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) |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
832
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:57:37 -
[1861] - Quote
Thinking about this, I realized that it may be a good idea to just give us "normal" T2 EWar cruiser in position of combat recon. Resists, 2 racial EWar forms - and that's it, no need for both recons to try to be sneaky... and even more sneaky.
I'm not against d-scan immunity or whatever mech like that, I just think that having something simple will go a long way, all the while we can test new ideas on new ships. For example, how about d-scan immunity on, say, Caldari and Minmatar T3 destroyers in one of their configurations? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2684
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:27:06 -
[1862] - Quote
Man all these people crying about the resists, if they stayed, why would you ever fly hacs? Damage? In fleets damage output rarely matters, but the ewar utility would have dumpstered the hacs
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1301
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:29:06 -
[1863] - Quote
Orange Faeces wrote:I've read the last ten pages or so and It is troubling that so many people don't understand the value of the d-scan immunity change. Rise hasn't explained the reasoning for why this is a necessary change but I think I know what they are after and I support it. Its not a gimmick, and its not "broken". It will mean some significant changes in low- and null-sec which will, for once, force you to learn some new techniques.
If you have the discipline to change and adapt, making combat recons immune to d-scan will help you, too. Try to think of ways that this change will help you instead of just complaining.
O. Faeces
I know exactly what values they have and how they will be used. That is why i think they are ****. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
990
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:31:31 -
[1864] - Quote
The more I think about it, the more I am opposed to the D-Scan immunity for Combat Recons. Not because I think it's a bad idea, overpowered, "gimmicky", etc., but because it does nothing to meet CCP's stated goals of improving their viability in fleets. It's a pure scouting/solo/recon gang bonus, it doesn't add anything to Combat Recons in terms of fleet viability when T3s are available that will do the job better, in a far more survivable platform.
CCP, drop the D-Scan immunity bonus for Combat Recons and give them full T2 HAC resists instead. That will better meet your stated goals without overpowering Combat Recons in small gang situations. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I'd be fine with Combat Recons keeping the D-Scan Immunity bonus and getting the full T2 HAC resist profile. It just seems that CCP isn't okay with them keeping both, so if CCP has to choose, I'd rather have the one that will better meet their stated goals.
If you're looking for an appropriate platform to grant D-Scan immunity, consider Electronic Attack Frigates. They are sufficiently high-tech to warrant the bonus, it would give them additional an additional role as non-cloaky gang scout, and it would put your shiny new bonus into play.
CCP, please consider this. (In addition to compensating for the Lachesis having only 4 hardpoints and no damage bonus.)
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Ehud Gera
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:43:20 -
[1865] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Thinking about this, I realized that it may be a good idea to just give us "normal" T2 EWar cruiser in position of combat recon. Resists, 2 racial EWar forms - and that's it, no need for both recons to try to be sneaky... and even more sneaky.
I'm not against d-scan immunity or whatever mech like that, I just think that having something simple will go a long way, all the while we can test new ideas on new ships. For example, how about d-scan immunity on, say, Caldari and Minmatar T3 destroyers in one of their configurations?
There's a cool thought^ do something new with new ships, then DSCAN immunity can have a downside, like massively reduced tank until you get it switched to combat mode or whatever.
Stick with your real goal with recon. Call it an Electronic attack Cruiser, give it fleet ready resists and do some gimmickry with the new t3's (where you can apply downsides to the upside of immunity and not make it a gimmick but a tactical decision point) |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5943
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:53:00 -
[1866] - Quote
Actually the saddest thing about a D-scan immune ship is that the best defense against it will turn out to be the reliable, free, and instant intel of Local.
Meaning that Local will never go away or stop being the instant free intel tool that it already is.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
252
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 20:15:00 -
[1867] - Quote
Wow CCP Rise that was some bad back-pedalling. 5 less sig radius will have no change result in fleet combat for recons. Scrap the d-scan immunity, give the full t2 hac resist bonus.
I was looking forward to this balance pass. Was. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
889
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 20:28:12 -
[1868] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Quote:FALCON
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
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost
Quote:10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer activation cost this is a frigate bonus, not a recon ship bonus... you want to nerf ecm into the ground?
I don't think the current ship balance team knows how to deviate from having a fixed set of bonuses span a manufacturer's entire range of ships. It's the same stuff I complained about when they first started their rebalancing spree... they're turning EVE into a game where each race has like four basic ships, each duplicated in various sizes. So boring and so ineffective.
