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) |
Marlona Sky
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
5831
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 01:53:05 -
[1801] - Quote
Tiberian Deci wrote:So I'm new to this thread, but has anyone chimed in on how it may be abused in wormholes?
Does that sound a little carebear-y, yes. But If I'm willing to put the time in to watching my dscan to stay safe its kinda scummy that there will be one class of ships I can't do anything about. Bro, do you even combat probe?
The Paradox
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1298
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 01:58:04 -
[1802] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:So I'm new to this thread, but has anyone chimed in on how it may be abused in wormholes?
Does that sound a little carebear-y, yes. But If I'm willing to put the time in to watching my dscan to stay safe its kinda scummy that there will be one class of ships I can't do anything about. Bro, do you even combat probe?
And the award for CCP sycophant of the thread goes to ... |
Jaysen Larrisen
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:03:17 -
[1803] - Quote
Infrequent wrote: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
The more I've been considering the updated post from CCP Rise I think my initial instincts were correct that the T2 resists were really what I was keen to have on the Recon boats.
The d-scan immunity could in fact be a pretty nifty tool to use for small gang operations or raiding mining areas and w-space. I will have a pretty fun time of working out ways to take advantage of the new capability.
That said, I saw far more utility in the updated resistance profile, cap & fitting room, and adjustment in weapons profiles...particularly for the Combat Recon ships. A few other folks have mentioned it but really they are E-War cruisers, not actually recon specialists. They often get called as primary targets for upon arrival on the field and rightly so - they can create some havoc if not dealt with quickly.
If you do a quick cost benefit analysis of the Blackbird vs a T2 Recon ship...right now not a lot of incentive to fly the dramatically more expensive and arguably equal or lesser effective ship. If you increase it's survivability noticeably (comparable resists to HACs and perhaps the MWD sig reduction) that would be worth the outlay in ISK per ship.
Even with some tune-ups to a few stats and the d-scan immunity its just not that attractive of ship without the combat survivability. I'm positive that some folks will have some creative uses for the ship and see some nice successes i'm just not convinced it's going to be worth the SP investment for the Combat Recons.
I think if you split the difference and the Combat Recons were supplied the HAC level combat survivability and you left the Force Recons truly rely on stealth and cloaking for survivability that would be a very solid way to provide some unique options for the Recon class ships. Let the d-scan immunity go in as well and monitor that ship capability closely and see if that's what needs to truly be tuned, removed, or iterated on but don't walk away from the opportunity to supply some real interest and life into the Recon Class ships.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero
Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast
Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen
|
Murdok46
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:11:28 -
[1804] - Quote
bring back the T2 RESISTS ... would be great to fly a recon in a fleet but i dont guess they want recons used in fleets ... Just t3's??? |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
920
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:19:47 -
[1805] - Quote
Ehud Gera wrote:Overwhelming feedback might help guys...
Rise plz keep t2 resists and remove the DSCAN immunity +1
It seems like we're not being heard, so let's keep the thread naught alive Yeah, this is exactly what I was worried about, when I posted my feedback a couple of days ago, after Rise said "Dscan immunity is staying, but EHP is being looked into".
Seriously, for the love of god, if it has to be one or the other, drop the immunity and give us the resists. |
Jonah KaMate
Aesir Executive Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:22:31 -
[1806] - Quote
I'm not a big fan of the d-scan immunity but I'll learn to work around it in complexes or when i'm mining.
I do think the combat recon ships should get better eHP with the buffed damage resistances. For most applications the d-scan immunity is partially useful at best and I'll just run a T1 EWAR cruiser because I assume i'll get popped at first opportunity.
Bottom line: If the T2 resists were staying I would probably put some real training into Recon ships...the d-scan immunity just isn't that useful to me in how I play to make it an acceptable choice instead of T1 varieties. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
411
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:07:42 -
[1807] - Quote
I will go ahead and throw my opinion in here:
Not a fan of dscan immunity. It makes flying the ship neat in a fleet because you can sit on a plex and surprise the hell out of a lot of solo players. Hide fleet numbers, etc.
It makes flying the ship fun but kind of defeats the purpose of all of the tools we rely on in wh space.
-1 |
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:13:17 -
[1808] - Quote
The thing that bugs me is, Recon ships could be so damn cool, with a bit of thought and some effort they could have a proper place in EVE fleets and solo. But they are broken and we are being told they are being fixed under the guise of a new game mechanic by a dev team with thinned ranks over the holiday season. It's not that I am not grateful. That's hard word and dedication we can all respect, but that's hard to see when something is being rushed out the door. Recons are broken....
Adding Dscan immunity won't fix it.
Recons are not going to be fixed, they are going to be edited to the point where they are different from before, because it was on their list of stuff to do. I expect them to be looked at again when the next recon fix comes by in a few years.
I would love to see CCPs notes for Recon goals, in fact I would love them to release their goal lists before they release how they are going to achieve them. ( that's just me though i'm sure. )
DSCAN Immunity : it's a new mechanic which although shows new and innovative thinking sets a dangerous standard. What other ships will get this in the future? How will the creative EVE pilots use this to guarantee kills. I for one am going to sit on small plex gates and wait for frigates to warp in and make them pop while they can't lock me. If it does need to be nerfed how will this be handled ? If it does need to be removed then what happens to combat recons without that skill? Will it even get nerfed if it proves to be OP, Ishtars anyone?
Can't you just add a cloak to them but change the bonuses it gets from a cloak? that way CCP still get their tear making machines and we don't have to invent a new mechanic just for one ship, everybody is happy.
Resists : I don't think I know enough about fleet mechanics to understand just how important HAC level resists are but I do know that solo a recon with those resists could be far too strong when you add in EWAR to that mix. IMO squishy with range bonuses and only damage application bonuses would be okay.
Not really a solution but my point is that recons are broken because of the way they are used and treated, Strip them back to just the hull type then make a list of what you want recons to do and how you want them to be used in general then add bonuses and slot layout to them and make them an actual viable ship, they start to look pretty damn good I reckon.
Also cause I have nowhere else to put this... Whats up with amar ewar? - All other races ewar effects all ships 100% of the time - Tracking disrupt only works on guns not missiles - Neuts only work if they are active tanked and use heavy cap modules. ( unless you can cap them out ) - Neuts also are on ships that use cap for armor repairs and lazors, the two heavy ass cap using modules, they are also high slot modules.
Always wondered. |
Jaysen Larrisen
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
29
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 04:18:59 -
[1809] - Quote
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:
...
Resists : I don't think I know enough about fleet mechanics to understand just how important HAC level resists are but I do know that solo a recon with those resists could be far too strong when you add in EWAR to that mix. IMO squishy with range bonuses and only damage application bonuses would be okay.
TLDR: Not really a solution but my point is that recons are broken because of the way they are used and treated, Strip them back to just the hull type then make a list of what you want recons to do and how you want them to be used in general then add bonuses and slot layout to them and make them an actual viable ship, they start to look pretty damn good I reckon.
...
Reference the resists...really survivability period...it would make them a more formidable ship in solo work, however, a little bit of ECCM goes a very long way in countering ECM. The effects in small gang fights are real but they certainly aren't jamming any more targets or any more effectively just lasting on the field a little longer. They would be far from invincible but certainly more serviceable than they are now.
Additionally, they still sacrifice any serious tank lo run their primary functionality. The resists and mild eHP buff gives really gives them more cushion to GTFO or call for logi if you happen to have anything with reps handy. As I noted earlier the d-scan immunity frankly just isn't enough to make you want to run the ships over their T1 cousins for the vast majority of applications or the current Force Recon varieties.
Consider this...what if you are trying to make essentially an Electronic Attack Cruiser; in theory it would share a fair amount of mobility and shouldn't be left behind in survivability to apply it's "attack" effects the way other ships apply lethal effects.
As for the TLDR - well said and I tend to agree with you. As pointed out, treat it like what it is, a T2 EWAR Cruiser and that has nothing to do with Recon work. The bonuses should focus on applying its effects. If the intent is to make it more of a recon boat then focus the bonuses on that (i.e. bare bones offensive capability, good speed, very low sig, big bonus to scan range and resolution, target painting, cloak, etc).
"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero
Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast
Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen
|
Orvmus
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 04:35:23 -
[1810] - Quote
For the love of all things holy, get rid of dscan immunity and keep the resists.
Even better would be putting some thought in to how Recons could be improved instead of just stat buffs and a ******** Cloak for the non-cloaky version.
