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) |
Helene Fidard
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:46:02 -
[1141] - Quote
I personally would be more supportive of this idea of it weren't only combat recons getting this UI sorcery. Having a single class of ship which follows different rules from every other ship in the game seems like poor design (I thought everything was supposed to be intuitive now?), but if dscan immunity was more generally a thing, I guess I couldn't really argue with that. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
248
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:56:59 -
[1142] - Quote
If the D-Scan inmunity thing turns out to be having more negative effects than expected, they can always take it out on the next release. Or even better, consider one of the alternatives presented here.
Some people have suggested reasonable alternatives, such as said inmunity being off when warping, or it being toogleable at the expense of something else. I think those could be interesting if the current iteration of inmunity does not turn out well (although I'm confident it won't be that bad, as happened with the many previous changes to the game that spawned so much heated up discussion and at the end weren't that bad). |
Solaris Vex
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:59:01 -
[1143] - Quote
Furthermore the split turret/launcher hardpoints adds extra buttons and micromanagement, this is not the kind of complexity that a busy recon pilot needs.
Removing the neut strength from the curse is effectively a nerf to its role as a hunter for blops fleet. A hunters role involve sneaking up on a ratter, usually a battleship or t3, decloaking at point blank range, then scramming the target and lighting a covert cyno. In this situation a range bonus is nearly useless and the strength bonus is important for increasing the change the victim will be capped out in one cycle. So removing the neut strength is really a huge nerf to the curse.
Whoever wrote the changes in the op doesn't seem to understand why most recons are broken. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
717
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:07:11 -
[1144] - Quote
ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP. |
TuCZnak
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:13:19 -
[1145] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP. ITT: nullbears that were never in lowsec calling others whiners |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1264
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:14:56 -
[1146] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP.
From a guy who one ever gets kills in fleets of 30-200 people. |
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
52
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:31:21 -
[1147] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote: You have a bunch of people with 15 kills in their lifetime or at maxumym 15 kills per month saying this change is awesome,
First supporter of d-scan immunity for recons after i posted the above (and every other one ive checked is pretty much the same level of 'i basically dont ever pvp but will when im gonna be at zero risk'
I support these changes.. If you are quiting, can I have your stuffs?
Not sure why people is so afraid of change. I guess when you are currently a 'l33t' pvper, people like to maintain status quo. Learning new things is hard.. |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
21
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:40:48 -
[1148] - Quote
People will not quit, just be more risk averse, D-Scan immunity is dumb idea with dumb explanation. Where is the massive drawback for a so massive OP trait ? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1961
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:43:32 -
[1149] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
As a high sec ganker you clearly dont understand the issues here. I dont recal anyone that is complaining about these changes complaining about the strateos. In fact i dont remember anyone at all that i know complaining about it at any point.
So bad strawman is bad.
In all scenarios that i fight in, a ship immune to dscan is very much worse than a cloaky ship, and even though i dont live in wormholes, my limited understanding of them is that dscan immunity will be more powerful there than it will be where i am in FW.
Arbitrary mechanics to make up for people who are terrible at eve and cant hide their fleet/bait a fight are a very bad move and encourage an undesirable meta that will be to some degree compulsory for all.
As you correctly said, there are mechanics that already allow people to emulate this effectwith less powerful force recons, so encouraging this type of activity my taking the skill out of it and giving people ships close to ahac performace to do it with is demented.
TBH im less concerned with plex campers than i am small roaming gangs of recons that warp into plexes with zero warning and create a 180km killzone.
At least with the current force recons the player has a chance to spy the recon entering systems and plexes, hence a possible counter before a pointless gank.
As an igorant poster that THINK i am a high sec ganker. you have no clue of the issues here. Logic is constant, regardless of the experience of the one using it. And if you THINK you understand more of small scale PVP then us.. then come for it. We are among the BEST you can find in whoel new eden regardign small scale PVP, enough that we almost never can get a fight agaisnt other mercs or low sec groups that previously fought us without beign at 4:1 disadvantage. But I do not need to gloat about us here, your shown of ignorance makes a good work of neutralizign your own opinion.
If when ANY gang enters system you stay oblivious until somethign show on your D-Scan , then you are a HORRIBLE small scale PVPer. Your whole argument goes agaisnt itself. You say these changes are for clueles skillless players that cannot make things work by themselves. YOU are the oen that is whinning like a child because you willahve to pay a little bit more of attention anduse a little bit more of tactical knowledge. You will ahve to use your brain and get good positioning when any group enters local. You will nto be able to keep using a PVP skill of a bot, that keep doign what you were doign until somethign shows up o scan then you warp.
If that is too hard for you, then you are the one that has no clue!
If you think that by checking one of the 5 characters of a player you have any clue of all that player does, you are so ignroant of eve that you shoudl never even think about expressing your toughts.
You simply were unable to eve put a singl e argument agaisnt my coutner arguments. That proves you are not discussing, you are winning just because thatis how you FEEL it. Feeling is emotion. I am using logic.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1961
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:46:09 -
[1150] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP. From a guy who one ever gets kills in fleets of 30-200 people.
Again, peopel do not have a single character in this game. And 30 peopel is a HUGE fleet. If you want to show skill in small scale PVP you stay under 5 peope. Over that the FC is mroe important then the members.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Arla Sarain
199
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:55:02 -
[1151] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:People will not quit, just be more risk averse, D-Scan immunity is dumb idea with dumb explanation. Where is the massive drawback for a so massive OP trait ? No drawbacks
Just further buffs, like the HAC resist profile to boot. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
718
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:59:22 -
[1152] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP. From a guy who one ever gets kills in fleets of 30-200 people.
Point still stands, no matter how much you try to shoot the messenger. |
Darth Fett
Iris Covenant The Gorgon Empire
68
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:59:46 -
[1153] - Quote
How about adding any anti-MJD feature? This cheating "save me" button should be nerfed. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1264
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:00:19 -
[1154] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP. From a guy who one ever gets kills in fleets of 30-200 people. Again, peopel do not have a single character in this game. And 30 peopel is a HUGE fleet. If you want to show skill in small scale PVP you stay under 5 peope. Over that the FC is mroe important then the members.
Reading comprehension fail. I very rarely fly in fleets more than 10 people and usually fly with closer to 1.
As for the rest of your drivel, no one said anything about being oblivious to changes in local. Just that there is no warning of them entering a plex.
This change simply will require people to constantly check killboards of everyone that enters a system. Im not sure that a mechanic that sends players out of game is a good way to go.
And seriously, if nearly all your kills are in high sec, you are a high sec ganker. Sorry to break that to you. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1961
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:00:29 -
[1155] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:People will not quit, just be more risk averse, D-Scan immunity is dumb idea with dumb explanation. Where is the massive drawback for a so massive OP trait ? No drawbacks Just further buffs, like the HAC resist profile to boot.
The drawback is implicit hat all other cruiser sized hull got massively buffed on last 18 months.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Verdis deMosays
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:02:41 -
[1156] - Quote
Darth Fett wrote:How about adding any anti-MJD feature? This cheating "save me" button should be nerfed.
While resisting the temptation to be scathingly sarcastic, I'll point out that a scram shuts off MJDs.... Working as intended. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
171
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:04:12 -
[1157] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ITT: risk-averse FW farmers and WH carebears whining about being exposed to PvP. From a guy who one ever gets kills in fleets of 30-200 people. Point still stands, no matter how much you try to shoot the messenger.
If you had paid proper attention, you would have noticed that it's not the carebears complaining but people that do solo / small gang pvp. I would benefit from dscan immunity in wormholes, yet I don't want it. Why? I believe it's bad for the overall health of the lower class community ...
You have no point. |
per
Terpene Conglomerate
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:10:30 -
[1158] - Quote
Darth Fett wrote:How about adding any anti-MJD feature? This cheating "save me" button should be nerfed. ever heard of scram or are you too scared to get close to your target? |
Squatdog
State Protectorate Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:18:19 -
[1159] - Quote
Darth Fett wrote:How about adding any anti-MJD feature? This cheating "save me" button should be nerfed.
