Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 80 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
474
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:40:48 -
[1741] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
Are the design team actually going to roll this out on SiSi first before release, get the test results so you can actually see how broken it is before you release it to TQ? or are you just going to take a blind leap of faith and then shrug when everything goes wrong?
I hope to heavens that you choose the better option.
Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1178
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:42:20 -
[1742] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:black ops rebalance
Fix_the_widow.jpg
Second_line_of_blops.jpg
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
242
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:48:56 -
[1743] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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. Are the design team actually going to roll this out on SiSi first before release, get the test results so you can actually see how broken it is before you release it to TQ? or are you just going to take a blind leap of faith and then shrug when everything goes wrong? I hope to heavens that you choose the better option.
Broken? Hasn't even released on SiSi yet. Broken means it doesnt work. Are you saying that CCP will not be able to make Combat Recons immune to dscan? |
Otto Kring
Imperial Guardians Skeleton Crew.
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:51:36 -
[1744] - Quote
Now I want to fly these |
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
42
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:52:43 -
[1745] - Quote
Equto wrote:Ehud Gera wrote:Equto wrote:Ehud Gera wrote:Consider this bonus:
Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.
What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.
It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.
But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.
Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.
Thoughts? Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it. Excuse me for having an opinion that i reasoned out on the forum. "that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken." Like Dscan reliably picking up uncloaked ships lol? Please if you're gonna enter the argument don't tell me not to have an opinion, tell me why yours is more sound. Because in almost any rebalance thread all I ******* see is people saying remove it from local, remove local, you know it wouldn't be a problem if you removed local. NONE of that is helpful. Its not a viable rebalance, its not productive, and as you said unlike the d-scan immunity only TRUELY affects nullsec, in lowsec there is normally one to two people in systems you want anyways and in highsec there is too many to be useful. Wormhole already has no local but it also has no static gates. Removing local is not happening and likely never will happen because its not helpful to anyone and doesn't fix anything.
Removing local is the cure for nullsec, bear. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
733
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:58:53 -
[1746] - Quote
Thank you for the update, Rise. Glad to see that you have listened to both sides in this contentious debate. I'm looking forward to the wrinkle presented by giving d-scan immunity to the combat recon ships. I understand the difficulties of giving recons the full T2 resistance profile. While it would have been great for fleets, it would have been tough for small gang.
Merry Christmas and may the New Year bring us all great content, fresh energy from CCP, and hopefully an adjustment to the Ishtar.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Equto
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:00:08 -
[1747] - Quote
Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:Equto wrote:Ehud Gera wrote:Equto wrote:Ehud Gera wrote:Consider this bonus:
Recons: Invisible to local chat. Cannot fit Regular Cynos.
What does this do? Allows the Recon to do well, "recon". It's hidden in some ways, it gives incentive to the pilot to actually do recon instead of making it a gank mobile, while still upping the "Gank factor" for the unwary.
It makes afk farmers and lazy carebears work a bit harder cause now they actually have to watch dscan and gather intel from scouts etc.
But it makes it counterable, and interesting (especially in Null).Low sec dwellers are usually a bit more paranoid so they will be a little less affected but not a lot, and WH's, well in WH's everyone is incognito anyway, whether in a Recon or not you have to do "recon" because there are no gates, no local, etc.
Making them not appear on local will truly make Recons unique. To balance it you allow them to only use Covert cynos. Or maybe you want them to be able to Cyno regularly, I just think it would be cool to see more blops being used by allowing the Recon to have that niche role.
Thoughts? Removing from local is not likely to happen, I don't know if its ever going to happen but thats a MAJOR change that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken. Stop suggesting it. Excuse me for having an opinion that i reasoned out on the forum. "that likely breaks a few things that probably shouldn't ever be broken." Like Dscan reliably picking up uncloaked ships lol? Please if you're gonna enter the argument don't tell me not to have an opinion, tell me why yours is more sound. Because in almost any rebalance thread all I ******* see is people saying remove it from local, remove local, you know it wouldn't be a problem if you removed local. NONE of that is helpful. Its not a viable rebalance, its not productive, and as you said unlike the d-scan immunity only TRUELY affects nullsec, in lowsec there is normally one to two people in systems you want anyways and in highsec there is too many to be useful. Wormhole already has no local but it also has no static gates. Removing local is not happening and likely never will happen because its not helpful to anyone and doesn't fix anything. Removing local is the cure for nullsec, bear.