Prior to this change people who are on the ball with d-scan know what they are coming up against, they know when something is creeping up on them. They are rewarded with knowledge for being active and vigilant, this change removes that reward.
Can you even see how many people there are against this change?? This entire thread is full of them, it has more replies than things 10 times its age. I mean seriously, it's looking like it will overtake the Jump Drive changes with it's current post count which should tell you something, the players are rallying and they are telling you that they don't like it. Listen to us for a change.
I also want to express how disappointed I am that this is being so rushed, you are saying that there will be problems and that you don't have the time to resolve them by next release. The entire point of this new release schedule is to stop things like that from happening, so that these game changing and possibly game breaking changes are actually fleshed out and the foreseeable problems have been resolved. |
|
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
292
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 04:49:10 -
[1811] - Quote
D-scan immunity is staying because they figured out a chunk of legacy code and they're gonna prove it even if it kills us. |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
49
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 04:51:12 -
[1812] - Quote
Ehud Gera wrote:Overwhelming feedback might help guys...
Rise plz keep t2 resists and remove the DSCAN immunity +1
It seems like we're not being heard, so let's keep the thread naught alive
Threadnaughts are irrelevant. CCP does what CCP wants to do. The forum is simply a pressure release valve to mitigate the rage.
Having said that... My Christmas wish:
D-Scan immune seems a bit daft since 4 of the 8 ships get a bonus to Cloakyness.
Pilgrim is still not awesome
......Range...Neut amount
Curse 37k 30/s Pilgrim 13k 30/s current Pilgrim 25k 22/s CCP proposed Pilgrim 18k 30/s CW's proposed
While the increase in range is nice, the reduced nueting efficiency is lame given that the Pilgrim only has 4H spots. That's not a lot of nueting power if you've got a Cloak & Cyno fitted. I've always thought the Pilgrims role is: decloak, scram, "OH HAI!" in local, cyno, neut, wave to fleetmates, loot target wreck.
The range increase does little for the surpise/decloak/scram/cyno.
On the flip side, in a fleet fight who would want a Pilgrim over a Curse? Less range and less neuting capacity.
I'd like to see the Pilgrim gain a high spot, have it's neut range modified to +7.5% per level making a medium neut good to aprox. 18k while retaining it's current drain bonus. Then bump it's scan resolution up above 300, so when it uncloaks, it has a chance to grabbing something before it warps away.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
115
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 04:52:15 -
[1813] - Quote
Soo. Since everyone and their shmother already discussed the rest of the changes, I'm only going to ask this.
Okay, so lach gets the fourth low to "get a viable armour tank". ...Meanwhile since force and combat recons will have same resists, we already have a 4low lach. It's called Arazu and will have the very same lows and the very same resist profile.
The difference being one has a covops cloak and a covert cyno, the other has the stupid gimmick and 16% more mids. So what's the actual difference between the two? Well, other then arazu being useful in blops. |
Cant tell Ifserious
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 04:58:27 -
[1814] - Quote
Please CCP keep the t2 resists and get rid of the D-scan immunity if something needs to get changed. Please |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
49
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 05:19:56 -
[1815] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Okay, first major update just edited into the OP.
The Rook is getting a little more PG fitting room and trading the 5% HAM/HML rate of fire bonus for a 7.5% kinetic missile damage bonus. This is typical Kaalakiota bonus, gives the same number of effective launchers, and favors RLML over the rate of fire bonus.
Have a great Christmas o/
Ah yes, ye ol' stealth Caldari "nerf-bonus".
No "free release" is complete w/o it.
It's like the gift you receive @ the office Christmas party... the same tin of Fruitcake that's been making it's rounds for the past 12 years.
Hooray Caldari ! |
The Renner
Canadian Operations Yulai Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 05:37:01 -
[1816] - Quote
So the one change recons really needed (increased ehp) gets dropped in favor of some gimmick change, meh. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
888
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 05:52:54 -
[1817] - Quote
As an additional complaint, why does the Pilgrim get stuck with terrible range on its primary offensive tool? You don't see the Rapier being stuck with shorter ranged webs than a Huginn. You don't see an Arazu being unable to point as far as a Lachesis. The Falcon and Rook get the same ECM bonus. Man up and give the poor Pilgrim the same neuting bonuses as the Curse.