Gold!
|
Verdis deMosays
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:21:55 -
[1160] - Quote
Also a few words on the Combat Recons.
First, these ships, while getting HAC resists, are not HACs. Never will be. The damage bonuses just aren't there. After everything is settled out, they are at most ridiculously expensive T1 combat cruisers with a side of EWAR. Let me give an example:
Rook: 5/7/3 layout, 5 launchers, 5%/level ROF bonus. ECM requires 4-5 mids to be effective, as well as low slots which compete for armor tank spots or BCS in order to boost DPS. Tradeoff? You can have ecm, tank, or DPS, but not all three.
Cerberus: 6/5/4 layout, 6 launchers, 5% kinetic damage bonus, 5% ROF bonus, 10% flight time, and 10% velocity bonus. Made to do DPS and shield tanking well, only thing it sucks at is wear, but that's okay as those hams are tearing you a new one at 30+km.
So please, read stats and do a quick fit or two before screaming about how OP something will be. I think this will be a nice feature that will bring combat recons into a place where people actually want to use them. And if I lose a C2 ratting drake to one, big deal, GF, and I'll go get my onyx hictor that puts out 450 DPS and show that combat recon what OP really is!
Fly fun, enjoy the adrenaline. |
|
Omega Flames
Last Resort Inn
100
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:26:55 -
[1161] - Quote
HoruSeth wrote: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. That can not be your honest reply? The sad part is that that really is his honest answer. |
Omega Flames
Last Resort Inn
100
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:44:37 -
[1162] - Quote
Komodo Askold wrote:If the D-Scan inmunity thing turns out to be having more negative effects than expected, they can always take it out on the next release. The removal of teams is the only instance I can think of such a thing happening once it hit TQ, and since that was also stated in the teams removal dev blog apparently it's the only instance CCP can think of as well, so just how likely do you think it will be for them to remove it if it hits TQ? |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:16:48 -
[1163] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:People will not quit, just be more risk averse, D-Scan immunity is dumb idea with dumb explanation. Where is the massive drawback for a so massive OP trait ? No drawbacks Just further buffs, like the HAC resist profile to boot. The drawback is implicit hat all other cruiser sized hull got massively buffed on last 18 months.
Sorry i didn't know only cruise hull can't scan them.. |
Gregor Parud
794
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:04:02 -
[1164] - Quote
D-scan immunity is too much of a buff for a ship that's quite powerful in the first place. They already get stats increases, increased resists and "less dumb" bonuses and layouts. There is no reason, nor need, to give it something like this other than "wouldn't it be cool if". Anyone who has any sense of history with EVE knows (or should know) how cool stuff like that generally pans out.
I'm not saying it'll be super overpowered and it'll massively change the landscape or anything but at the same time there's simply no need for it. Not showing up on D-scan should have downsides, be it how covert ships come prenerfed or how a cloak will affect locking stats etc. With these changes there'll be quite powerful cruisers with a lot of tricks up their sleeves, HAC resists AND, oh yeah... you can't see them.
Prenerf combat recons and keep the D-scan stuff or keep the stats and remove the d-scan immunity. If you want to give them "something to stand out" (as if that's somehow needed in the first place, they seem quite potent to me) then give them increased warp speed. THAT way they are actually Recons and they get something that enables them to chase a target. |
Kmelx
Matari Exodus
100
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:24:14 -
[1165] - Quote
rhiload Feron-drake wrote:Seeing all this small-gang pvp players who mostly never post on forums are actually posting on a balance thread. this is a sign that these changes will be DEVASTATING towards the small gang pvpers. also rip medium plexing in fw. going to have fun warping into 2 curses in my vexor.
dont let these changes go through, there is a reason why people are actually taking time to post on this forum and you act like you blatantly ignore what these people are actually saying.
It wasn't announced as a consultative measure.
CCP did not announce it because they wanted our views on this, they announced it so that they could say they have consulted us about a decision they have already made.
If you look at their behavior in this thread, you will see that it was announced without a full explanation of CCP's rationale for introducing this change, we've been promised this by Rise but he has not provided it.
