Combat Recon Specialization


  • Reduce the DPS potential of combat recons.
  • Increase the tanking potential of combat recons.
  • Add EWAR range bonuses to combat recons if they don’t already have them.

The problem:
Right now, combat recons often don’t use one type of EWAR due to lack of range and/or lack of tanking options when they fit a useful amount of EWAR. Instead, combat recons are generalists that neglect one type of EWAR in favor of largely useless weapon bonuses (the Curse being a bit of an exception) and associated high slots. Ultimately, this means that certain types of EWAR are completely neglected except of for hyper specialized tasks (i.e. ships to jam entosis ships) or disposable ships that new players can bring if they can’t fly anything more useful.

Rework the bonuses and slot layouts to make combat recons tanky, long-range EWAR specialists. Here is a starting place for some discussion:

Slot layout: 3 highs, 9 mids, 3 lows
Trade missile max velocity bonus for 20% ECM range/falloff bonus (per skill level)

Slot layout: 3 highs, 7 mids, 5 lows
Trade projectile damage bonus for 10% target painter optimal range bonus (per skill level)

Slot layout: 3 highs, 6 mids, 6 lows
Trade hybrid range bonus for 10% damp range/falloff bonus (per skill level)

Slot layout: 4 highs, 4 mids, 7 lows
Add 15% bonus to weapon disruptor optimal range
Reduce drone bay to 75m3

Note: Somewhat related to this, the Celestis and Blackbird probably should lose their range bonuses and get better DPS capability in order to reduce overlaps with their longer-range T2 brethren, but I felt that going into detail about that was a bit too much for one thread.

No ship has more than 8 mids let alone a cruiser and the ECM ships aren’t supposed to be tankey they’re supposed to have paper thin tanks.


:do_not_litter: on the forums.
I should’ve stopped reading at “reduce the DPS potential”. My fault for indulging these kind of threads. No, no, no and hell no. -1 for the idea and another -1 for not being able to count.


Sure, why not. Because nothing says “■■■■ you” like a Rook tanky enough to permajam you and shrug off most of the damage you could deal. Not that you understand the reason why Combat Recons have a base targeting of 180km.


In a lot of ways, the Rook was the hardest one to figure because the tank is the same slots as your EWAR, and you need multiple ECM modules to be any good. With 9 mids, I figure you could run a good tank and get 3 ECM modules. There is probably a fair argument to be made for 3/8/4 instead, and potentially reduced PG in order to prevent some obnoxious active tanks.

I don’t agree with the whole idea of “ECM ships aren’t supposed to be tankey”. I can make a ship tolerably tankey with damps, TDs, neuts, target painters, scrams, webs and points. Why should the only Caldari EWAR hold the special position of being the one type of EWAR that you can’t fit a tank and still be effective?

Nope, sure don’t, unless it’s for damp resistance, and, in my experience, unless you’re flying a Huginn with a web or paint, or a Lach with a point, you’re so low on the EWAR priority list that you’ll never get damped.

Have you actually been jammed? Because you talk like you havent. It isnt like sensor damping where you can just get closer to shoot. It is literally eve’s way of saying “■■■■ you.”


Why? Do weapon bonuses help those ships in any meaningful way? Rooks arguably have the best weapons out of any of the recons, but are also the least used of all the combat recons, being used only 1/3rd as often as their next competitor (the Curse) and only 1/6th as much as a Huginn (stats from zKillboard). Clearly, people don’t bring combat recons for their DPS, so we might as well buff the reasons may consider using them, especially if they’re not getting significant gameplay.

Did I miscount something? If so, please let me know what and I’ll make the correction.

I’ve said this in an other thread, but I feel like it’s relevant here

The kitsune thou… The problem it has is a systematic problem that all Caldari ewar ships have, that jams and shield tank both fit in mid slot.

Most fleet fits that I see are armor buffer with ewar rigs to compensate for lack of the signal distortion amps in the low. What I would suggest to counter this isfor all Caldari ewar ships add the following. (Feel free to flame me for this)

  1. T2 Role bonus. 200% bonus to shield extenders
    50% reduction to signature penalties due to shield modules.
  2. T1 Role bound. 125% bonus to shield extenders
    25% reduction to signature penalties due to shield extenders.
    I also would add +1 mid to the kitsune and recon ships.
1 Like

No player ships have more than 8 possible slots available.


Yes, of course I’ve been jammed. The most recent time I remember, I easily chased off that Falcon with a set of unbonused Hammerhead IIs because he had no tank. If he decided to make such an extreme tradeoff, fair enough IMO.

Also, I don’t think you fully appreciate the power of damps. If I fit a Lachesis with 4 damps, damp rigs and perfect command ship info bursts (which will still be tankier than an ECM ship), I can bring the targetting range of an Orthrus down to 3km, which might as well be 0. With a similarly fit Curse, I can bring the missile range down to 4km. Unlike jams, these have no chance to miss but they still don’t make these ships OP. I suspect that’s because shutting down a single ship by using all the resources of a single ship is not all that useful, and sacrificing all your tank to do it is definitely not worth it.

That’s not miscounting, it’s a suggestion. I strongly doubt it will break the code to do that, though I could see a good argument for 3/8/4 as well.

That’s a fair way to address it. I also think that moving jams, or maybe even all EWAR to high slots would address it nicely (though that would completely invalidate this entire post).

That’s a major overhaul and would still be a nerf to all but caldari ships unless you reworked their stats, but caldari ships will still suffer due to low drone bay



All the ships in EVE have 8 high/mid/low slots max. Adding a 9th slot would break EVE and potentially the whole Internet!



You say do what to recons?GTFO

1 Like

Recons are good where they are, for the most part.

Rooks are underused, but they’re more of a small-gang boat as a result of their type of ewar. They’re hella-scary, at least on paper, as solo/smallgang.

The Curse is probably in the worst place because if you’re gonna bring neuts you’ll wanna bring a 'gorn or a domi.

Lachesis and Huginn are both insanely useful boats in med/large gang stuff… though as you get larger, EAS tend to fill the role better as they cost less and your recon is pretty much a guaranteed primary.

1 Like

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

I think Rooks see such little use because for those small gang type of fights, the Rook is outclassed by the Falcon and the Blackbird. Both can do the ECM job safely. The Falcon by entering the fight at the time and place of its choosing and the Blackbird by outranging DPS. The Rook can’t do either. My suggestion would push it more toward a Blackbird style in small gangs, with the ability to tank for larger fights and still be able to carry a couple ECM modules (though in retrospect, 9 mids may be a bit much).

Personally, I see quite a Curses used for small gangs quite a bit for a kiting role. They aren’t truly fast, but they’re fast enough. They can nuet out anything they can’t outrun and vice versa. However, I basically never see them used for their TDs, and never see them used in larger fleets. They don’t have tanking options that make them worthwhile. The 7 lows would give them those options, with the Amarr armor flavor of strictly armor, rather than the rather bizarre shield Curses you see now due to slot layout. I felt I needed to reduce their dronebay so they can be defanged or they would be oppressive small gang boats.

I can’t disagree with you there. I’ve definitely heeded FC calls for more Huginns, and also know first-hand what it’s like to be volleyed off the field because of that. My suggestion is a modest improvement to a Huginn’s tanking ability. It would give the Huginn one more mid to fit tank to make it slightly less vulnerable to volleying, and an extra low would give it a relatively weak, but somewhat viable armor option, which is in line with the Minmatar flavor of things. The TP range bonus probably won’t be all that significant in the meta, but it will at least make it so that the Hyena is not a strictly superior option.

The way I’ve seen the Lachesis used for the most part is as a shield ship with a long point for large fleet fights or a long point and scram for smaller gang stuff. This change wouldn’t impact that much, only giving it some more resources, or slightly greater tank options with 2 more lows. The bigger change would be the damps which would now have the range to be worth taking, with a tolerable, but not great, tank in the Gallente flavor: armor, but not quite as focused on that as Amarr.

My biggest problem with the recon ships in general is their name. All of them seem to be e-war based tacklers, one per faction is invisible on d-scan, the other is invisible in general. None of them have any bonuses or abilities that would make them better at being actual recons. In fact, they seem to me a weird mix of faction e-war cruisers, and faction explorer cruisers (that we don’t have).

I would separate the e-war and explorer functions:
T2 e-war cruisers would follow a similar template that the frigates have, one being a short range brawler, able to operate alone, while the other is a long range fleet support ship.
T2 explorers (probably an upgrade on a new, T1 explorer cruiser) both would get 10% probe strength bonus per level, the d-scan immune recons would also get d-scan range in addition, to the point where they can monitor an average sized system alone, while cloaky recons would get analyzer strength to make them the explorer cruiser we can’t have in the current setup, because that would collide with the force recons.

This is probably just me though.

Throw a couple of ASBs or LSEs on it, one or two multispec jammers at the most. You don’t fit it like a blackbird or a falcon… you fit it for tank and spank, and use the ECM to make up the difference. They can do 500 DPS with HAMs, and have a reasonable buffer if they’re fit for buffer (60-70k). They won’t “jam all the things” and their jams will miss from time to time… but they don’t get pushed off grid by a single cepter burning toward them (assuming the falcon has all jammers active on priority targets).

I’d honestly like to see ALL ECM boats like that. And I have a feeling that all parties would enjoy it more too… the user doesn’t depend on RNJesus to decide whether they live or die, and the recipient doesn’t feel like they’re permajammed.

The Pilgrim, for example, can fit 100k EHP armor buffer. Imagine a Falcon with that kind of tank. It won’t land its jams as often, but it will definitely be able to stay on-grid and catch reps.

I’ve often wished that blackops (battleships, recons, and assorted frigates as a whole) was better at being blackops. Right now they’re just used for ganking. Being able to hold their own against a rapid response fleet would be pretty fun.

They’re of course intended to be hit-and-run, but ganking is a cheap thrill. Being able to offer a sustained disruption to a renter system, for example, would be excellent.

I’ve only ever seen them on paper to be honest. I never run small gang, so I’ll take your word on that. I agree entirely that their weapon disruption basically never gets used. Perhaps it would work in solo pvp, but how often does that really happen in a non-nano cruiser?

Probably my single favourite fit for a curse was a heavy-neut variant I put together in pyfa. I’d never fly it because it was blingy and had a paper thin tank, but god damn that thing could alpha a cruiser’s cap from something like 70km away. It was insane… on paper.