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
|
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
475
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:00:35 -
[1748] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Broken? Hasn't even released on SiSi yet. Broken means it doesnt work. Are you saying that CCP will not be able to make Combat Recons immune to dscan? Broken meaning unbalanced in relation to the rest of gameplay. I have full confidence that CCP can code them in. But it's balancing it against the rest of the game - that's the real rub.
Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows
|
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:05:23 -
[1749] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Broken? Hasn't even released on SiSi yet. Broken means it doesnt work. Are you saying that CCP will not be able to make Combat Recons immune to dscan? Broken meaning unbalanced in relation to the rest of gameplay. I have full confidence that CCP can code them in. But it's balancing it against the rest of the game - that's the real rub.
Even if it goes on Sisi It would not reflect real abuse and interactions |
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
42
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:08:57 -
[1750] - Quote
From what i see, EvE playerbase (including myself) can be a big disappointment to the devs sometimes. I mean, what are recons supposed to be? Subspecialty ships, highly specific ewar. They are supposed to be flown and warped APART from main fleets, they aren't supposed to take primary dps, therefore they aren't expected to be tanky or dps ships. Nevertheless the average EvE (me too) player wants t2 resists and broad damage type in ze missiles. Dudes they're not supposed to be fleet warped with main dps. They should land at range. Or, they should immediately try to pull range. Rise I'm sorry for my incompetence. |
|
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:11:53 -
[1751] - Quote
Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:From what i see, EvE playerbase (including myself) can be a big disappointment to the devs sometimes. I mean, what are recons supposed to be? Subspecialty ships, highly specific ewar. They are supposed to be flown and warped APART from main fleets, they aren't supposed to take primary dps, therefore they aren't expected to be tanky or dps ships. Nevertheless the average EvE (me too) player wants t2 resists and broad damage type in ze missiles. Dudes they're not supposed to be fleet warped with main dps. They should land at range. Or, they should immediately try to pull range. Rise I'm sorry for my incompetence.
buttlicking level 5
|
Equto
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:12:04 -
[1752] - Quote
Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:From what i see, EvE playerbase (including myself) can be a big disappointment to the devs sometimes. I mean, what are recons supposed to be? Subspecialty ships, highly specific ewar. They are supposed to be flown and warped APART from main fleets, they aren't supposed to take primary dps, therefore they aren't expected to be tanky or dps ships. Nevertheless the average EvE (me too) player wants t2 resists and broad damage type in ze missiles. Dudes they're not supposed to be fleet warped with main dps. They should land at range. Or, they should immediately try to pull range. Rise I'm sorry for my incompetence. I don't want t2 resist as I think thats probably too much, however currently they are paper thin if you fit them for their ewar purpose or near useless for their ewar purpose if you fit them for tank. I believe that I shouldn't be afraid of other cruisers as a combat recon on a 1v1 because I have a 1/3 the health and 1/3 the dps they have. |
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
42
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:14:16 -
[1753] - Quote
Equto wrote:
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
A PVPer fearing local chat removal.
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
242
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:15:09 -
[1754] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Broken? Hasn't even released on SiSi yet. Broken means it doesnt work. Are you saying that CCP will not be able to make Combat Recons immune to dscan? Broken meaning unbalanced in relation to the rest of gameplay. I have full confidence that CCP can code them in. But it's balancing it against the rest of the game - that's the real rub.
Then saying "broken" is using the wrong word.
Unbalanced is the better word to use. Although that is still opinionated. The balance is combat probes, scouts and intelligence. There are counters to it already in game. Players are just too lazy to want to use them. |
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:17:43 -
[1755] - Quote
Yeah put those damps, jams, webs, neuts to good use. Also I have no problem with buttlicking don't be racist. |
Equto
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:19:44 -
[1756] - Quote
Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:Equto wrote:
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
A PVPer fearing local chat removal. Where have I said I fear it? Maybe you can point me to that comment. I said it solves nothing and does nothing but allow you to get cheap ganks on bears. I would rather have meaningful small gang combat than managing to get a drop on a 30 day old character because he has no idea what local is. D-Scan removal allows me to strategically make perches and engage fights that I have a rough idea at winning rather than no local which would require 99% of eve both for wars, lowsec, and nullsec to get more alts in cloakies to sit on gates.