There's no reason for the Amarr force recon to get a special gimping, particularly since you've already gone and taken a dump all over the effectiveness of both their offensive tools (TDs don't work against drones or missiles, the two best small-gang weapons systems at the moment, and ASBs have seriously impacted the effectiveness of neuts vs active tanks in solo / small gang settings). |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
115
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 06:04:57 -
[1818] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:As an additional complaint, why does the Pilgrim get stuck with terrible range on its primary offensive tool? You don't see the Rapier being stuck with shorter ranged webs than a Huginn. You don't see an Arazu being unable to point as far as a Lachesis. The Falcon and Rook get the same ECM bonus. Man up and give the poor Pilgrim the same neuting bonuses as the Curse. Quite frankly, current curse and pilgrim are more or less in a good spot. That is, they are 2 different ships, and each of them has a different use. One is a sneaky U-Boat brick, the other is a WTFPwnzor McKillah for small gangs. Meanwhile the other recons have an identity crisis. Huggin and Rapier are fleet long webs. One a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Lach and Arazu are fleet long points. One is a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Falcon is a falcon. And rook competes with the primae for the title of an ultimate joke of a ship.
The proposed changes will only make it worse, though. The difference will be the one type cloaky and the other type cloaky. And all equally (un)tanky. And a pilgrim will be a curse ******** little brother. |
fox targaryen
Nordwaffe
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 06:12:00 -
[1819] - Quote
10/10 troll on the market speculators; so much for getting recons to be used more in fleets |
Cant tell Ifserious
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 06:35:12 -
[1820] - Quote
The Renner wrote:So the one change recons really needed (increased ehp) gets dropped in favor of some gimmick change, meh.
So true it hurts my eve feelings. We were having so many great patches. I guess we were due for a bad one...... |
|
Tira Janau
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 06:50:29 -
[1821] - Quote
CCP "Mouthpiece" Rise is still here and active, good to know.
You take a perfectly reasonable change (giving combat recons t2 resists or slot changes and even maybe *gasp* the ability to do combat), and say naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
But the crappy, gimmicky and only abuse-able mechanic? Lets just keep that regardless of what the playerbase says, my god Rise. No dscan and cloaking is the cloaky recon's job, how freaking hard is that to accept? You don't need to slap a useless bow on the combat recon; you just have to make the product decent.
P.S. Love the rlml change to the rook, still peddling your crappy RLML base to the public. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
889
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 06:54:09 -
[1822] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:As an additional complaint, why does the Pilgrim get stuck with terrible range on its primary offensive tool? You don't see the Rapier being stuck with shorter ranged webs than a Huginn. You don't see an Arazu being unable to point as far as a Lachesis. The Falcon and Rook get the same ECM bonus. Man up and give the poor Pilgrim the same neuting bonuses as the Curse. Quite frankly, current curse and pilgrim are more or less in a good spot. That is, they are 2 different ships, and each of them has a different use. One is a sneaky U-Boat brick, the other is a WTFPwnzor McKillah for small gangs. Meanwhile the other recons have an identity crisis. Huggin and Rapier are fleet long webs. One a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Lach and Arazu are fleet long points. One is a bit more cloaky, the other a bit more tanky. Falcon is a falcon. And rook competes with the primae for the title of an ultimate joke of a ship. The proposed changes will only make it worse, though. The difference will be the one type cloaky and the other type cloaky. And all equally (un)tanky. And a pilgrim will be a curse ******** little brother.
Except the Pilgrim is in a terrible place right now. Its effectiveness has been stealth-nerfed into the ground:
- Its neuts no longer affect a big slice of active tanks (most people fitting gimmicky solo ships use ASBs) - Its local tank is no longer competitive with the DPS output of modern ships (lots of T1 stuff has been buffed, and a ton of combat and PvE fits now lean towards drones and missiles-- neither of which the Pilgrim can mitigate) - Its DPS output is pathetic, especially if it has to devote slots to an armor tank
I used to fly the Pilgrim way back in the day-- back when people had skillpoint-based troubles fitting perfect ratting ships, when rats weren't programmed to defend ratters by switching targets to gankers, etc-- and even then it was a pretty touch-and-go, niche ship. If you stumbled across the right ratting battleship, you could kill it (barely). I remember engaging a ratting Apoc back in ~2009: I killed it, but it was a very close fight (Pilgrim in structure), and that was against literally the Pilgrim's ideal target (heavily cap-dependent, tracking-limited, only packing a very rudimentary ratting tank, etc). These days they apparently have trouble with un-defended mining barges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzIoG0MqUxw
I'd be fine if they kept the Pilgrim as a U-boat (I'm hard for U-boats), but if they want that to work it needs to get a big bonus to local tanking, an afterburner speed bonus, a lot more DPS, or some combination of the above. As it stands it just doesn't cut it.
