These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
hellokittyonline
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
#1561 - 2014-12-22 20:03:28 UTC  |  Edited by: hellokittyonline
Niskin wrote:
As a true solo player

I don't usually do this but
https://zkillboard.com/character/367797693/solo/
...
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#1562 - 2014-12-22 20:10:53 UTC
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:
I hope CCP doesn't cave on a great new step in getting rid of perfect intel due to a bunch of players unwilling to adapt to such changes.


So D-Scan is perfect intel nowadays? Seriously?
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1563 - 2014-12-22 20:10:57 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
One more thing. You can also restrict combat recons from fitting a cyno if you go with the no local route.


Yes, let's create arbitrary rules to fit your world vision before considering that there might be other players around you. Same goes for the recons not showing up in scan btw, too many special bonuses on different ships leads to a jumbled mess. CovOps cloaks I can understand as that's more than 1 type of ship benefiting from it, but it's really only an extension to normal cloaking.

(Are you finally sinking into Gevlon's level of self-entitlement we've been waiting for ages now?)
Wynta Rex
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1564 - 2014-12-22 20:11:13 UTC
If DScan Immunity is too powerful, I'd like the Combat Recon to get an extra utility high and the ability to fit a bomb launcher and a bonus to void and lockbreaker bombs. Make it a type of bomber that doesnt revolve around solely around bombing runs but can stand and fight.
w1ndstrike
White Talon Holdings
#1565 - 2014-12-22 20:15:35 UTC
A follow up after seeing some of the shake-up and comments:

if CCP is completely set on releasing this as it stands, there is one game system that can easily be adjusted to compensate: Lower the Fitting Requirements for Expanded Probe Launchers

currently the biggest comment is "but the recons can be probed!" and that is fine, however that comment does not recognize the reality that there are very, very few ships that can fit a combat probe launcher without giving up LARGE amounts of combat ability due to the insane CPU requirement. the sole exception to this is T3 cruisers and the T3 destroyers...... T3 shouldn't be a requirement to fight T2s effectively.

on that subject, why not give the force recons a role bonus to probe launcher fitting? it means you need to bring a recon to find a recon, but fits the cloaky/scout theme and the extension of the covops line (and gives explorers a cruiser that isn't a gnosis, T3 or stratios)
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1566 - 2014-12-22 20:16:36 UTC
Let's keep the DSCAN immunity. It's a fully new tactical situation. Real innovation. Stuff like this is too rare. Good show.

This thread is proof that men get more hysterical than women. The world will still turn and with more options and a unique ship class.

Next on the list should be damaging the blob so that fleet warfare can have some sort of option other than punching an alpha through logi. I'm tired of fitting what I am told to fit so I can undock and press F1.

+1 DSCAN immunity.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1567 - 2014-12-22 20:17:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.


are you going to bring solo back? I'm looking forward to it.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#1568 - 2014-12-22 20:22:03 UTC
hellokittyonline wrote:
Niskin wrote:
As a true solo player

I don't usually do this but
https://zkillboard.com/character/367797693/solo/
...


You don't usually link old loss mails that have nothing to do with the current conversation? I can see why.

Seriously though. I used to fly with others, from about a month into playing the game in 2006 all the way up to a few years ago. Since then I've been operating on my own, because I don't have the time to commit to a group the way I'd like to.

Most of the kills I've been involved in were not solo, but the few I've managed to get myself were before zkillboard existed. I'm not much of a solo PvP'er, my last attempt was in a Myrmidon if you want to look for that lossmail. I do have to do solo PvE in wormholes as that is where I currently live and have done both grouped and solo FacWar before.

Basically I've been all over this game and have seen the many areas and aspects of it. I'm solo now, but have always only had one account. So what are you trying to accuse me of here anyway?

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1569 - 2014-12-22 20:22:04 UTC
w1ndstrike wrote:
A follow up after seeing some of the shake-up and comments:

if CCP is completely set on releasing this as it stands, there is one game system that can easily be adjusted to compensate: Lower the Fitting Requirements for Expanded Probe Launchers

currently the biggest comment is "but the recons can be probed!" and that is fine, however that comment does not recognize the reality that there are very, very few ships that can fit a combat probe launcher without giving up LARGE amounts of combat ability due to the insane CPU requirement. the sole exception to this is T3 cruisers and the T3 destroyers...... T3 shouldn't be a requirement to fight T2s effectively.