EDIT:
Not to mention me spending extra time in each system to determine if anyone is there when looking for kills in an area of space with only a few major hotspots every 10 jumps or so. I would rather jump in and know, hey there isn't anyone here, lets not launch probes. |
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:26:09 -
[1757] - Quote
Equto wrote:Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:Equto wrote:
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
A PVPer fearing local chat removal. Where have I said I fear it? Maybe you can point me to that comment. I said it solves nothing and does nothing but allow you to get cheap ganks on bears. I would rather have meaningful small gang combat than managing to get a drop on a 30 day old character because he has no idea what local is. D-Scan removal allows me to strategically make perches and engage fights that I have a rough idea at winning rather than no local which would require 99% of eve both for wars, lowsec, and nullsec to get more alts in cloakies to sit on gates. 1. If you're 30 days into this game and still don't know what local is, WoW is that way-------> 2. Pls don't come to wspace you'll put shame on yourself and your bros because you depend on local to breathe. 3. Balls come back pls I miss you. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1295
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:27:38 -
[1758] - Quote
So you are keeping the d-scan immunity whos use is hard to imagine outside of easy ganks on the smaller scale of things.
And basically keeping the tanks as they are which is the only reason no one uses them.
Well, i can see what they pay you guys for. |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:33:26 -
[1759] - Quote
Equto wrote:Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:From what i see, EvE playerbase (including myself) can be a big disappointment to the devs sometimes. I mean, what are recons supposed to be? Subspecialty ships, highly specific ewar. They are supposed to be flown and warped APART from main fleets, they aren't supposed to take primary dps, therefore they aren't expected to be tanky or dps ships. Nevertheless the average EvE (me too) player wants t2 resists and broad damage type in ze missiles. Dudes they're not supposed to be fleet warped with main dps. They should land at range. Or, they should immediately try to pull range. Rise I'm sorry for my incompetence. I don't want t2 resist as I think thats probably too much, however currently they are paper thin if you fit them for their ewar purpose or near useless for their ewar purpose if you fit them for tank. I believe that I shouldn't be afraid of other cruisers as a combat recon on a 1v1 because I have a 1/3 the health and 1/3 the dps they have.
I think they are ok as they only way to deal with current Recons specially the falcon is try to get your drones on the Falcon before it jams you out, because if you dont blap them right away they have the potential to disable multiple ships at once.
So being paper thin is good trade off for being D-scan immune and Ewar ships |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1295
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:36:55 -
[1760] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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. Are the design team actually going to roll this out on SiSi first before release, get the test results so you can actually see how broken it is before you release it to TQ? or are you just going to take a blind leap of faith and then shrug when everything goes wrong? I hope to heavens that you choose the better option.
You can test it works on SISI but you cant prove how dumb dscan immunity is since everyone is in just one nullsec system.
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Good update, except for the kinetic damage bonus.
The way to deal with the FW issue is just simply not allow recons into sites.
I am happy you're standing your ground though and not giving in to FW complaints.
Funny thing is that outside of FW sites, theye going to be pretty much as useless as they are now. Losing the tank means they probably wont be viable for pve as people were hoping, not useful for fleets. Still handy for warping into plexes and dropping 90km webs and points on whoevers in there though. |
|
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:45:35 -
[1761] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Arline Kley wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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. Are the design team actually going to roll this out on SiSi first before release, get the test results so you can actually see how broken it is before you release it to TQ? or are you just going to take a blind leap of faith and then shrug when everything goes wrong? I hope to heavens that you choose the better option. You can test it works on SISI but you cant prove how dumb dscan immunity is since everyone is in just one nullsec system. Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Good update, except for the kinetic damage bonus.
The way to deal with the FW issue is just simply not allow recons into sites.
I am happy you're standing your ground though and not giving in to FW complaints. Funny thing is that outside of FW sites, theye going to be pretty much as useless as they are now. Losing the tank means they probably wont be viable for pve as people were hoping, not useful for fleets. Still handy for warping into plexes and dropping 90km webs and points on whoevers in there though.
At the end they will end up as Troll ships use to pull out those cheesy kills because not still have not found a viable role for them. I would much rather see them having an exteded D-Scan range and some decent tank and actual act like REAL Recon ships
|
Roel Yento
Death Row inc
41
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:49:16 -
[1762] - Quote
Equto wrote:Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:Equto wrote:
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
A PVPer fearing local chat removal. Where have I said I fear it? Maybe you can point me to that comment. I said it solves nothing and does nothing but allow you to get cheap ganks on bears. I would rather have meaningful small gang combat than managing to get a drop on a 30 day old character because he has no idea what local is. D-Scan removal allows me to strategically make perches and engage fights that I have a rough idea at winning rather than no local which would require 99% of eve both for wars, lowsec, and nullsec to get more alts in cloakies to sit on gates. EDIT: Not to mention me spending extra time in each system to determine if anyone is there when looking for kills in an area of space with only a few major hotspots every 10 jumps or so. I would rather jump in and know, hey there isn't anyone here, lets not launch probes.
Removing local adds the necessity of having scouts in your fleets that know how to actually scout. It also makes having a combat prober in your fleet that knows how how to do so important. It also means you need to pay attention to details and people that actively scout help keep your pve efforts safer as opposed to relying on local chat to know if you are safe or not. It makes eve harder having no local but it also increases the chances of fights happening lopsided or equal.
What is wrong with spending time hunting for people? Right now you jump into system and know your risk level. No local, the side with better intel and planning has upper hand. Also, you don't need alts on all gates, it's okay to take the chance that no one swings by or pay a new player in corp or alliance to watch gates while you make money. Could even ask someone ship spinning to listen for sound. Not wanting to take risks or share profits is because of greed, not because of needing alts to scout. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Animadversion Tactical Operations Index Legion of Immortal Corporations
39
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:49:54 -
[1763] - Quote
I think that the combat recons should at least have a significantly reduced sensor strength to compensate for this. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2632
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:50:23 -
[1764] - Quote
Losing the resists is disappointing, keeping the d-scan immunity gimmic seems questionable considering the amount to negative feedback it has received.
Careful with this change it seems to be treading the same water as loot spew, and we all know how that turned out. |
Equto
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
37
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:01:52 -
[1765] - Quote
Roel Yento wrote:Equto wrote:Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:Equto wrote:
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
A PVPer fearing local chat removal. Where have I said I fear it? Maybe you can point me to that comment. I said it solves nothing and does nothing but allow you to get cheap ganks on bears. I would rather have meaningful small gang combat than managing to get a drop on a 30 day old character because he has no idea what local is. D-Scan removal allows me to strategically make perches and engage fights that I have a rough idea at winning rather than no local which would require 99% of eve both for wars, lowsec, and nullsec to get more alts in cloakies to sit on gates. EDIT: Not to mention me spending extra time in each system to determine if anyone is there when looking for kills in an area of space with only a few major hotspots every 10 jumps or so. I would rather jump in and know, hey there isn't anyone here, lets not launch probes. Removing local adds the necessity of having scouts in your fleets that know how to actually scout. It also makes having a combat prober in your fleet that knows how how to do so important. It also means you need to pay attention to details and people that actively scout help keep your pve efforts safer as opposed to relying on local chat to know if you are safe or not. It makes eve harder having no local but it also increases the chances of fights happening lopsided or equal. What is wrong with spending time hunting for people? Right now you jump into system and know your risk level. No local, the side with better intel and planning has upper hand. Also, you don't need alts on all gates, it's okay to take the chance that no one swings by or pay a new player in corp or alliance to watch gates while you make money. Could even ask someone ship spinning to listen for sound. Not wanting to take risks or share profits is because of greed, not because of needing alts to scout.
Because if I go roaming alone, hey some people do that, then I don't have room for a combat prober and a scout and a whole host of other fleet positions. Nor do I have the free time to spend 6 hours going through 6-7 systems just to find **** all. Also local does not tell you risk level, it gives you a number of people. That number alone doesn't tell you the fleet composition, if they are in a fleet, if they are communicating, or if they even ready to attack you. In the fleets I have been in the FC will ask for numbers and then what are they. A fleet of 30.... alright what are they, all hulks. 30 for a fleet of 5 would seems like death, local did not tell me they are hulks that why you get intel.