As for the Curse, well, I can't recall the last time I saw one fielded. I'd be curious to see what its usage numbers are compared to the other recons, but I'd waged it's one of the least-flown T2 cruisers in the game. I've played with fits in EFT, but there's no way to make one useful for small gang work: they're too slow, too fat, and not tanky enough-- especially given how close they have to be to their targets.
If Curses did ~2200m/s with a couple of nanos fit and could neut to ~50km instead of ~37km, one might be tempted to fly one. As it is, though, you're stick in a hull that maxes out at 1700m/s, turns like a brick, and has to sit frighteningly close to its targets to be effective. It's sad because cap warfare on a skirmishing platform could be really useful, but because of the way the Curse is implemented it's just not practical as a skimisher. |
Wynta
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 06:59:52 -
[1823] - Quote
Might as well put in my thoughts even though they probably won't get read.
First, lets start with the role of the Recon ships. There are two type, the Force and the Combat Recon. They both share EWAR bonuses, but the Force specializes in Covert Cyno's for BLOP fleets, and the Combat focuses on being an actual combat vessel. These roles, for the most part, are clear if somewhat oddly implemented. Since I focus on Caldari ships I'll use them as examples.
The Falcon can fit a Cloak, Cyno, and two guns, or a Cloak or Cyno and 3 Guns. It does receive bonuses to Guns as well as ECM and Cyno. Because of the abysmal damage, it is probably best to use the Falcon for Cynos and ECM only. A well equipped Falcon can have a ECM reach of 100km, far outreaching it's guns range. My understanding of the Falcon is this, it is a forward scout of a Black Ops Fleet or maybe just a normal small, that once the fleet engages, the Falcon can provide some EWAR at a safe range. It is by no means a combat vessel and as such, should rely on aligning as a defense. My suggestion is to move the Falcon and its Force Recon brothers into this more niche role of forward scout. Here are my suggested changes for the Falcon.
Caldari Cruiser bonuses: 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength
Recon Ships bonuses: 20% bonus to Combat Scanner Probe strength 20% reduction in Cloaking Devices CPU requirement 10% reduction in scan time of Combat Scanner Probes.
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in Cynosural Field Generator liquid ozone consumption 50% reduction in Cynosural Field Generator duration GÇó Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device and Covert Cynosural Field Generator GÇó Cloak reactivation delay reduced to 5 seconds
With these changes would be -1 High, better base agility and time to warp. So the standard build would have 3 Highs of Cloak/Cyno/Expanded Scanner. Mids of a Prop Mod, ECM (Or other EWAR), small buff tank. And lows being DCU and other utility (or tank for Armor ships)
The Combat Recon is as different to this as the Covert Frigates are to each other. Where as the Buzzard and Falcon would be scouts, the Rook would be like the Manticore. The Rook is the evolution of the Blackbird, a fleet EWAR boat. Because it is supposed to be part of a fleet as Logi is, it has to be able to survive a fleet environment more that just warping at the first sign of aggression. The Combat Recon ship is a HAC that trades damage, and some tank, for utility. Now the HAC is a damage dealer, almost all of its ship bonuses go toward damage. The Eagle gets range and the Cerb gets more damage, then the Rook gets the Utility. That is the Combat Recon role, EWAR while in fleets, and some damage. Here are my suggested changes for the Rook.
Caldari Cruiser bonuses: 5% bonus to Light, Heavy Missile, and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost
Recon Ships bonuses: 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Missile, and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity
Role Bonus: Cannot be detected by directional scanners
+HAC Resist Profile
This would be the initial suggested change plus the addition of light missiles to the ROF bonus to encourage RLML on it. Now the Rook needs a means to survive outside of instantly warp out on yellow boxes so T2 resists are necessary if the Rook doesn't inherit the Blackbird's ECM range. These changes would be the less severe changes that would morph the Rook into a fighting vessel with utility instead of the gun and run vessel that the Falcon would be.
Another option would be completely change the Combat Recon's role to Purely a EWAR boat. And that could be done multiple ways but here is one I liked.
Caldari Cruiser bonuses: 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost 4% bonus to all shield resistances
Recon Ships Bonuses: 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer and Lockbreaker Bomb strength 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer Range and Lockbreaker Bomb flight time
Role Bonus: Cannot be detected by directional scanners GÇó Can fit Bomb Launcher
With this you could add a couple more EWAR bombs, like a bomb that slows in a radius for 5-10sec for Minmatar, one that either warp disrupts for 5-10 for the Gals or a 5-10 sec disruption, and then void bombs for Amarr. Where Stealth Bombers are for hit and run bombing runs, Combat Recons can utilize EWAR bombs in either a bombing run fashion or as part of a normal fleet. |
Varren Dar'khel
Starforged Ascendancy Order of the Exalted
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 07:17:30 -
[1824] - Quote
Lose the D-Scan and Keep T2 resists. The fact that we have to argue this hard for a design decision that a toddler could flaws in is pathetic.
The D-Scan change fundamentally breaks the available intel tools we use in WH space. And the resists we're the only good change you made, the ships need them. They are T2 ships give them T2 resists.
Also fix the Pilgrim and give it +1 High Slot. |
Jaysen Larrisen
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
29
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 07:22:09 -
[1825] - Quote
Excellent laydown of the issues that have been nagging me about this balance pass on Recons.
I do like the proposal for the Falcon in that it's innovative and carves out a clear niche role. I'm not sure it will be much more effective than an Astero or Straitos in the role you desire but I can follow the logic. At it's core, trading tank for cloak is pretty understandable.
As for the Rook, I am pretty keen on making it a viable small gang and fleet combat ship (i.e. have some staying power in the fight) but you lost me a bit on the lock breaker bomb and EWAR bomb pieces. I actually think the original proposal that CCP Rise put out on the Rook is a solid idea and wouldn't mind starting with other than the kinetic weapon bonus constraint.
For the Rook, I think that could even consider splitting the Recon skill bonus at Jam Strength and 10% to ECM range per level. I'm ok with the missile ROF bonus as long as it includes RLMLS. Any damage bonus really shouldn't be so dependent on a single damage type like this either. Last note but the most important...it needs the buffed resists. It will never run HAC eHP because you'll need those slots to do your EWAR job in a gang or a fleet which really means the most direct way to effect survivability is a bug to the resists.
BLUF: Force Recons...the cloaky Falcon Punch and scout is legit. The Combat Recon needs to be a viable combat ship first and then we can get unique capabilities on the table.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero
Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast
Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen
|
Wynta
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 07:35:37 -
[1826] - Quote
Jaysen Larrisen wrote:Excellent laydown of the issues that have been nagging me about this balance pass on Recons. I do like the proposal for the Falcon in that it's innovative and carves out a clear niche role. I'm not sure it will be much more effective than an Astero or Straitos in the role you desire but I can follow the logic. At it's core, trading tank for cloak is pretty understandable. As for the Rook, I am pretty keen on making it a viable small gang and fleet combat ship (i.e. have some staying power in the fight) but you lost me a bit on the lock breaker bomb and EWAR bomb pieces. I actually think the original proposal that CCP Rise put out on the Rook is a solid idea and wouldn't mind starting with other than the kinetic weapon bonus constraint. For the Rook, I think that could even consider splitting the Recon skill bonus at Jam Strength and 10% to ECM range per level. I'm ok with the missile ROF bonus as long as it includes RLMLS. Any damage bonus really shouldn't be so dependent on a single damage type like this either. Last note but the most important...it needs the buffed resists. It will never run HAC eHP because you'll need those slots to do your EWAR job in a gang or a fleet which really means the most direct way to effect survivability is a bug to the resists. BLUF: Force Recons...the cloaky Falcon Punch and scout is legit. The Combat Recon needs to be a viable combat ship first and then we can get unique capabilities on the table.
I agree with you I thought that the previous verison of the buff with the DScan immunity and T2 resists were somewhat powerful but not overpowered. I want the Combat Recon to be a combat vessel with EWAR that can survive fleet combat while staying, but should they not do that, just scrap it and make a complete redesign. It needs to work and be fleet viable or it needs to be remade from scratch. |
Mei Khlolov
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 07:44:26 -
[1827] - Quote
Tira Janau wrote:CCP "Mouthpiece" Rise is still here and active, good to know.
You take a perfectly reasonable change (giving combat recons t2 resists or slot changes and even maybe *gasp* the ability to do combat), and say naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
But the crappy, gimmicky and only abuse-able mechanic? Lets just keep that regardless of what the playerbase says, my god Rise. No dscan and cloaking is the cloaky recon's job, how freaking hard is that to accept? You don't need to slap a useless bow on the combat recon; you just have to make the product decent.
P.S. Love the rlml change to the rook, still peddling your crappy RLML base to the public.
A bitter response like this means he must be doing something right. |
Tira Janau
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 07:53:56 -
[1828] - Quote
Mei Khlolov wrote:
A bitter response like this means he must be doing something right.
If by "right" you mean fudging up? I guess so. |
Pinky Feldman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
750
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 08:04:11 -
[1829] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:Pinky Feldman wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:I personally think i can use the dscan immunity to get cheap gankg more often that with a cloak. Also, its not very common to arrive on a gate and the person inside not know you are there. With a hostile in system its not uncommon to spam scan.
What i am curious about, is why the change at all. There has been no clarification of its intended purpose. Please tell me its not just to keep a few staff members busy since they dont have any better changes to work towards. Yeah though if you're paying that much attention to d-scan you'll have no problem simply warping out as they land on grid. Whenever I ran plexes, half the time I didn't even bother spamming d-scan since you generally have plenty of time to alt tab to your client and click the warp button as soon as you catch the hostile landing in your plex. Even then, if you pre-align and activate the gate right as you hit the limit of your decloak, you can re-cloak almost immediately. If you're not dilligent enough to do this with Force Recons, then you're probably not going to be that effective setting traps with the new Combat Recons. These have more significant implications for wormhole PVP than anything else really. Some more speed would go a long way in opening up them to useful small gang roles like they used to have before the other Cruisers got massive speed buffs. You know u cant cloak anymore inside a plex within 30km of the beacon, secondly most people here complaining about FW space are no talking about farming, most people that farm are stab anyways we are talking about actual pvp inside plexes and outside
I do and I wasn't explicitly referring to killing farmers. Assuming the entire point of d-scan immunity is the element of suprise, it's implied that any target you would attempt to kill is going to want to run because what you're bringing can kill it with ease. My above post was responding to Crosi's claims that it's not very common to arrive on a gate and the person inside not knowing you're there with the point that anyone paying that much attention is going to be able to get away anyways.
Getting to the point of being unable to cloak within 30km of the beacon, it's actually better if you land inside the plex cloaked with a 5 second delay before you can lock compared to warping into the plex uncloaked with no lock delay. The element of suprise is much better when you appear out of nowhere on their overview compared to a moving object across their screen which they are more likely to reflexively respond to.
The moar you cry the less you pee
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
115
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 08:12:26 -
[1830] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote: Except the Pilgrim is in a terrible place right now. Its effectiveness has been stealth-nerfed into the ground:
Well, it wasn't so much stealth-nerfed, as it fell prey to the power creep. The thing is, pilgrim desperately needs the neut amount bonus, because 3 (or even 2) unbonused neuts just don't cut it if you want to hunt something bigger than a cruiser. But making it a cloaky curse is a wrong direction. It kinda strays into another ship territory, and if it will be balanced around long neuts, it's most likely going to lose it's U-Boat capabilities even more.
Ganthrithor wrote: As for the Curse, well, I can't recall the last time I saw one fielded. I'd be curious to see what its usage numbers are compared to the other recons, but I'd wager it's one of the least-flown T2 cruisers in the game. I've played with fits in EFT, but there's no way to make one useful for small gang work: they're too slow, too fat, and not tanky enough-- especially given how close they have to be to their targets.
I've seen some curses and they are pretty annoying in small roaming gangs. And the speed boost will probably help them. But i think one of the reasons they are seldom used is because they scare people away. If you bring a recon with your small gang, your potential targets start to get serious and bring their own heavy stuff
But yes, with the advent of neut geddons curse could probably use some range buff. |
|
|
|
|
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 |