You will see within less than a day there was a 38 page thread of people posting their concerns about this change, along with all the worthless gankers high fiving each other and going around saying f**k yeah we can abuse the s**t out of this when we blob people.
If you look at the timings, Rise's initial post was made at 2014-12-18 14:57:04 UTC. His we've noticed you don't seem to like this change but zero f**ks given reply was made within less than a day at 2014-12-19 11:15:14 UTC and then CCP Seagull announced it as a the number one feature of Proteus at 2014-12-19 16:15. They "consulted" with the wider playerbase for less than 26 hours about this change before they made it the top features/balance announcement in Seagull's dev blog.
No clearer indication that they had no intention of taking the players viewpoints on board was needed, it was a fait accompli, we've decided to inform you were are doing this announcement, taking into account the Christmas and New Year holidays and the intransigence of Rise's reply to the concerns raised, this "balance" change is going out in Proteus. |
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:34:04 -
[1166] - Quote
The only problem with combat recons is their tank and in some cases their slot layout. Shouldn't they be like the EWAR equivalent of HACs? Right now, either T3's or some faction cruisers (hello ashimmu) are used in this role. |
Joni Hariere
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:42:15 -
[1167] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:
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.
Thanks for all the feedback.
MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK .
D-Scan immunity destroys solopvp, prevents anyone flying cruisers in fw (medium plex) , not to talk about small gang pvp on lowsec.
and how this is against common sense and everything in in game mechanics.
*checks prices of Elite Dangerous*
|
Gregor Parud
797
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:46:54 -
[1168] - Quote
Joni Hariere wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:
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.
Thanks for all the feedback. MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK . D-Scan immunity destroys solopvp, prevents anyone flying cruisers in fw (medium plex) , not to talk about small gang pvp on lowsec. and how this is against common sense and everything in in game mechanics. *checks prices of Elite Dangerous*
That's a bit over the top. There isn't much difference between a Falcon uncloaking on you or a Rook warping in on the fight, and the same goes for the other factions. It creates an out of whack balance where none is needed but it's not solo pvp shattering in any way, it's just a gimmick bonus that is in the realms of "well, it has to be sneaky somehow" where I personally would go for the "lets be more aggressive" with a warp speed bonus. |
Mandrozolizus Hauptutus
Pancerne Poziomki YARRR and CO
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:59:20 -
[1169] - Quote
Joni Hariere wrote:
MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK .
"Never [enter] into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another. ... When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury.." Thomas Jefferson
CCP aplies this, so the community should... |
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 14:09:26 -
[1170] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Joni Hariere wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Just finished reading everything that was posted over night. Here's what I can update with at the moment:
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.
Thanks for all the feedback. MAYBE READ THAT DAMN FEEDBACK . D-Scan immunity destroys solopvp, prevents anyone flying cruisers in fw (medium plex) , not to talk about small gang pvp on lowsec. and how this is against common sense and everything in in game mechanics. *checks prices of Elite Dangerous* That's a bit over the top. There isn't much difference between a Falcon uncloaking on you or a Rook warping in on the fight, and the same goes for the other factions. It creates an out of whack balance where none is needed but it's not solo pvp shattering in any way, it's just a gimmick bonus that is in the realms of "well, it has to be sneaky somehow" where I personally would go for the "lets be more aggressive" with a warp speed bonus.
There is, a rook, if YOU warp in on it (i.e. you enter a site) has no locking delay, has better tank and dps in addition to its ewar. It does not only screw with FW plexing, but also normal plexing. If im roaming in low/null to DED plex, in every system with neutrals, a site might be camped. You are giving a completely different (and non relevant) situation for the concerns he adresses, and I dont think you realize how this bonus might be abused. I thought CCP was being more reserved with buffing ships, instead of totally changing they way a certain class is flown which can might break certain aspects of the game. As I said a few posts back, combat recons should be the EWAR equivalent of HACs, leave the sneaky stuff to the force recons, they are quite good allready in this respect. The changes to those ships will make them abit more robust, which is good.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |