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) |

Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
438
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:04:29 -
[871] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Dscan immunity is staying.
Seems a tad over powered considering certain environments where there is currently no other viable situation intel tool. How about giving said combat recons an ability (small chance) of uncloaking a cloaked ship?
I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
|

Xsaggie
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:07:15 -
[872] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Xsaggie wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Xsaggie wrote:Changes look good, of course the rook and falcon are completely useless as ECM is still very broken. Plus why not give the falcon launchers, the dps out of that thing is totally pointless with Hybrids, plus it needs the cap for its useless ecm mods.  the guns are there just to ***** on KM. And the falcon is not useless at all. On small scale warfare is one of the most annoying ships a small gang can bring. It just does nto scale well in larger fights. I know what your saying, but every other force recon can put out at least some dps, the rapier for example can get around 300 ish, which is pretty much what you want for its role as anti frig, the falcon at a push might get to 150? Doesnt seem balanced at all to me, though with the changes to missiles for the rapier, maybe that is going to be impossible to reach now too. ECM is VERY ineffective compared to other recon modules, neuts - very effective / webs - very effective, ecm with great skills and modules still only hover around 30-40% effective, and that is with racials, multispecs those numbers drop by almost The fit i made for the rapier should be right at 300dps using RLML. Close to what belli does. So rapier should still be ok. RLML falcon would make sense, then again, idk if we need something that can permajam and nuke frigs.
Im not saying do a 180 on ecm, im just saying make them more effective than they are currently, because at the moment they are pretty pointless, may as well just load up the rook with a full midslot tank instead haha Missiles would make more sense on the falcon too agreed. |

egham
Entity. The Camel Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:16:42 -
[873] - Quote
Not a good change. |

DFA200
Hard vs Soft
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:18:49 -
[874] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Dscan immunity is staying. We understand a lot of the concerns raised, but for most of them you guys are doing a great job making strong counter-arguments and I think it will be very interesting to see how this mechanic plays out on TQ. I want to put together a lengthier post soon with more explanation for this mechanic and why we feel comfortable with it, but you will have to wait a bit longer for that.
Seems reasonable to make the arguments for something available before you decide on it, if there is actually a discussion at all.
I dont see how this will not destroy FW and probably a lot of other things. The main question is how much people will abuse it.
|

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
719
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:21:20 -
[875] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote: I can tell you what will happen most likely: - Less fights because people are risk averse - A 2nd account with a Prober at all times will be must, not an option.
I think this is a complex debate and I'm sure that none of us understand player behavior completely, but my experience is actually the opposite of what you're saying. Yes, people are risk averse, they want to make good decisions when they're taking risks and that often leads being conservative. That's exactly why I like this kind of mechanic. People want to do the fun thing and take more engagements, but when they have enough information to know that they aren't the favorite they shy away from fighting. However, when some information is obscured they become optimistic and take more risks. I've seen players so willing to make decisions that are likely too risky simply because they lack perfect information. Jumping into gate camps where positional information isn't guaranteed, engaging on stations with people docked, fighting in systems with more in local than can be accounted for, etc. These mechanics that obscure information give people the excuses needed to take risks. Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse. The negative side for me is your other bullet point. Because people don't want to take unnecessary risk they will work very hard, sometimes doing something very boring or difficult, just to get at those last pieces of information. And they should. But we would want to avoid mechanics that obligate people to this kind of behavior too heavily without enough positive side to make the mechanic worthwhile. I would be more worried with this mechanic that people have to spend a lot of time running probe scans when they really don't want to be than that they are avoiding engagements because of the possibility of Recons. I don't think this will be a problem but we'll have to wait and see.
Eve already gives you so much information that this is not an issue in K-space. If I see a dashboard scan currently and notice ten hostiles in local and only nine accounted for, I assume the tenth is a Falcon. Now it could be a Rook instead. Whoop-dee-doo... Still a priority to kill or drive off early in the fight. Or I look up the hostile pilots' killboard, which tells me they always roll with Falcons or Rooks.
The variable comes in inside of W-space, where this will be another uncertainty in an uncertain environment.
The concern I have is in small scale fights where ECM is disproportionately powerful. It is now much harder to drive away that Falcon or Rook game changer.
All in all, very glad I have Recon V on all my older characters.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|

Nyjil Lizaru
Aideron Robotics
34
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:22:14 -
[876] - Quote
The D-scan immunity sounds interesting, and the debate is educational. But I do not like my in-game tools lying to me.
Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law: -á "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."
|

rsantos
TEC-NOLOGY Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:25:34 -
[877] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Varrakk wrote:Pilgrim:
Range and Strength will be too powerful. Would take away what is unique with the Curse. +1 Mid or Low slot, and the CPU(PG) to make use of it would be a sufficient boost to the Pilgrim.
DScan immunity for Combat Recons, very cool approach! +1 I've always said that Combat Recons need some kind of special ability. D-scan immunity is many times less powerful than being able to warp cloaked while giving Combat Recons something special Well done CCP. Side note, ima find a way to rat in null sec with Curses and Rooks now.
The wrecks you produce still appear on d-scan! |

Daneel Trevize
Faster Path Than of Light Exiles
531
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:29:19 -
[878] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Eve already gives you so much information that this is not an issue in K-space. If I see a dashboard scan currently and notice ten hostiles in local and only nine accounted for, I assume the tenth is a Falcon. Now it could be a Rook instead. Whoop-dee-doo... Still a priority to kill or drive off early in the fight. Or I look up the hostile pilots' killboard, which tells me they always roll with Falcons or Rooks.
The variable comes in inside of W-space, where this will be another uncertainty in an uncertain environment.
The concern I have is in small scale fights where ECM is disproportionately powerful. It is now much harder to drive away that Falcon or Rook game changer.
All in all, very glad I have Recon V on all my older characters. Rooks aren't the problem. Falcons don't tackle people, or apply webs to stop you moving to a better position, and make you take more damage from every weapon system. Tackle recons that have no need to be alert in order to pre-emptively drop a decloak delay are the problem. How would you like to land in tackle range (which is a ******* big sphere) of a huginn + lachesis everywhere you go? |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2690
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:29:34 -
[879] - Quote
My ship just died as he warped into a medium plex to a combat recon. |

Liet Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:31:56 -
[880] - Quote
Folks -
To all those upset with this change, I'd like to point something out that's been referenced elsewhere in this thread by a few, and also in a few other threads/posts here and on reddit/r/eve.
I will withhold my opinion on the DS immunity until the end of my post, but I my major reason for writing this is to point out that CCPs hands are, in a sense, tied.
The problem is that the DS scanner - which is a fundamental game mechanic for Eve - is too simple a system. It is an all or nothing workaround to let capsuleers have some way to find things, sorta, in situations where overview isn't showing them anything. I haven't played Eve long enough to know, but it resembles in design something created early on because there wasn't time to build a better system before release, or something that was stuck in as a work around that required little coding.
Given the way DScan works at the moment, in order to achieve certain gameplay goals it has to be possible for certain ships to be unseen in certain circumstances. DS is all or nothing. Therefore, immunity to DS is the only option available.
Long term I think everyone who considers the options will agree that the whole mechanic of DS needs to be re-worked to be integrated into the electronic warfare system, and include things like:
- Variable range
- Variable signal strength
- Jammers, cloaks, chaff
- Beam steering and focusing
- False readings and interference from the environment
...and so on. It'll be fantastic of CCP can work all that into a new mechanic.
Right now though, choices are limited, and the choice seems to be between a ship class with a lot of effort put into it not working as designed and a subset of the player population having to re-work and re-consider their play style. I know which way I'd go.
As to my opinion on the immunity to DS change, let me say the only thing I do currently in game is PvE wormholes solo in a Tech 1 ship. This will change things. I was upset at first.
But thinking about it, it'll actually make my life a bit easier. You see, if it's riskier to PvE wormholes, fewer people will do it. Fewer explorers means fewer targets for gankers, and the ones still exploring will be smarter. That means fewer people hunting in wormholes, even with the change to DS. Which makes things easier for me, since I can cope with not seeing recons on DS.
...as long as the reward matches the risk. Last night I scanned through three systems of wormholes, total of maybe 55 signatures, and found one site I could hack, total loot 5m. Seeing the Talocan static gates was kinda cool, but not worth the time I spent...
|
|

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1243
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:32:40 -
[881] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Dscan immunity is staying.
Asking for player feedback and then ignoring that feedback for the win. I seriously wonder why you even bother...
You all went about this wrong. CCP always looks at the player feedback then ignores it, this is their development model and has been for a long time.
Recons dont get used at the moment because you have to fit them expensive for them to be good, and they are paper thin which encourages gimp fits where you might as well use a t3.
The extra survivability is all they needed to secure a place is gang fights. The d-scan thing is just a tool for the people who already engage in the least risky forms of pvp. Well, one good thing is it might get the station campers off the undcok and into plexes for equally one sided pvp..
Bad idea. |

Sine Wave
Hidden Anomaly
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:35:56 -
[882] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Varrakk wrote:Pilgrim:
Range and Strength will be too powerful. Would take away what is unique with the Curse. +1 Mid or Low slot, and the CPU(PG) to make use of it would be a sufficient boost to the Pilgrim.
DScan immunity for Combat Recons, very cool approach! +1 I've always said that Combat Recons need some kind of special ability. D-scan immunity is many times less powerful than being able to warp cloaked while giving Combat Recons something special Well done CCP. Side note, ima find a way to rat in null sec with Curses and Rooks now.
curse should do it 4 lows for dmange and 6 mids for tank should work fine
|

DFA200
Hard vs Soft
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:40:49 -
[883] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:My ship just died as he warped into a medium plex to a combat recon.
I guess you just have to improve!
|

rsantos
TEC-NOLOGY Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:40:50 -
[884] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:Combat Recons not seen on DScan: I see this as a buff to low end Wormhole PvE myself.
Sure you can't see a combat recon coming but it cuts both ways, you can't see a combat recon running a site either.
People don't generally jump into WH and drop Combat probes. They jump in and do a DScan first. If they see someone, then they do a narrow DScan to the various anomalies and celestials. Only after that might they drop combat probes. There is no local in WHs so if you don't see someone on DScan you don't go probing for them.
After the change they will ...no? |

Nova' Darkstar
Dark Star Operations.
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:41:50 -
[885] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Dscan immunity is staying.
Thanks for all the feedback.
Lol, why even post in features & ideas discussion, then?
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2691
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:42:43 -
[886] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Recons dont get used at the moment because... their resist profile sucks.
If they keep this feature thenI hope they decrease make "insta-targeting" combat recons nonviable by decreasing their scan resolution.
Whoops, my Thorax just got nueted out again by that damn Curse. Should have never warped into that "undefended" medium plex alone with another person in local. My bad. Time to start blobbing everywhere. Goodbye "solo".
|

Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:43:13 -
[887] - Quote
DFA200 wrote: I dont see how this will not destroy FW and probably a lot of other things. The main question is how much people will abuse it.
You haven't played EVE much I see. 
Everyone will abuse it.
This is EVE.
|

S'No Flake
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:43:17 -
[888] - Quote
maCH'EttE wrote:S'No Flake wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:S'No Flake wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:There is a couple things here I am concerned about:
- ECM still offers no counter play. Effectively rendering a player unable to do anything for at least 20 seconds plus the time it takes them to relock anything. 99.99% fo all combat in this game involves locking a target. ECM drones turn any ship into a diet Blackbird. ECM needs to be revamped from the ground up and should not involve removing a players ability to play the game.
- Celestis being incredibly powerful from 100+km is silly.
- If it turns out combat recons not being on the directional scanner is an option, perhaps showing the ships as the T1 version of the ship instead would be a good compromise. i.e. the directional scanner shows an Arbitrator on scan when in fact it is really a Curse.
Semi-related, but what are the odds of a new high slot module that can not be fit if there is any type of cyno fit as well, only allowed for recons and means they do not appear in local? Perhaps I am dreaming a bit too hard here. The counterplay to ECM it's the damp from Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis.. Hell, Keres does a great job at that too :) How do you do that when you are jammed?  You lock before the recon? You know, a sebo helps. All ECM ships are using a full rack of ECM mods. I rarely see Falcons with a sebo. So, use a sebo. Or a Keres which has a better lock time :) You are asuming that he/she has a alt that is flying around with him. How about the solo player or even a small pvp group that has no cele or any other ship to "counter" ecm. You are absurd and so is your logic. You are thinking everyone flies in a fleet of 20+ where there is logi, ecm or even ecm counter, and links. This is OP, its not bad enough that a falcon has a lock range of 120km, and they do jam over 80+km. Now the rook will not be on d-scan. WTF. RUIN pvp more why dont you. Yeah yeah, add mods to counter ecm, only if eccm worked. ECM SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME FOR GOOD. RISE AND FONZIE HAVE F'ED UP THIS GAME, ESPECIALLY SOLO/SMALL GANG PVP.
You seem too be mad. Just because you can't field the same stuff as the other gang it doesn't mean the game it's broken.
By the way, you can't see that Arazu on dscan either and it will make your life more miserable than a Falcon pilot because he won't miss jam cycles. His point and his damps will hit and make you suffer 100% of the time compared with ECM which might not work at all because the RNG says no and all the jams will fail.
Try flying those ships and you will see how many times you have to warp off field because the Keres and Arazu will damp you before you can even lock them not to mention getting a cycle on them. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
922
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:44:47 -
[889] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: More low slots for Lachesis. Not sure yet on this one, will talk it over here and see what we can do.
why are you not sure? my celestis and arbitrator have 5. I would expect curse and lachesis to have 5 or 6. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
923
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:46:48 -
[890] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:That's more fights because people are risk averse.
actually it's more people getting trashed by risk-averse ecm users. basically this d-scan immunity thing is almost as bad as covops cloaks, and covops cloaks are really horrible **** that should've been changed years ago. |
|

S'No Flake
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
47
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:49:16 -
[891] - Quote
Nyjil Lizaru wrote:The D-scan immunity sounds interesting, and the debate is educational. But I do not like my in-game tools lying to me.
They don't :)
Today: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are cloaky ships. After Proteus: X people in local, Y on dscan => the rest are either combat recons or cloaky ships.
Plan accordingly ... |

Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
214
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:53:05 -
[892] - Quote
Chances are that FW plexs will get a change so that Combat Recons can't enter those sites to satisfy all these crying, whining, bitching and moaning so called Militias. Damn you babies cry a lot.
I hope for all your crying that a curse awaits you in every plex to eat you alive. One of those will be me. \m/ ( >< ) \m/ |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
923
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:54:35 -
[893] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Chances are that FW plexs will get a change so that Combat Recons can't enter those sites to satisfy all these crying, whining, bitching and moaning so called Militias. Damn you babies cry a lot.
I hope for all your crying that a curse awaits you in every plex to eat you alive. One of those will be me. \m/ ( >< ) \m/
stop crying bro |

Kmelx
Matari Exodus
86
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:04:02 -
[894] - Quote
Nova' Darkstar wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Dscan immunity is staying.
Thanks for all the feedback. Lol, why even post in features & ideas discussion, then?
It's so they can say they "consulted" the player base before they made the change.
Which is exactly what they have done, they consulted the player base, granted he's then gone on to ignore the views of the eve players, their paying customers, but what the hell our opinion's clearly unimportant, after all, we only have to play the game once they've made the PVP experience into an ever worse abortion than it already is.
As a guesstimate, I'd say 75-80-% of the people posting in here dislike the d-scan change, but like I said why should the majority view of the players of the game matter to it's developers? They've already made the decision to foist a change we don't want on us, they're not consulting with us they're simply informing us of their decision, and we can either like it or lump it.
|

Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
517
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:04:03 -
[895] - Quote
Instead of D-Scan immunity, why not give combat recons EWAR immunity? |

Petrus Blackshell
Scrap Metal Squadron
3239
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:04:18 -
[896] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse.
Sure, that's the case in the short term. In the long term, if this gets abused as much as everyone seems to think it will get abused, "engageable"-looking fights will be less likely to be engaged. Why?
Suppose my friends and I fly in a group of 3-4 Thoraxes. We run into 2 Vexors, and die to them because they were accompanied by 2 Rooks. The next day, with new Thoraxes, we run into 2 Ruptures, and die because we can't fire our guns since there's 2 Curses there. The day after that, we die to 2 Stabbers because a Lachesis and Huginn are scramming/webbing us from 30 km and we can't close range. The final outcome? One of the following:
- We stop roaming entirely.
- We get our own recons. Remember how fun (hint: not at all) this solution turned out for off-grid boosts, Falcon alts, and supercaps?
- We stop engaging anything when there are unaccounted-for neutrals in local, or stop fighting anything that isn't a single T1 frigate in our cruisers.
It could be that I and the others on the forum are wrong, recons won't be abused in this way, and won't lead to a chilling of the PvP atmosphere by fear-of-recon. I cannot predict the actions of others. I can however predict my own actions, and as someone with Recon V trained, I will abuse this mechanic silly, and keep going until I stop getting easy-mode kills. I may even switch the training on one my alts to do the same thing.
So, as someone who would abuse this in order to make PvP unfun, I ask you: please do not let me make PvP unfun. Because I will. And I'm sure so will almost everyone else.
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com
|

Ripard Teg
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
985
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:11:35 -
[897] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:RLML for Rook. Sure. Consider it done.
Excellent! One other small request: take away some of its CPU and give it a little more grid in exchange. I'm not asking for double LSE, but it should be able to fit MWD/single LSE/HMLs at L5 skills without a fitting mod and right now it can't. This means the current incarnation effectively has only two low slots, which p.much only gives you one good option for fitting those lows.
I understand where you're coming from on dscan immunity, but I think you're going to come to regret it. It just has too many nasty implications in FW and w-space, and the smaller your gang, the more likely you are to be punched in the face by those implications. EVE didn't need another iteration on the n+1 problem. I can't help thinking of gate camps backed up by more or less invisible combat recons with hyperspatial velocity accelerators (which they can now use 'cause they'll be so much tougher). It's gonna get ugly out there.
aka Jester, who apparently was once entrusted to Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|

Levina Windstar
Mekalon Industry
59
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:12:14 -
[898] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Instead of D-Scan immunity, why not give combat recons EWAR immunity?
Not a bad idea actually |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1945
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:12:53 -
[899] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Instead of D-Scan immunity, why not give combat recons EWAR immunity?
BECAUSE THAT is 1 trillion times more powerful. Think before you post please.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|

Penny Ibramovic
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
178
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:14:33 -
[900] - Quote
If the scanner overlay was added to remove the necessity for fleets to continually spam probes to look for new wormholes spawning, is it not against that philosophy to add a ship class that requires fleets to continually spam probes to look for that ship class? |
|
|
|
|
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 |