These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1661 - 2014-12-23 16:14:19 UTC
mulgrew Zero wrote:
can i just ask for a role bonus on the astero so it can fit an expanded probe launcher seems as well have tobe doing combat scanning to find some ships ?


Astero can fit an expanded probe launcher you just have to make decisions and use some faction mods Pirate

EDIT: i'm dumb, that is Stratios but i'll give osmium a try :)
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1662 - 2014-12-23 16:17:36 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
Please Turn wrote:

...
Anyway, Eve is not dying and all that. However, these changes don't provide any new meaningful game-play(they just buff the gank-bears), they promote (once again) the use of alts and send a message that is opposite with the recent CCP's claims(we would like more people in space doing things together).
...



You know, having somebody in your fleet with combat probes doesn't mean it needs to be an alt.
Right?


I'm still trying to make this combat probing thorax, it's difficult.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1663 - 2014-12-23 16:21:28 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
afkalt wrote:
You don't /need/ two accounts, you just need to accept that sometimes **** happens and you're going to die. Like jumping into an unscouted gate camp, death is just as assured.

If i lost ship to unscanned gate camp it will be my fault.


How exactly are you scanning a gate camp BEFORE jumping in?


With a <2s align inty :)
rhiload Feron-drake
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#1664 - 2014-12-23 16:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: rhiload Feron-drake
why are you so persistent with the perma invisible d-scan, there is no reason to use them over force recons anymore, and medium plexes will absolute death traps now, you know this right? then why are you going through with it?
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1665 - 2014-12-23 16:26:01 UTC
StuRyan wrote:
Love it, what would round this off is if you make recon pilots invisible in local too..... delicious tears.


I would also give them nullified drives :)
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1666 - 2014-12-23 16:28:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 i suppose huginn PG isnt going to be touched? Looks like its 650s or nothing. Now with non hac level resists, it has no chance of being in close enough to apply dps with acs. Not much of a combat recon.
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #1667 - 2014-12-23 16:28:44 UTC
    Removing T2 resists : Not cool.

    This is mandatory for large fleet fights. And in small fights, given the skills requirements and the pricetags of these ships, this is far from OP.

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

    Speedkermit Damo
    Pandemic Horde Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #1668 - 2014-12-23 16:29:21 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    We are disappointed too with having to pull back the resists for fleets. These ships just need that drawback to balance them at smaller scales where they are more likely to get used anyway.

    We have T3 rebalance, black ops rebalance, and potential ewar module changes on the horizon to help address this as well.


    Hey you!

    Nerf Logi!!!!

    Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

    Shaleb Heworo
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1669 - 2014-12-23 16:30:22 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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/



    This pilgrim change mans that it will be the only force recon without a meaningful defense against 30km + pointing inties. and these things are everywhere! It will also lose a lot of control against several targets on the field effectivly making it a bad solo boat again. Also: What about cargo holds? Recons should have big cargo holds to operate behind enemy lines and it also would make them more viable for solo. So I guess they get extra small cargo holds then?
    Alundil
    Rolled Out
    #1670 - 2014-12-23 16:30:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
    CCP Rise wrote:
    We are disappointed too with having to pull back the resists for fleets. These ships just need that drawback to balance them at smaller scales where they are more likely to get used anyway.

    We have T3 rebalance, black ops rebalance, and potential ewar module changes on the horizon to help address this as well.

    You walked back on the ONE thing that would most likely have made them viable in a fleet scenario though. wut? Lach with a 4 lowslot tank and the same resist profile? lolnope.jpg

    You've added a novel mechanic (d-scan immunity) that I think will shake things up. In a cool and new way.
    GJ.

    However you've sacrificed the viability of the hull in various settings because of its possible use/abuse in one setting. Instead of "waiting to see how it's actually" used and what people come up with as a counter mechanic.
    Not GJ.

    If you feel that the D-scan immunity is going to cause problems in small scale (and let's be perfectly honest - only in FW scenarios) there are other options that could have been on the table. From altering restricted ship classes on the only Plex size (cruiser/medium iirc) that this might be an issue to taking the d-scan change in another way altogether and flipping it in such a way that combat recon pilots aren't in local but the hull shows up on d-scan instead. Or, as your initial statement implied, not cave and watch and see. Tweak later if necessary. The 6-week dev cycle is purpose-made for this type of rapid iteration.

    I'm right behind you

    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #1671 - 2014-12-23 16:31:49 UTC
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    We are disappointed too with having to pull back the resists for fleets. These ships just need that drawback to balance them at smaller scales where they are more likely to get used anyway.

    We have T3 rebalance, black ops rebalance, and potential ewar module changes on the horizon to help address this as well.


    when is the logi rebalance (nerf)?


    fingers crossed for stacking penilties

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    Evictus.
    #1672 - 2014-12-23 16:32:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Equto
    CCp rise might want to recheck your numbers still, that's not a decrease of 187 for the shields and the armor value currently isn't 1650 its 1463 so either thats wrong or there was a change as well. Havn't looked at the other numbers yet
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #1673 - 2014-12-23 16:38:53 UTC
    Altrue wrote:
    Removing T2 resists : Not cool.

    This is mandatory for large fleet fights. And in small fights, given the skills requirements and the pricetags of these ships, this is far from OP.


    yeah not too sure why removal of the resist the one thing that make the ships good was removed.

    Kinda Lame if you ask me.

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1674 - 2014-12-23 16:39:51 UTC
    Squatdog wrote:
    Quote:
    At least you CAN detect them, which is more than can be said for covops cloaked ships. If anything is absurdly broken it is that. D-scan immunity which can at least be defeated by actively looking for it seems fine in comparison.


    Oh boy...

    In order to fit a cov-ops cloak, Force Recons sacrifice a lot of combat utility compared to their Combat Recon counterparts. Likewise, covops T3s are restricted to a crappy subsystem in place of something actually useful.

    Then there's the matter of getting decloaked on gates (and by anything within 2000m) on top of the targeting delay penalty. Something the new Jesus Recons won't have to deal with.

    That's how it's balanced.


    Most of the time the force recon using combat probes (expanded launcher) it's the Arazu hunter.
    It has enough slots to fit multiple points and damps to keep even stabbed ships on grid.

    There is no need to use combat probes on a Falcon which sits at 80k from the fight and it's using a full rack of jammers for example :)
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #1675 - 2014-12-23 16:46:06 UTC
    cant see why without tech II resist i would use a lach over a celestis for a fleet fight.

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    S'No Flake
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #1676 - 2014-12-23 16:48:26 UTC
    Belinda HwaFang wrote:
    Let me clear up a few things for those people in this thread who clearly don't know too much about cloaky ships in EVE and their uses.

    Stealth Bombers (and technically Black Ops which aren't cloaky-warpy) are the only ships to not have a targeting delay when you decloak to point someone.

    That means all T3 cruisers and Force Recons (and Cov Ops) have at best a 5 second (with T2 Cov Ops Cloak) targetting delay after decloaking, meaning that agile and awake targets usually get away from them. Hence people using Stealth Bombers with Rockets or Small Turrets to gank exploration frigates.

    However, since Combat Recons don't need a cloak to hide from DSCAN they can appear on grid from out of nowhere and point the target without worry of any targeting delay because they were never cloaked in the first place, and since they aren't a cloaky ship, they are a full combat strength ship, not a nerfed down combat ship to allow for the cloak.

    I'm posting this mainly for informational purposes, because it's clear from reading a few posts in this thread that some people don't actually understand these details, and why a combat recon that is immune to DSCAN becomes a lot more powerful than its cloaky counterpart.
    --
    Fang Pirate


    You should also know that the lock delay means almost nothing if you bump your target out of alignment when you decloak.
    Or you know, uncloak when the target it's in warp to the sweet relic side you are cloaky camping it.
    Niart Gunn
    Goryn Clade
    #1677 - 2014-12-23 16:53:14 UTC
    I like the changes to the Rook and the Lach, as well as the toned down resists, I'm still kinda doubting the Pilgrim's usefulness after this though.
    I also still have some issues with the fact that Covert Recons are basically paying with 2 slots (one less than Combat Recons as well as 1 high that they have to fit the cloak in) as well as one of their bonuses (cloak cpu) for their defining advantage, while the Combat Recons are getting half a Covert Ops cloak in form of the dscan immunity role bonus for no cost whatsoever. I just don't see how that can be considered balanced.

    PS: CCPls don't forget to up the resists of the Chameleon and the Moracha to Combat Recon level, they're Covert Recons too. Tyvm.
    Alundil
    Rolled Out
    #1678 - 2014-12-23 16:53:29 UTC
    MeBiatch wrote:
    cant see why without tech II resist i would use a lach over a celestis for a fleet fight.

    Celestis with better ewar range, lower SP reqs and far more affordable. Seems like a no brainer.

    I'm right behind you

    Equto
    Imperium Technologies
    Evictus.
    #1679 - 2014-12-23 16:56:43 UTC
    They fill different roles due to the disruptor range, but why not just use an arazu that can cloak ?
    Longdrinks
    Zero Fun Allowed
    #1680 - 2014-12-23 17:03:49 UTC
    liking the tank updates and looking forward to how this plays out on TQ Bear