Individual hulls need to be designed and balanced on an individual basis so they can shine. That said, I also think ECM needs a complete re-work anyway, so there's also that... |
Orange Faeces
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 20:39:50 -
[1869] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote: I know exactly what values they have and how they will be used. That is why i think they are ****.
You know the bonus will be used for solo/small-gang and non-consensual surprises, as well as camping plexes? I'll assume your problem is with the camping plexes part (because no real EVE player opposes solo/small-gang warfare). Why should you get to farm with almost no risk of getting killed in the face... repeatedly... in game?
O. Faeces |
W Sherman Elric
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 20:48:53 -
[1870] - Quote
FC you want a EWAR recon or a webby loki? Bring the loki the recon will just die to fast. That was the old answer. The short term answer was "cool bring your EWAR we can actually field them without them going insta pop" The new answer? "Bring the loki the recon will just die to fast"
Nice job you morons, you fixed a ship and then you killed it. |
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
253
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 20:51:40 -
[1871] - Quote
Eve Proteus: Better to just fly Protus. |
Wynta
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 20:55:29 -
[1872] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Man all these people crying about the resists, if they stayed, why would you ever fly hacs? Damage? In fleets damage output rarely matters, but the ewar utility would have dumpstered the hacs
Range, HACs have double a recons range in most instances. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
245
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 21:05:45 -
[1873] - Quote
Varren Dar'khel wrote: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.
There's no change to dscan. 4 ships will be immune, but they arent changing dscan.
To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Ex Astris Opes
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 21:13:43 -
[1874] - Quote
will these changes be put onto the test server? I'd like to test a few fits out and see if they're viable. |
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 22:03:38 -
[1875] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:[
To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole.
No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it.
Dscan at least gave you a chance. If you missed somebody on Dscan and you got ganked it was your fault, now you never had a chance, unless of course you sub a new character.
The game mechanics should at least be viable for a single character to play and participate above just being there to get ganked. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10942
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 22:39:22 -
[1876] - Quote
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote: No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it.
Nor should it be the sole point of balancing, either. Fun and innovative mechanics should not be held back merely because some people object to non-solo activities.
Quote: The game mechanics should at least be viable for a single character to play and participate above just being there to get ganked.
Why? Last time I checked, this was a multiplayer game. Choosing to handicap yourself should not merit additional consideration when it comes to game balance.
Quote: In contrast to that, the attacker/hunter must also use the tools at his disposal to find and attack the victim. But he must use these tools in a way that does not give him away and does not get him killed by other hunters doing the same.
Absolutely none of which aren't 100% mitigated by correct use of d-scan.
That's the point of this. To make it so there are more dimensions to this besides "Are they using d-scan or not?" Right now it's really binary, and that is a bad thing.
Quote: So, the only people in favour of this mechanic are those that are already doing the ganking. So we are clear, I think ganking is for those that still miss their mouth when they try to eat, but regardless of my thoughts on it everybody should be able to participate, even the special kids. I just think they heave it easy enough as it is.[ /b]
Yeah, somehow I have my doubts as to your impartiality here. Just sayin'.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:01:30 -
[1877] - Quote
Quote:Quote:To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole. Quote:No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it. Quote:Nor should it be the sole point of balancing, either. Fun and innovative mechanics should not be held back merely because some people object to non-solo activities.
Ahhh, say what now? Choosing to fund one account is neither objecting to solo activities nor restricting yourself to them. My point was a response to the counter about tools used in wormhole space. For many many reasons you can find yourself solo in a WH doing various activites, if you can afford to have a tag along character that just sits on or in a WH then good for you but your argument goes both ways, Fun and innovative mechanics should not be enforced merely because some people object to solo activities.
|
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:02:15 -
[1878] - Quote
Quote:Quote:The game mechanics should at least be viable for a single character to play and participate above just being there to get ganked. Quote:Why? Last time I checked, this was a multiplayer game. Choosing to handicap yourself should not merit additional consideration when it comes to game balance.
Where is this choice coming from? it isn't for you to say who can and can't afford to pay for multiple accounts Its also not for you to debate the validity of others choices about how they spend their real life money.
Yes this is a multi player game, that means at least one attacker and one defender, or two parties. You and me. you don't have to roam in big fleets just to participate in the multiplayer facets of Eve.
Your argument here is about balance? Dscan immunity does not bring balance.
Quote:In contrast to that, the attacker/hunter must also use the tools at his disposal to find and attack the victim. But he must use these tools in a way that does not give him away and does not get him killed by other hunters doing the same.
Quote:Absolutely none of which aren't 100% mitigated by correct use of d-scan.
That's the point of this. To make it so there are more dimensions to this besides "Are they using d-scan or not?" Right now it's really binary, and that is a bad thing.
I am finding it hard to understand your sentence structure, are you saying it is 100% mitigated by Dscan? If so then shouldn't Dscan itself be looked at? Shouldn't we be looking at different ways for everybody to survive or get killed?
The game is quite old, it is bound to seem binary as we repeat the process so many times. I don't think anybody is suggesting EVE should not evolve but we are suggesting that this change will bring a huge gain by one group of players which have no need for the gain.
|
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:03:40 -
[1879] - Quote
Quote:Yeah, somehow I have my doubts as to your impartiality here. Just sayin'.
That statement has nothing to do with being impartial. I am however impartial to changes being made.
Quote:Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
The funny thing is I think we all agree that recons need to be updated, I just see gankers so blinded with joy at the change that they can't see or refuse to look at the picture as a whole. Yes Dscan immunity could be cool, but it's not the buff recons need, its just a rushed change under the guise of recon balancing.
Also if you are so partial to team activities or just roaming with your 5 alts, then keep dscan immunity and remove combat recons damage dealing potential. So then at least you have an ewar tackle boat that has some tank while you get your other five characters into the WH. Seems like a pretty fair trade of to me.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10943
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:56:23 -
[1880] - Quote
You screwed up those quotes right royal.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:07:57 -
[1881] - Quote
Yeah sorry about that, to many wines to figure out what i'm doing. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10943
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:09:40 -
[1882] - Quote
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote: That statement has nothing to do with being impartial. I am however impartial to changes being made.
No you are not. You have explicitly said that you are against d-scan immunity because it impacts positively on something you don't like.
That's about as far from impartial as it's possible to be.
Quote: The funny thing is I think we all agree that recons need to be updated, I just see gankers so blinded with joy at the change that they can't see or refuse to look at the picture as a whole. Yes Dscan immunity could be cool, but it's not the buff recons need, its just a rushed change under the guise of recon balancing.
Every little bit helps, since they're damned determined to not give them workable hitpoint levels. You seem to be under the assumption that the hitpoint boost would have happened without the d-scan immunity, and you're mistaken.
Quote:Also if you are so partial to team activities or just roaming with your 5 alts, then keep dscan immunity and remove combat recons damage dealing potential. So then at least you have an ewar tackle boat that has some tank while you get your other five characters into the WH. Seems like a pretty fair trade of to me.
Quit bolding for emphasis on entire paragraphs, it's obnoxious.
And no, I'll take the d-scan immunity with a viable dps platform, thanks. Nevermind that I don't run five alts, it's two at most.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
52
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:20:48 -
[1883] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Man all these people crying about the resists, if they stayed, why would you ever fly hacs? Damage? In fleets damage output rarely matters, but the ewar utility would have dumpstered the hacs
Just can't imagine Shadoo shouting Armor Recons, Armor Recons, ARRRRMMMMOOOOR RECONS.
Fleet DPS - totally overrated. |
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:47:16 -
[1884] - Quote
Quote:No you are not. You have explicitly said that you are against d-scan immunity because it impacts positively on something you don't like.
That's about as far from impartial as it's possible to be.
yes I am. I am against Dscan immunity but I have looked at it objectively and it does weigh strongly in favor of one group which doesn't need such a strong buff causing imbalance. Being impartial also means against imbalance. The Dscan thing doesn't weigh strongly enough in favor of any other activity in EVE for it to be justifiably considered as good for the everybody.
Also, I never said I don't like gankers, I actually said it doesn't require much intelligence to do but it is a part of eve, a necessary part of eve too. I would also be against miners not being on Dscan fro example , as that would stack the odds in the other groups favor.
Quote:Every little bit helps, since they're damned determined to not give them workable hitpoint levels. You seem to be under the assumption that the hitpoint boost would have happened without the d-scan immunity, and you're mistaken.
Every little bit does help. The key word there would be little. Can you point me in the direction to where I made this assumption?
Quote:Quit bolding for emphasis on entire paragraphs, it's obnoxious. And telling me what to do isn't? You are just arguing for the sake of it. try to stay on topic fella.
Quote:And no, I'll take the d-scan immunity with a viable dps platform, thanks.
Of course you will. Ill send you a bib for xmas. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10943
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:54:36 -
[1885] - Quote
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:Being impartial also means against imbalance.
And d-scan is unbalanced. It's getting a counter now.
Quote: Also, I never said I don't like gankers
Let's not be obtuse.
Quote: Every little bit does help. The key word there would be little. Can you point me in the direction to where I made this assumption?
The part where you called it the wrong buff for recons. You seem to think that if this goes away that they will get the hitpoint buff. And that is not the case.
And since it's not the case, I am going to try and live with what we get.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Orange Faeces
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:57:26 -
[1886] - Quote
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:...
The funny thing is I think we all agree that recons need to be updated, I just see gankers so blinded with joy at the change that they can't see or refuse to look at the picture as a whole. Yes Dscan immunity could be cool, but it's not the buff recons need, its just a rushed change under the guise of recon balancing.
...
If people who enjoy the odd gank seem happy about a change like this, it may be because they've watched their hunting opportunities being slowly deteriorated since 2006. Since the faster update schedule has been in effect, these changes have been coming so quickly that we don't have time to reason about it with CCP. The last CSM minutes, for example, contained a nauseating exchange between the CSM and Fozzie that signified the end for several long-standing lifestyles in the game, while giving nothing back to the affected players. Perhaps the d-scan/recon change is their way of address that? Its hard to say.
The ironic thing about this d-scan/combat recon change is that there are several good counters to this change in most contexts that will probably net your kind more kills than it will net for griefers, you just need to think about it a bit more and adapt.
O. Faeces |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
245
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 02:24:39 -
[1887] - Quote
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:[
To say it breaks the tools used in wspace is ridiculous. Combat probes and scouts are used in wspace. Thats 2 tools that arent affected. When I say scouts, I mean a cloaked ship watching the hole.
No it isn't, not everybody has multiple accounts and multiple alts and nor should they be forced into it. .[/b]
Apparently you misunderstood me. I never said anything about multiple accounts and alts. I am talking about friends. I understand that most of you are anti-social nerds, probably living with your mother's, but this is an MMO. There are thousands of other players in this game. Go find some friends, form up a fleet, and work together.
Dont be scared to make new friends and fly with them.
|
Feodor Romanov
Caldari Special Forces OLD MAN GANG
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 02:34:44 -
[1888] - Quote
I like DC immunity and I am sure that it will change nothng in FW plexes. Most of things that pilots will do in Combat Recons anyone can do nowdays in Force Recons. And Force ones can cross the jump gates easily. The main thing I expected from Combat Recons is HAC resists and EHP boosts for fleet fights. There will be no HAC resists, I think that is mistake. Tha main problem of Combat Recons is DPS and optimal range. I am afraid Lachesis will become The Shield Solo PVP kiting monster with 70 km optimal range, 300 DPS, 2-3 Damps and 2000+ m/s speed (without links and imps). If that power will not be enough, Lach can make the duo with Arty Huginn: 70km optimal, 300 DPS, 2 webs, 2000 m/s speed. That is very bad! I want to see this pair united in trio with The Holy shield kiting 70km optimal range Curse! Nerf the Hull, boost the shields, change 1 high to med slots and bonus to neuts range from 40% to 60% as Huginn has on webs. Only mad fit missiles on Curse, so Curse do not need them anyway. Also will be awesome, if heated neuts will buff the range but not the amount.
Merry Christmas! Holy Curse! |
h3llra1z3r3 Arkaral
EVEL Tendancies
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 02:48:16 -
[1889] - Quote
Quote:The part where you called it the wrong buff for recons. You seem to think that if this goes away that they will get the hitpoint buff. And that is not the case.
You make an assumption that I made an assumption and call me obtuse?
Quote:Apparently you misunderstood me. I never said anything about multiple accounts and alts. I am talking about friends. I understand that most of you are anti-social nerds, probably living with your mother's, but this is an MMO. There are thousands of other players in this game. Go find some friends, form up a fleet, and work together.
Dont be scared to make new friends and fly with them.
I understood you, for a worm hole corp that's true. Although if I want to run c3 sites solo ( not in a wh corp ) I now have to ask a corp mate to come along and scan probe and a few others to sit on the holes? Are they doing this for free or are we splitting the profits?
What if I am in a wormhole corp and my play time sits a few hours outside of the main group of players? I think in that case I should actually just ask in local if there is anybody about and see if they will help me scout , that's how you make friends?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10944
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 03:00:50 -
[1890] - Quote
I would ask you why you're in a wormhole as a casual, solo player without anyone to help you.
It's one of EVE's most effort intensive activities.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |