Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 14:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've been observing the new AHAC, CS and Link changes and keeping an eye on how they affect fleets, and I'm coming away with some very serious concerns.
ATM Tier 3's dominate the 10-30 man roaming gang meta. The changes to AHACs give a solid response to this, which is good. But there's a very important part of the puzzle being missed.
With the changes to links, Recons (notably Rapier and Arazu) are now incredibly weak EHP-wise in an armour config (they were before, but now it's ludicrously low), and will almost always be a single volley wipe from a Tier 3 fleet. Couple with this the Tier 3 fleet's mobility, and the reduction on range of webs and points generally, and you're making Tier 3s from the 'massive advantage' column' to the 'I-win' column in most open space situations.
Whilst you can replace the Rapier and Arazu with Loki and Proteus respectively, the link nerf means their ranges are pitifully small even with faction mods.
So how do we fix this?
Quite simply, I'd suggest the following:
Leave Force Recon as they are (although give the Pilgrim it's Neut range bonus!)
Combat Recon's speciality is now resilience - drop 1-2 high slots and bump up low/medium slots; switch damage bonus to HP or resist bonus and/or EW range bonus. Buff web/point range so that, with links, it matches pre-nerf ranges.
Can anyone confirm what the plan is? Because at the moment, the system is very messed up as of 1.1. |
El Geo
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 17:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Personally I feel that reconassaince cruisers should be the fastest cruisers available, especially the combat recons. path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0 |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Currently, there's the paper thin recon that can fit cloaks, and the paper thin recon that can't.
I think force recon should get long range ewar, stronger sensor strength, covert ops abilities, and 'decent' amounts of ewar.
Combat recons, I think should be HAC equivalents, but instead of damage, field ewar.
So, force:
Covops features (cloak/cyno) 15-25k ehp Long range, normal strength ewar (30 percent range bonus) Light combat ability (3 no-bonus guns) Normal cruiser signature radius Stronger than usual sensor strength
Combat: No covops 35-50k ehp Stronger ewar (30 percent strength bonus) Medium combat ability (4 single-bonus guns) Smaller base signature radius (between logi and hacs)
|
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Recons are one of the few ships that genuinely interest me. Right now I feel they don't really bring enough to the table in terms of mobility. I've literally had amarr bc outrun me because they can align faster than my rook.
My proposal would be 20% flat improvement to agility and an increase to 4.25 warp speed. The only things that should be outrunning a combat recon are frigates. Anything else runs in contravention to the whole principle of a recon scout. Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
420
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think e-war including webs and points are already too strong nevermind increasing links and recon bonuses more it should be the exact opposite..
On the ships EHP well i think besides buffing HP a little the main issue is slot layout on most ships stop armour tanking to any decent degree. Shield tanking is more common and not too bad but more speed and lower sigs would help both forms of tanking a great deal. Also fitting is an issue on many of the ships and the fact that force recons get 1 less slot. and less offensive bonuses
Combat recons don't have a role bonus atm either. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Hulemand
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
I find this issue rather relevant. Boost recons for more health please. Admiral Hulemand Core Operations Overseer
|
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Some good ideas here, I'd propose from them:
A little more speed for the slower ships Addition of the 50% MWD sig role bonus same as HACs, to give synergy with that fleet (and useful all round) Alter slot layout - take away high slots and give 1 more low (2 where currently the Force Recon version has more). Drop the damage bonus; give something such as EW usage cap bonus. |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
I think its important to remember we have a combat recon as wekl as force recon. Current force recons are definitly fleet vessels whereas combat recons feel like they should be solo boats but they arent really good enougj at that to work. I have killed stuff in rooks before but its situational and the lack of cloak or decent defences would push this vessel back in to a fleet role where it competes with the falcon for utility.
Combat recons should get covops cloqks as well to make them more predatory. The lack of covert cyno capacity is enough to distinguish this ship from a falcon. If necessary give the falcon an ecm range bonus due to role and rook a resist bonus to further delineate their differences Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
Dark Drifter
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
JD No7 wrote:I've been observing the new AHAC, CS and Link changes and keeping an eye on how they affect fleets, and I'm coming away with some very serious concerns.
ATM Tier 3's dominate the 10-30 man roaming gang meta. The changes to AHACs give a solid response to this, which is good. But there's a very important part of the puzzle being missed.
With the changes to links, Recons (notably Rapier and Arazu) are now incredibly weak EHP-wise in an armour config (they were before, but now it's ludicrously low), and will almost always be a single volley wipe from a Tier 3 fleet. Couple with this the Tier 3 fleet's mobility, and the reduction on range of webs and points generally, and you're making Tier 3s from the 'massive advantage' column' to the 'I-win' column in most open space situations.
Whilst you can replace the Rapier and Arazu with Loki and Proteus respectively, the link nerf means their ranges are pitifully small even with faction mods.
So how do we fix this?
Quite simply, I'd suggest the following:
Leave Force Recon as they are (although give the Pilgrim it's Neut range bonus!)
Combat Recon's speciality is now resilience - drop 1-2 high slots and bump up low/medium slots; switch damage bonus to HP or resist bonus and/or EW range bonus. Buff web/point range so that, with links, it matches pre-nerf ranges.