on that subject, why not give the force recons a role bonus to probe launcher fitting? it means you need to bring a recon to find a recon, but fits the cloaky/scout theme and the extension of the covops line (and gives explorers a cruiser that isn't a gnosis, T3 or stratios)


I agree that force recons that can't probe scan leaves a lot to be desired. The result would likely be that scan frigs would be relegated to a PvE role. I can live with that, frankly.
Asimov Isaaac
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1570 - 2014-12-22 20:26:12 UTC
Dir Scan is basic game element that could be counted on to be reliable, honest and accurate. I can only think that CCP is getting desperate for game content as this gives high skill point people an unfair advantage against a lot of low skill people. People whom CCP has been trying to lure into 0.0. Give with one hand and take away with the other.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#1571 - 2014-12-22 20:30:42 UTC
Asimov Isaaac wrote:
Dir Scan is basic game element that could be counted on to be reliable, honest and accurate. I can only think that CCP is getting desperate for game content as this gives high skill point people an unfair advantage against a lot of low skill people. People whom CCP has been trying to lure into 0.0. Give with one hand and take away with the other.

Out of curiosity, what is the exact "High SP" versus "Low SP" argument you're trying to make?

I'm right behind you
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#1572 - 2014-12-22 20:34:57 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.


are you going to bring solo back? I'm looking forward to it.


Solo rook!
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1573 - 2014-12-22 20:42:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
One more thing. You can also restrict combat recons from fitting a cyno if you go with the no local route.


Yes, let's create arbitrary rules to fit your world vision before considering that there might be other players around you. Same goes for the recons not showing up in scan btw, too many special bonuses on different ships leads to a jumbled mess. CovOps cloaks I can understand as that's more than 1 type of ship benefiting from it, but it's really only an extension to normal cloaking.

(Are you finally sinking into Gevlon's level of self-entitlement we've been waiting for ages now?)

It's not arbitrary. A cyno is a powerful tool to enable force projection. Being able to sneak around that is not something that the game needs.

Your argument is simply weak that resorts to personal attacks rather than formulating a compelling argument. Too many ships with special bonuses is bad?? Are you really serious? I mean heaven forbid we have interesting choices in deciding what ship to fly right? Ugh
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1574 - 2014-12-22 20:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Liet Ormand wrote:
Kevin Emoto wrote:



Hey, I think this is perhaps one of the worst design decisions to come out of CCP in these dark last two years, but I'm a pirate who likes to hunt in LS and WH space and I know that this will be a mind numbingly effective tool while it lasts!

And honestly, I love the tears of FW farmers when they lose a ship! Their sense of entitlement just makes me want to hunt them more and more. Now medium and large sites will invariably be avoided in short order, as well as LS and NS DED sites, now that I think about it. Now you can camp sites anywhere, and bubbles in NS and WH space with large fleets of tanky, invisible to DScan, instalocking combat recons.

If you don't think that doesn't tickle the hearts of every pirate in LS, NS and WH space, you're kidding yourself.

But don't worry, people who play eve to harvest and do industry are greedy, really really greedy, they'll find a way to get their 'easy money'. We'll continue the be able to kill the dumb ones for quite a while yet.



You're kind of missing my point, though, I'm not talking about combat or how it affects the people involved. I'll re-state.

If all the minerals currently being brought into the economy from WH farmers are cut off (as you expect they will be) then what will happen to the prices of everything made with them?

For example, a rook is built with both Megacyte and Morphite. Do you think it's acceptable to pay considerably more for both as they become scarce?



The amount of minerals brought to market from w-space is beyond insignificant. I would be more concerned about w-space relics and gases. Fortunately, sieged dreads and carrier don't give a whit about EWAR except neuts, and Ventures have +2 warp core strength on top of being very inexpensive.

Also, the last time I checked, the vast majority of megacyte and morphite comes from nulsec.

No, I don't think w-space resources are in danger of drying up over recon changes.

http://youtu.be/owzhYNcd4OM

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1575 - 2014-12-22 20:51:21 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
One more thing. You can also restrict combat recons from fitting a cyno if you go with the no local route.


Yes, let's create arbitrary rules to fit your world vision before considering that there might be other players around you. Same goes for the recons not showing up in scan btw, too many special bonuses on different ships leads to a jumbled mess. CovOps cloaks I can understand as that's more than 1 type of ship benefiting from it, but it's really only an extension to normal cloaking.

(Are you finally sinking into Gevlon's level of self-entitlement we've been waiting for ages now?)

It's not arbitrary. A cyno is a powerful tool to enable force projection. Being able to sneak around that is not something that the game needs.

Your argument is simply weak that resorts to personal attacks rather than formulating a compelling argument. Too many ships with special bonuses is bad?? Are you really serious? I mean heaven forbid we have interesting choices in deciding what ship to fly right? Ugh


We could make some ships immune to webification, some immune to direct interdiction, some immune to other random ewar and one which doesn't show up with scan probes.

These are not good functions to have in the game, supers are already borderline broken because of ewar immunity.
mulgrew Zero
Weyland Mulgrew Corporation
#1576 - 2014-12-22 21:07:13 UTC
just a thought but if you want to be immune to dscan wouldnt you just fly a ship that has a covert ops cloak onit ? it is 1 of the reasons to have 1 fitted, im just wondering if this is a start of phasing out covert ships and lumping them all with dscan immunity ?
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#1577 - 2014-12-22 21:13:41 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:

We could make some ships immune to webification, some immune to direct interdiction, some immune to other random ewar and one which doesn't show up with scan probes.

These are not good functions to have in the game, supers are already borderline broken because of ewar immunity.

but immune to d-scan is good? Do you even have kneecaps?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Ehud Gera
Wildcard.
Boundary Experts
#1578 - 2014-12-22 21:36:55 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Asimov Isaaac wrote:
Dir Scan is basic game element that could be counted on to be reliable, honest and accurate. I can only think that CCP is getting desperate for game content as this gives high skill point people an unfair advantage against a lot of low skill people. People whom CCP has been trying to lure into 0.0. Give with one hand and take away with the other.

Out of curiosity, what is the exact "High SP" versus "Low SP" argument you're trying to make?


The ability to fly a well fit Recon requires a decent amount of training. Low SP pilots might begin to feel that in order for them to be competitive in this new environment they have to rush into a Recon.

I find this to be another good reason to not just "shake things up" as seems to be one of the prevalent but not reasoning arguments for the change.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1579 - 2014-12-22 22:07:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
One more thing. You can also restrict combat recons from fitting a cyno if you go with the no local route.


Yes, let's create arbitrary rules to fit your world vision before considering that there might be other players around you. Same goes for the recons not showing up in scan btw, too many special bonuses on different ships leads to a jumbled mess. CovOps cloaks I can understand as that's more than 1 type of ship benefiting from it, but it's really only an extension to normal cloaking.

(Are you finally sinking into Gevlon's level of self-entitlement we've been waiting for ages now?)

It's not arbitrary. A cyno is a powerful tool to enable force projection. Being able to sneak around that is not something that the game needs.

Your argument is simply weak that resorts to personal attacks rather than formulating a compelling argument. Too many ships with special bonuses is bad?? Are you really serious? I mean heaven forbid we have interesting choices in deciding what ship to fly right? Ugh


We could make some ships immune to webification, some immune to direct interdiction, some immune to other random ewar and one which doesn't show up with scan probes.

These are not good functions to have in the game, supers are already borderline broken because of ewar immunity.

Specialized ships with interesting and unique advantages/disadvantages are a GOOD thing.

The perceived need to have an army of alts to play (LOL), or the need / ability to have near perfect intel, are bad things.

The whole point of this thread is to find a happy medium between these points, although in my personal opinion the more powerful a ship is in core attributes (Damage and Tank) the fewer special abilities it should have.

There are many paths CCP can walk down right now, some of them still involve D-scan immunity (or perhaps even simply highly inaccurate D-scan results). Or they could walk down a similar yet different path and make them immune to being probed out.

I will say that the balancing of this ship class before an Ewar revision is done makes this whole process much more difficult to do well... and it will likely need to be addressed again afterward. Ideally Recon balancing and EW revision would be done as a unified process, but I realize this is not a perfect world.

Also, with few exceptions, any suggestion that limits the ability to do a capital ship hot drop is a good thing. The desire not to be ambushed by a group of capital ships is more detrimental to the willingness of the average player to engage in combat than lack of solid intel ever was... followed closely by Falcon of course. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#1580 - 2014-12-22 22:35:39 UTC
I strongly feel the Force Recons should go ahead as proposed with CCP explicitly stating "We are watching the D-scan immunity. If, in our opinion, it harms the game, it WILL be rolled back next release and replaced with (insert different bonus HERE)".

One of the benefits of six weekly releases is that risks can be taken, and this is a bigish risk with both a high potential to drive conflict (i.e. upside) and also a high potential to reduce conflict by making players super-skittish.

I'm just not sure which way this one will go.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com