I wish people would stop saying its the perfect intel tool, its not. It tells you 2 things 1. they are in system and 2. who they are. Using those two things you often can't determine anything unless your a miner/ratter in which case you leave anyways or you already have intel on them. Without local the solo and small gang pvp dies, its going to be long, boring, and often without kills. Fleets won't care, if you have 300 dudes sure stick some out with some probes and see whats around.
|
Frothgar
Rolled Out Black Legion.
104
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:03:10 -
[1766] - Quote
Could you update the OP with the new resist profile?
I'm a bit disappointed with recons still being a total non-factor for fleet fights, perhaps a solution would be a touch more less sig and we could look at the total overall resists are.
I think somewhere there is a good balance of sig/resists or even range that will make them viable for some degree of fleet fights.
I'm thinking some way to increase optimal for TDs/Damps/Painters through the use of distortion amps like ECM uses?
Granted I'm some sort of masochist who wants to see sniper BS return ;) |
Generaloberst Kluntz
Isogen 5
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:04:24 -
[1767] - Quote
FYI there are plenty of tools for that, like Pirate's Little Helper, evewho etc. |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:05:45 -
[1768] - Quote
Roel Yento wrote:Equto wrote:Generaloberst Kluntz wrote:Equto wrote:
That would be applicable if I was a bear but im not, sorry to ruin your name calling. Removing local is not a cure for anything
A PVPer fearing local chat removal. Where have I said I fear it? Maybe you can point me to that comment. I said it solves nothing and does nothing but allow you to get cheap ganks on bears. I would rather have meaningful small gang combat than managing to get a drop on a 30 day old character because he has no idea what local is. D-Scan removal allows me to strategically make perches and engage fights that I have a rough idea at winning rather than no local which would require 99% of eve both for wars, lowsec, and nullsec to get more alts in cloakies to sit on gates. EDIT: Not to mention me spending extra time in each system to determine if anyone is there when looking for kills in an area of space with only a few major hotspots every 10 jumps or so. I would rather jump in and know, hey there isn't anyone here, lets not launch probes. Removing local adds the necessity of having scouts in your fleets that know how to actually scout. It also makes having a combat prober in your fleet that knows how how to do so important. It also means you need to pay attention to details and people that actively scout help keep your pve efforts safer as opposed to relying on local chat to know if you are safe or not. It makes eve harder having no local but it also increases the chances of fights happening lopsided or equal. What is wrong with spending time hunting for people? Right now you jump into system and know your risk level. No local, the side with better intel and planning has upper hand. Also, you don't need alts on all gates, it's okay to take the chance that no one swings by or pay a new player in corp or alliance to watch gates while you make money. Could even ask someone ship spinning to listen for sound. Not wanting to take risks or share profits is because of greed, not because of needing alts to scout.
I kind of agree but the reason why I dont see this viable is because you are asking someone to get on a Prober (if you want to do it fast) and that leaves this person out of the fight.
No one want to scout their ass off and not get into the fight and this comes from a person who prefer role in a fleet is scouting, so people will end up just having an alt doing it and if this change forces you to have a second account active I dont think is a great idea |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
881
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:10:39 -
[1769] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
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/
Honestly what is wrong with you?
You take the perfectly reasonable changes (things like resist profiles) and nerf them back to where they started, but you keep the dumbest goddamn overpowered gimmick attribute since interdiction nullification because why not right? Literally "IM CCP RISE AND IM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING OK!"
I hope the yule lads steal your sausages. |
Infrequent
Vanilla.
68
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:11:04 -
[1770] - Quote
I retract my previous applause of these changes, some of them are great still yes, but the T2 resist profile was needed to make recons actually viable in a fleet or in most situations infact. Yes you can still trick a fleet into thinking there is no recon on field (If they're dumb enough not to put eyes on you) but they will still die as soon as they see you on field and they will still die solo to that ratter they were trying to catch for their friends to gank. So we will still see swarms of EWAR T3s and nothing will change (Yes yes they're going to rebalance T3s but not to the point where you would pick T1 tank over actual tank).
Honestly if you want a combat recon to be any form of combat ship, give it the resists, if you want to give a stealth gimmick, give it to the force recon. Don't screw over both.
-1 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 80 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |