also normal plexing. If im roaming in low/null to DED plex, in every system with neutrals, a site might be camped. You are giving a completely different (and non relevant) situation for the concerns he adresses, and I dont think you realize how this bonus might be abused.
    I thought CCP was being more reserved with buffing ships, instead of totally changing they way a certain class is flown which can might break certain aspects of the game. As I said a few posts back, combat recons should be the EWAR equivalent of HACs, leave the sneaky stuff to the force recons, they are quite good allready in this respect. The changes to those ships will make them abit more robust, which is good.


    The covert recons get a Cloak Reactivation Delay change meaning they can recloak faster after having decloaked. It has NOTHING to do with a Rook and NOTHING to do with locking delay after decloaking or locking speed or anything you just mentioned.


    Dont critisize my post if you didn't read it properly..... I never said anything about the cloak reactivation delay chance to Force recons.
    Gregor Parud
    Imperial Academy
    #1175 - 2014-12-20 14:36:15 UTC
    Yahrr wrote:
    I like how people think that the d-scan immunity will help them when ratting in an anomaly. When ratting you create wrecks, wrecks can be d-scanned. As everyone and their mother will be flying these new recons, scanning for wrecks will become routine, so the only advantage of the d-scan is to the attacker. It's nice that the attacking party gets some love, but this really is too much.

    Though not actually cloaking the model, it will be just as, or more effective than the covert cloaked force recons. It won't decloak when you hop a gate and it has the ability to run and repair modules while cloaked. Added to that will be HAC resists and a huge ewar range with no reserved utility highslot for the cloaking module.

    Why would you still use a force recon? Combat recons will be better in almost any way. Skipping camps is the only advantage of the real cloakers I can think of.
    Why would you still use a HAC? A Hac might dish out a little more damage, but the ewar and cloaking of the combat recon will make dps a secondary priority.
    Why would you still use an interceptor or bomber? A Lachesis has a much longer point range, can damp the target for immunity and won't be on d-scan like an interceptor would be.
    Why would you still fly any other combat ship? None will stand a chance. 1v1 you can still for example outrun certain ships in a nano, but there won't be any fighting going on as it would be suicide. Against multiple recons it's always game over. You can't run, you can't shoot, you can't repair and wait for backup... and it appeared without warning.

    The force recons have strong limitations in their tank, dps and decloaking delay which balanced the surprise factor. The new combat recons won't have those limitations and will work like a roaming logonski.


    That's quite the hyperbole sperg and the majority of what you just said won't happen. ALL that will happen is combat recons which perform a support role in gang/fleets will be more survivable and some folks running around in Lachs, right up to the point where gang links become grid only because then they suddenly lose their speed and become sitting ducks,only catching morons or people off guard.

    The D-scan gimmick does not compare to the tactical advantage of a covert cloak, it's just that the Combat recons are already strong enough so that they don't NEED anything more, that's all.
    Entity
    X-Factor Industries
    Synthetic Existence
    #1176 - 2014-12-20 14:36:44 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:

  • Combat Recons will now be permanently undetectable by directional scanners
  • All eight Recons will have their resist profiles brought up to Heavy Assault Cruiser level
  • All eight Recons will have the capacitor cost of warping reduced by roughly half
  • Where appropriate, bonuses will be adjusted to match ship developer trends
  • All eight Recons are having their capacitor pool and capacitor regeneration buffed (roughly 20% increase in cap regen)
  • The average maximum velocity across the class is going up by around 20m/s


  • And as usual, the Alliance Tournament variants get skipped?

    I'm still waiting for the promised unique battleships balance pass too.

    ╦......║...╔╗.║.║.╔╗.╦║.╔╗╔╦╗╔╗

    ║.╔╗╔╗╔╣.╔╗╠..╠ ╠╗╠╝.║╠ ╠╝║║║╚╗

    ╩═╚╝║.╚╝.╚╝║..╚╝║║╚╝.╩╚╝╚╝║.║╚╝

    Got Item?

    hellokittyonline
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #1177 - 2014-12-20 14:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: hellokittyonline
    CCP Rise wrote:

    Yes, people are risk averse, they want to make good decisions when they're taking risks and that often leads being conservative. That's exactly why I like this kind of mechanic. People want to do the fun thing and take more engagements, but when they have enough information to know that they aren't the favorite they shy away from fighting. However, when some information is obscured they become optimistic and take more risks. I've seen players so willing to make decisions that are likely too risky simply because they lack perfect information. Jumping into gate camps where positional information isn't guaranteed, engaging on stations with people docked, fighting in systems with more in local than can be accounted for, etc. These mechanics that obscure information give people the excuses needed to take risks. 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.


    And yet again CCP balances based on large fleet engagements instead of taking into consideration how it effects the ENTIRE game. Listen we get it, you only understand nullsec blobs and highsec carebears. The real problem with EVE is that CCP is not involved enough with their own community to know where their problems lie. Do you even know what a lot of the popular streamers do? Do you even realize how many NEW subs we bring in a month? You want to know why? Because solo and small gang pvp is MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE to a newbro.

    I'm so confused as to how you can on one hand claim to be working on the new player experience, and you do when it comes to superficial things such as tutorials and easier understanding. However, when it comes to the actual game mechanics you CONSISTENTLY make it harder and harder on new bros.

    We HAVE fleet fights, they're NOT running from each other, they ARE ALREADY abusing insanely overpowered mechanics to make it THAT MUCH HARDER on the solo/small gang folks and you STILL seem to think that large scale PvP is the only PvP worth mentioning or balancing around.

    Complete garbage.
    Aralieus
    Shadowbane Syndicate
    #1178 - 2014-12-20 14:41:10 UTC
    Davader wrote:
    Morwen Lagann wrote:
    Pilgrim without its neut amount bonus? One word: Ugh. ...


    Please, don't break the pilgrim! It is very nice close ranged anti-carebear killing machine, you are taking his most valuable bonus off! Why?

    Leave the range bonus for Curses, but please don't make a Pilgrim to be some weaker kind of a Curse. The pilgirm will be used even lesser than now if you change its main bonus!



    I agree fully. As a Recon V and avid pilgrim pilot I cannot stress enough the importance of the pilgrim having the neut strength to be able to take down targets in a timely manner. Leave the ranged cap warfare to the Curse and give the pilgrim its strength back and a bigger drone bay with the bandwidth to allow it to use 5 heavies. Please don't wreck the pilgrim by making it watered down curse without any uniqueness or bonus to set it apart.

    Oderint Dum Metuant

    Gregor Parud
    Imperial Academy
    #1179 - 2014-12-20 14:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
    Kalihira wrote:
    Dont critisize my post if you didn't read it properly..... I never said anything about the cloak reactivation delay chance to Force recons.


    Conceded.

    Still, a solo Rook is not a threat, it never was and it will never be. The second you come up with "but what if there's more" I'll counter with "then they can have a scout at the site entrance as well so they'll know when you warped and can uncloak".
    Moraguth
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1180 - 2014-12-20 14:44:55 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Quote:

    I can tell you what will happen most likely:
    - Less fights because people are risk averse
    - A 2nd account with a Prober at all times will be must, not an option.


    ...STUFF...
    I would be more worried with this mechanic that people have to spend a lot of time running probe scans when they really don't want to be than that they are avoiding engagements because of the possibility of Recons. I don't think this will be a problem but we'll have to wait and see.


    Everything I'm about to type comes from the perspective of living in wormhole space part time for a bit now.

    I seem to remember, not too long ago in fact, a very reasonable dev blog about the removal of clone costs. The rationale for the change was along the lines of "if it is a false choice, if it doesn't really add gameplay (it just punishes you for being forgetful), it doesn't make sense to be in the game". ... Or something along those lines. Consider that a paraphrase instead of an actual quote.

    Along those same lines, having to have a character always running combat probes, just for the most minute chance of detecting a possible hostile ship doesn't really add any fun to the game. It doesn't add any emergent gameplay and it doesn't really add actual choice. For smaller entities that cannot have an extra character doing nothing but hitting scan every few seconds (and I have this problem with d-scan in w-space in general), it is the opposite of adding fun. With that one ship change, you're making smaller entities have to decide between continuing to play the game they've been playing, or abandoning their w-space systems.

    In effect, you're going to turn w-space into a land of two extremes: either roaming pirates, or large organizations that can afford to have scouts on every wormhole 23/7 AND a person or two inside the WH constantly running combat probes. That's boring gameplay at its finest, and goes a long way to turning wormholes into low sec without gate guns or local - aka devoid of any real/meaningful activity.

    Pirates and gankbears love low sec.... no risk, all reward, easy peasy ganks. And now they'll love w-space too.
    For those with the defensive (and BUILDING sandcastles) mindset, w-space already had a great risk vs reward system in place. The careful player could mitigate most risks just fine even when they were solo. Now things will be completely different. I don't want to put words into your mouth, however it makes me wonder if maybe you have ulterior motives for this change.

    ---

    Here's a random and crazy idea.... maybe give those combat recons the ability to scoop the mobile scan inhibitor deployables (i forget their name, i never use them). That way we know something is out there but we don't know what. And they would be the only ship in the game that could scoop them up. They still effectively get their immunity to d-scan, but the locals have a chance of knowing *something* is up even if they don't know exactly what, without having to have a dedicated proper running 23/7 for safety/security.

    I got a Feature Added!

    Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon