These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Varren Dar'khel
Flux Divinity
#1821 - 2014-12-24 07:17:30 UTC
Lose the D-Scan and Keep T2 resists. The fact that we have to argue this hard for a design decision that a toddler could flaws in is pathetic.

The D-Scan change fundamentally breaks the available intel tools we use in WH space.
And the resists we're the only good change you made, the ships need them. They are T2 ships give them T2 resists.

Also fix the Pilgrim and give it +1 High Slot.
Jaysen Larrisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1822 - 2014-12-24 07:22:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaysen Larrisen
Wynta wrote:


snip

.


Excellent laydown of the issues that have been nagging me about this balance pass on Recons.

I do like the proposal for the Falcon in that it's innovative and carves out a clear niche role. I'm not sure it will be much more effective than an Astero or Straitos in the role you desire but I can follow the logic. At it's core, trading tank for cloak is pretty understandable.

As for the Rook, I am pretty keen on making it a viable small gang and fleet combat ship (i.e. have some staying power in the fight) but you lost me a bit on the lock breaker bomb and EWAR bomb pieces. I actually think the original proposal that CCP Rise put out on the Rook is a solid idea and wouldn't mind starting with other than the kinetic weapon bonus constraint.

For the Rook, I think that could even consider splitting the Recon skill bonus at Jam Strength and 10% to ECM range per level. I'm ok with the missile ROF bonus as long as it includes RLMLS. Any damage bonus really shouldn't be so dependent on a single damage type like this either. Last note but the most important...it needs the buffed resists. It will never run HAC eHP because you'll need those slots to do your EWAR job in a gang or a fleet which really means the most direct way to effect survivability is a buff to the resists.

BLUF: Force Recons...the cloaky Falcon Punch and scout is legit. The Combat Recon needs to be a viable combat ship first and then we can get unique capabilities on the table.

"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1823 - 2014-12-24 07:35:37 UTC
Jaysen Larrisen wrote:
Wynta wrote:


snip

.


Excellent laydown of the issues that have been nagging me about this balance pass on Recons.

I do like the proposal for the Falcon in that it's innovative and carves out a clear niche role. I'm not sure it will be much more effective than an Astero or Straitos in the role you desire but I can follow the logic. At it's core, trading tank for cloak is pretty understandable.

As for the Rook, I am pretty keen on making it a viable small gang and fleet combat ship (i.e. have some staying power in the fight) but you lost me a bit on the lock breaker bomb and EWAR bomb pieces. I actually think the original proposal that CCP Rise put out on the Rook is a solid idea and wouldn't mind starting with other than the kinetic weapon bonus constraint.

For the Rook, I think that could even consider splitting the Recon skill bonus at Jam Strength and 10% to ECM range per level. I'm ok with the missile ROF bonus as long as it includes RLMLS. Any damage bonus really shouldn't be so dependent on a single damage type like this either. Last note but the most important...it needs the buffed resists. It will never run HAC eHP because you'll need those slots to do your EWAR job in a gang or a fleet which really means the most direct way to effect survivability is a bug to the resists.

BLUF: Force Recons...the cloaky Falcon Punch and scout is legit. The Combat Recon needs to be a viable combat ship first and then we can get unique capabilities on the table.


I agree with you I thought that the previous verison of the buff with the DScan immunity and T2 resists were somewhat powerful but not overpowered. I want the Combat Recon to be a combat vessel with EWAR that can survive fleet combat while staying, but should they not do that, just scrap it and make a complete redesign. It needs to work and be fleet viable or it needs to be remade from scratch.
Mei Khlolov
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1824 - 2014-12-24 07:44:26 UTC
Tira Janau wrote:
CCP "Mouthpiece" Rise is still here and active, good to know.

You take a perfectly reasonable change (giving combat recons t2 resists or slot changes and even maybe *gasp* the ability to do combat), and say naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

But the crappy, gimmicky and only abuse-able mechanic? Lets just keep that regardless of what the playerbase says, my god Rise. No dscan and cloaking is the cloaky recon's job, how freaking hard is that to accept? You don't need to slap a useless bow on the combat recon; you just have to make the product decent.

P.S. Love the rlml change to the rook, still peddling your crappy RLML base to the public.


A bitter response like this means he must be doing something right.
Tira Janau
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1825 - 2014-12-24 07:53:56 UTC
Mei Khlolov wrote:


A bitter response like this means he must be doing something right.


If by "right" you mean fudging up? I guess so.
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#1826 - 2014-12-24 08:04:11 UTC
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
Pinky Feldman wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
I personally think i can use the dscan immunity to get cheap gankg more often that with a cloak. Also, its not very common to arrive on a gate and the person inside not know you are there. With a hostile in system its not uncommon to spam scan.

What i am curious about, is why the change at all. There has been no clarification of its intended purpose. Please tell me its not just to keep a few staff members busy since they dont have any better changes to work towards.


Yeah though if you're paying that much attention to d-scan you'll have no problem simply warping out as they land on grid. Whenever I ran plexes, half the time I didn't even bother spamming d-scan since you generally have plenty of time to alt tab to your client and click the warp button as soon as you catch the hostile landing in your plex.

Even then, if you pre-align and activate the gate right as you hit the limit of your decloak, you can re-cloak almost immediately. If you're not dilligent enough to do this with Force Recons, then you're probably not going to be that effective setting traps with the new Combat Recons.

These have more significant implications for wormhole PVP than anything else really. Some more speed would go a long way in opening up them to useful small gang roles like they used to have before the other Cruisers got massive speed buffs.


You know u cant cloak anymore inside a plex within 30km of the beacon, secondly most people here complaining about FW space are no talking about farming, most people that farm are stab anyways we are talking about actual pvp inside plexes and outside


I do and I wasn't explicitly referring to killing farmers. Assuming the entire point of d-scan immunity is the element of suprise, it's implied that any target you would attempt to kill is going to want to run because what you're bringing can kill it with ease. My above post was responding to Crosi's claims that it's not very common to arrive on a gate and the person inside not knowing you're there with the point that anyone paying that much attention is going to be able to get away anyways.

Getting to the point of being unable to cloak within 30km of the beacon, it's actually better if you land inside the plex cloaked with a 5 second delay before you can lock compared to warping into the plex uncloaked with no lock delay. The element of suprise is much better when you appear out of nowhere on their overview compared to a moving object across their screen which they are more likely to reflexively respond to.

The moar you cry the less you pee
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#1827 - 2014-12-24 08:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Torgeir Hekard
Ganthrithor wrote:

Except the Pilgrim is in a terrible place right now. Its effectiveness has been stealth-nerfed into the ground:

Well, it wasn't so much stealth-nerfed, as it fell prey to the power creep.
The thing is, pilgrim desperately needs the neut amount bonus, because 3 (or even 2) unbonused neuts just don't cut it if you want to hunt something bigger than a cruiser.
But making it a cloaky curse is a wrong direction. It kinda strays into another ship territory, and if it will be balanced around long neuts, it's most likely going to lose it's U-Boat capabilities even more.

So I think your are right that in order to keep it's niche it needs more resilience and possibly dps.
Ganthrithor wrote:

As for the Curse, well, I can't recall the last time I saw one fielded. I'd be curious to see what its usage numbers are compared to the other recons, but I'd wager it's one of the least-flown T2 cruisers in the game. I've played with fits in EFT, but there's no way to make one useful for small gang work: they're too slow, too fat, and not tanky enough-- especially given how close they have to be to their targets.

I've seen some curses and they are pretty annoying in small roaming gangs. And the speed boost will probably help them. But i think one of the reasons they are seldom used is because they scare people away. If you bring a recon with your small gang, your potential targets start to get serious and bring their own heavy stuff. It's just the other recons have their well defined specialized niches (fleet long points and webs, GTFO button) that have no competition, while the curse is less of an EWAR platform and more of an unusual approach to HAC.

But yes, with the advent of neut geddons curse could probably use some range buff.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#1828 - 2014-12-24 08:25:28 UTC
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:
Whats up with amar ewar?
- All other races ewar effects all ships 100% of the time
- Tracking disrupt only works on guns not missiles
- Neuts only work if they are active tanked and use heavy cap modules. ( unless you can cap them out )
- Neuts also are on ships that use cap for armor repairs and lazors, the two heavy ass cap using modules,
they are also high slot modules.

Always wondered.


ecm doesn´t work 100% of times and neuts work on supers, sieged and triaged ships.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1829 - 2014-12-24 08:44:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
Squatdog wrote:
Quote:
For the love of all things holy, get rid of dscan immunity and keep the resists.


This.



Yep. D-scan is nice but resists are so much important.

I don't see how this would break a game: now u use e-war fitted t3 instead. I would like to see combat recons used as less tanky but better e-war platforms than t3. But now the tank is so low that it has no point... also you’re not going to give t3 t1 resists profile are you?

For solo work... again: cloaky T3 and stratios are already doing what you're afraid new recons would do. Sure they have e-war, but their tank and dps are rather unimpressive (essentially a solo guy can be ewared but he takes a long time to kill during which time he may stop being solo). It does not kill ishtars either...

EDIT: and, you know, in Drones Online Ewar is not that powerful asset anymore...
Alex PROTOSS
Turbo miners inc
#1830 - 2014-12-24 09:49:47 UTC
CCP Rise, maybe you will create a new module (passive in hi-slot) for combat recons that will give them immune to d-scan and reduce resists. And give them back resists profile from HAC's?
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1831 - 2014-12-24 10:00:56 UTC
Alex PROTOSS wrote:
CCP Rise, maybe you will create a new module (passive in hi-slot) for combat recons that will give them immune to d-scan and reduce resists. And give them back resists profile from HAC's?


Then it would be a cloak. The DScan immunity is best compared to a stealth bombers cloak, invisible and no targeting delay, except for when you are on grid. That is the cloak's greatest strength, not the DScan invisibility but the ongrid invisibility. If your using the Recon offensively, in that you are hunting targets, and for the sake of argument we are doing FW (since that is half of what people are worried about), then when you are in a plex you have sufficent time to warp off if you are paying attention. The problem people have with the invisibility is that they want to be aggressive and drop on someone but they want to know exactly what they are getting into. It doesn't work that way. All you have to do is assume every plex your going into is occupied, if your running with a fleet have a combat prober, fleets usually have a accel gate watcher anyway, and now the Dscan immunity is gone. It isnt like there is no counterplay, because there is plenty, people are just lazy.
Utari Onzo
Escalated.
OnlyFleets.
#1832 - 2014-12-24 10:25:50 UTC
Chiming in to say I don't mind the d-scan changes for combat recons. CCP can keep them or lsoe them, but for the love of god keep t2 resists.

"Face the enemy as a solid wall For faith is your armor And through it, the enemy will find no breach Wrap your arms around the enemy For faith is your fire And with it, burn away his evil"
Rabkillz
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1833 - 2014-12-24 10:41:55 UTC
I literally never post here, but as a long term Lach pilot (My fav ship), insta dieing to a swarm of Ishtars or Tengus was something I learnt to accept...T2 resists is something that we really really need, not dscan invisibility...I've gone from being excited about being some use in large fleet battles to extremly dissapointed.

Regardless of resist profile they will die in small gang combat if the opposing fleet does their job properly. Its being implied they wont die, what a load of rubbish, (Give me 99% resists and I'll still die constantly :p) if your annoyed that the opposing guys bought a Lach/Huggin to a small gang fight, don't play fair, kill their logi first and then the recons.
Alex PROTOSS
Turbo miners inc
#1834 - 2014-12-24 10:51:32 UTC
Wynta wrote:

Then it would be a cloak.

It's not a same, cloak give you immune to combat probes.
5pitf1re
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1835 - 2014-12-24 10:51:41 UTC
Please get rid of dscan immunity and get back the t2 resists.

Why do you have to make it more complicated than necessary? Just listen to your player base, you know the people that actually play this game and know what's going on.
Mandrozolizus Hauptutus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1836 - 2014-12-24 11:18:50 UTC
I LOVE this tactics of CCP to leave nobody happy: neither those who love T2 resists, nor those who hate dscan immunity. In this scenario everybody is dissatisfied. And this is the way the sales/marketing manager should perform!
Andros Omega
PANTH-EON
#1837 - 2014-12-24 11:22:47 UTC
Count my vote for no D-Scan immunity, thats what a cloak is for, and allow T2 resists.

I love roaming in a Pilgrim, and I love WH space, but even I don't like the idea of D-scan immunity in W-Space.
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#1838 - 2014-12-24 11:24:09 UTC
Would it be possible to give the Pilgrim a range bonus and an amount bonus BUT the amount bonus only reaches 12km then out beyond that it neuts the normal amount but has the range bonus. Perhaps full curse bonuses might seem too powerful but removing its amount bonus makes it kind of crappy against a lot of targets.

That said I'm not sure why curse bonus on pilgrim is OP yet an Arazu that can scram and damp any ship to under its scram range isnt.....
Generaloberst Kluntz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1839 - 2014-12-24 11:31:57 UTC
RISE
Keep up the nice work
The trail of tears shows you're in the right direction.
Maybe T2 resists? But I don't think it's really that important, I still see lots of Huginn kills in fleets nowadays, meaning that people actually use them a lot.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#1840 - 2014-12-24 11:42:30 UTC
The Renner wrote:
So the one change recons really needed (increased ehp) gets dropped in favor of some gimmick change, meh.


Better than that it gets dropped because in combination with the stupid gimmick it becomes too powerful in small scale pvp.

Its only a catch 22 because rise already put his foot down on dscan immunity dooming this balance pass on recons to be a complete failure.

TBH, recons with t2 resists wouldve been quite a headache even if you could see them coming, so in a way i do agree with rise on that.

i just dont get the dscan change specially since its probably one of the major factors making a proper buff to recon tanks undesirable.