Can anyone confirm what the plan is? Because at the moment, the system is very messed up as of 1.1.
stealth buff pilgrim post???
|
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
567
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
I hope Recons will get their balance pass soon. They are my favorite ships in theory, but currently so weak that they see little use. Especially Force Recons.
Their "long-range" ewar is not worth much when every second ship they likely face on the battlefield is a lot faster and more agile than they are. They can't run away, with their tiny capacitor and awful recharge they can't even run a MWD for more than a minute.
If you want to have any mobility, you need to shield-tank, and then you can fit only a single module that makes use of their supposed role bonus, i.e. webs, scrams, TD (only Falcon can shield-tank and still have 2-4 ECMs).
Damage is a joke, especially because you cannot apply whatever little damage you have. Force Recons must stay at range, but cannot do any significant damage at range. Falcon and Rapier should have launcher hardpoints and a HML bonus. (Pilgrim is quite ok in this regard.)
A lot of ships received resilience buffs, so maybe something else could be done to Recons. How about they get a lot more speed and agility, vastly improved cap recharge and a big bonus to capacitor use of repair systems? So they would remain very squishy once tackled, but could be very good at moving around and avoid getting tackled in the first place, and able to run a modest but sustained active tank to survive glancing blows and drone damage. Something like a 200-300 dps tank but little buffer. So once caught, they'd still die like flies. . |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
An active tank bonus doesn't really feel like it fits their intended role.
I'd opt for more stealth over this suggestion.
It really begs the quesiton of what role do we actually intend for the "covert ops" line of ships, by which I mean ships that can equip EWAR and cloaks. Does changing recons necessitate another black-ops battleship designed for combat? Isn't that called a marauder? Should marauders have EWAR bonuses? Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
506
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
And the endless power creep continues..... |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
I have a shield tanked Arazu with an 18 km scram, MwD, 45K tank, and DPS around 490 before O/H.
I am fairly certain that ship will get nerfed. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I have a shield tanked Arazu with an 18 km scram, MwD, 45K tank, and DPS around 490 before O/H.
I am fairly certain that ship will get nerfed.
T1 cruisers are better that that, apart from the scram range... |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
378
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Posting in a stealth "buff Falcons" post. |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I have a shield tanked Arazu with an 18 km scram, MwD, 45K tank, and DPS around 490 before O/H.
I am fairly certain that ship will get nerfed.
that's pretty good. my rook has less than 10k ehp but gets about 500 to 550 dps depending on configuration. Simple figures like that aren't the key features of the vessel though. It's too slow and doesn't have enough defence for a ship designed to be actually fighting Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
Templar Knightsbane
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Looking forward to the balancing out of Recons massively! |
El Geo
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Recons are one of the few ships that genuinely interest me. Right now I feel they don't really bring enough to the table in terms of mobility. I've literally had amarr bc outrun me because they can align faster than my rook.
My proposal would be 20% flat improvement to agility and an increase to 4.25 warp speed. The only things that should be outrunning a combat recon are frigates. Anything else runs in contravention to the whole principle of a recon scout.
Exactly, reconnaissance craft should be maneuverable and fast, giving up defensive/offensive capabilities in order to fill that role more effectively (technically, most interceptors fit this description better), unless they rename the class to Electronic Attack Cruisers and Covert Ops Cruisers then scrap the recon name. path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0 |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 13:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Posting in a stealth "buff Falcons" post.
Not at all. Force Recons are fine as they are. Combat Recons is what I'm focused on. |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
what exactly should a comba recon be able to do as a role? Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
|
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:what exactly should a comba recon be able to do as a role?
Built to represent the last word in electronic warfare, combat recon ships have onboard facilities designed to maximize the effectiveness of electronic countermeasure modules of all kinds. Filling a role next to their class counterpart, the heavy assault ship, combat recon ships are the state of the art when it comes to anti-support support. They are also devastating adversaries in smaller skirmishes, possessing strong defensive capabilities in addition to their electronic superiority.
That's from their ship entry.
They currently struggle to fulfill this role in Armor fleets due to a very weak tank caused by lack of low slots. After 1.1 changes, only the Curse will have anything like a tank worth bothering with, others will be alpha'd off the field even in small engagements (10-30).
Solution is 2 more low slots on Huginn and Lachesis, removing high slots to compensate. Make the weapon bonuses an EW cap use bonus or similar; and give the role bonus same as new HACs will have. |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Combat recons seem to imply based on their description that they are meant to be tough ewar platforms that have good dps. I can't speak for other ships but I know my rook has ample dps and good jam strength. Unfortunately it could get alpha'd by a battlecruiser. Fitting any kind of appreciable tank to it just exacerbates the flaws it has and gives then double whammy of reducing the power of my ecm.
I would fix this by giving the rook an 8th mid. In addition to pther general changes regarding base hp and speed/agility an 8th mid would be a comprehensive solution Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:11:00 -
[23] - Quote
If you ask me, they should have 2 types of recon.
Fleet Recon no cloak weak / dps strong and long e-war strong tank.
Role bonus for cyno
Recon cov ops cov ops cloak average dps Normal e-war average tank
Role bonus for cyno |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 14:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
Would like to know where the Devs plan to go with these ships before they get too far down the line please! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |