There is
edit: the covert defensive sub gives + probe strength
There we go. Iâm blind. lol. No idea how I missed that 
Maybe because it is not very intuitive to have Probe Strength and Relic/Data Boni on a Sub called âDefensiveâ
Yeh, but now that thereâs not an electronics sub it does atleast make sense to have it with the cloak.
1 Like
They could have put it on the Core subsystems which gives a bonus to sensor strenght, but yeah not a major issue.
- not because that would make much more sense, but the whole Core subsystem boni system is a bit weird
Hi, Iâm a AC/Rocket Dual-Tank Loki. Eat me.
- Also, Iâm dual prop tbf
Why would they ever do this?
First off, art by committee is a terrible way to do things with the only probable result being everyone is unhappy. Second this is a Science Fiction game where ships routinely violate the laws of physics as we understand them for giggles and ISKies.
1 Like
If so, why do we suddenly have to manually mine moons. Looks like Fiction with decrease of Science.
Because some players actually have a self-esteem. I take my time to admire the magnifsense of the ships I like to fly whenever I can, aesthetics matter despite not in battle.
I just was testing the new T3s on Sisi and the overheat bonuses on the Proteus are not working correct. It says:
(per skill level)
5% bonus to the benefits of overheating armor hardeners
15% bonus to the benefits of overheating Warp Scrambler Warp Disruptor modules
But only 1 level is applied to the modules. Showing info on the fitted moduls has the 5 % increased bonus even when i trained the sub system skills to V
Or is this intended and it should be a Roll Bonus?
Something new Iâve noticed testing the Legion out on Sisi. When repairing modules with nanite paste it tells you how much itâs gonna use. Never seen that before!
Awesome <3
2 Likes
thats a nice feature
Because this is a game. Itâs the same reason you actually have to manually aim in a tank game, or homing missiles arenât just an instant kill mitigated by RNG in a flight sim. The point of the game is to play, not for the game to play itself.
Aesthetics are entirely subjective. There are ships I love and ships I donât like the look of so much, but Iâm not so selfish as to think that every ship should be a design that I love.
Remember, the whole reason these things got called out before in the first place was because some people like the old look more than the new one. Since CCP canât please everyone theyâre going with the old look for the various subsystems and their functions rather than changing it arbitrarily.
That is very true, but I stiill believe my suggestions would help T3Cs to retain their appeal as fleshed out ânext genâ ships.
Although I also believe the absolute best option would be to allow players to customize the appearance of the subsystems with the existing model pool being the limit.
To help avoid confusion for combat situations, this customization could either be 1) purely client-side so everybody on the outside can still identify whatâs being used, or 2) a seperate submenu could be introudced that would directly tell the loadout despite the existing customization.
This is where you are completely wrong. It is a simulator with aspects of a game, well several games. Plus - obviously - a social experiment.
Will people, given a virtual world with spaceships and such, do the most rational thing to acquire ressources together as a team, share ressources to then have fights in said spacehips - OR - will they try to economically and morally annihilate each other? While there might be a number of people willing to go way 1 it seems there are already enough people going way 2 to make this game-like way not feasable. Thus: it is not a game.
2nd: you insinuate that moon mining now would be any more passive than moon mining after Winter, which is you assuming completely wrong that people will not afk mine.
Thatâs a lot of work on CCPâs part to allow something thatâs not needed, and almost entirely removes the game knowledge component of being able to identify a T3âs setup by its visual appearance. Not a fan of that sort of mechanic, even less a fan of CCP spending a lot of dev time on enabling something like that.
Art is never going to make everyone happy. In my opinion youâll enjoy this and every other game much more if you just learn to accept that youâre not going to love every art decision in every game you play.
Bonus points if you can accept that the sort of customization you want is A. a ton of work and B. not really a practical solution the vast majority of the time.
Iâm not. Itâs a game, it has game elements, CCP calls it a game. A Simulation is something that is attempting to recreate a real life situation in some way. Eve is not simulating anything, itâs a game.
Your concept of what a game is seems to be rather flawed. How people play isnât what defines something as a game. To borrow a definition from one of my professors in Game Design: âA game is a system of meaningful choices and their outcomes.â Simulations can also be games, but Eve is not a simulation, itâs certainly not any kind of experiment.
Clearly you donât have any experience with current moon mining mechanics. AFK mining once a week is still way more interaction than is required by current moon mining. The vast majority of people I know interact with their moon setups less than once a week, and even then itâs less interaction than that required to swap asteroids and then go AFK again.
Except it is Not a âbig load of workâ, client would create 2 seperate flags for the ship it sends to the server. The first one being the displayed model which wouldnât increase server load since that would be default appearance already.
The second flag would be for server to acknowledge that a particular model combination is used on this specific client, which would impact only the local, that being you, your client. Thatâs the whole point of client side model swap, only you would see it and it would affect nobody whatsoever.
Fozzie said earlier here that the picture does not apply anymore.
Though to be fair it never actually did.
Which requires programming the server to have this data, the client to understand and interpret it correctly, as well as the system to allow you to see what subsystems are on a ship and the associated UI work. Plus the system to let you change the appearance only in the first place. Plus the work to effectively dissociate subsystems from the appearance of the ship.
Then take whatever your estimate for all that work is and multiply by 2 because Legacy Code and because coding something inevitably takes longer than you think it will. More so when you have no idea about the ecosystem itâs being coded into.
For something thatâs completely and purely aesthetic, has no ROI like SKINs do, and only applies to a single class of ship itâs not worth the time required compared to any of the dozen or so things the devs could pull out of the Little Things thread and implement instead of this.