I left a similar comment on the other forum too, but I’ll repeat it here: recon ships are weird.
They have no abilities to do any actual recon work, they are only able to evade recons by being invisible on d-scan or in general. If anything, they should be called anti-recon ships.
Also, there are 7 “e-war” methods in the game (including propulsion jamming which is more engineering than e-war, and capacitor warfare which is clearly engineering), which are supposed to be distributed equally between the 4 factions. If we would have 8, we could distribute them both by factions and between the T2 and T3 ships without having them to overlap.
My resistance purger idea finally seem to have a place.
Here is what I would do:
turn the current recon ships into clear e-war platforms, one with decent tank, the other with weapons but no cloak or d-scan immunity, and give them a different name
introduce 4 new T1 explorer cruisers (1 for each faction), similar to the frigates just bigger tank and cargo hold
the T2 versions of these new cruisers should be the “recon ships”
both ships get 10% bonus to probes per level, one gets the cloak and analyzers, the other is immune to d-scan, and gets 5 AU extra d-scan range per skill level
We also plan to start dealing with an overabundance of ancient relics that have caused WH exploration to drop in value in recent years and has also contributed to the price drop of T3 cruisers. At this time we are reducing the number of runs achieved from invention operations on ancient relics (both hull and subsystem). The new values will be:
15 runs for Intact
7 runs for Malfunctioning
2 runs for Wrecked
@CCP_Fozzie i just wanna be sure, this applies to all ancient relics right? as in t3 cruiser and destroyer relics?
So, you want free injectors with all purchases of a T3C hull ?
Also, it’s more like 500 mil/loss, as one injector gives enough for one skill and then some.
I can see your “new recon ship” idea working, but IMO there’s no problem to begin with. Force recons have a cloak, clear EWAR bonuses and cyno bonuses, combat recons have a lil’ bit of tank and DPS on top of their EWAR bonuses, but do not have the strategic advantage of a force recon. I see it as heavy support for small and medium gangs.
I agree on the fact that a covops is as good as a force recon at actual recon work though. A bonus to combat probing would not be a bad idea imo. It would introduce some sort of choice between slow but brick-tanked cyno T3Cs or quick but risky FRecons.
Congratulations to certain nullsec alliances for successfully shifting the meta further into the 200+ man T3C blob. A huge buff to logi is exactly what we need to get the game fresh again.
Regarding the visuals on the T3s, mainly the Tengu (Yeah, I’m a mildy biased scrub).
TQ sub models that should stay:
Electronic:
CPU Efficiency Gate
Dissolution Sequencer
Emergent Locus Analyser
Ditch the other one, it doesn’t fit the aesthetic of the Caldari ships in my opinion.
Defensive:
Personally they all fit the aesthetic I’m thinking of.
Engineering:
Power Core
Augmented Cap
Cap Regen
Ditch Supplemental Cooling sub.
Offensive:
Accel Ejection Bay (Keep this the same on SISI as on TQ)
Magnetic Infusion Basin (Keep this the same on SISI as on TQ)
Covert Reconfig (Keep this the same on SISI as on TQ)
Ditch the Rifling sub model.
Propulsion:
Intercalated Nano
Fuel Catalyst
Interdiction
Ditch the Grav Cap model.
As for how they should match up with the new subs come patch day:
Keep offensive subs the same. Meaning swap Accel ejection with Covert, as on Sisi they’re the wrong way round compared to their TQ counterparts and it’s just weird. The current TQ covert sub looks more “stealthy and cloaky” than the Accel bay, so no need for a change there in my humble opinion.
With regards to core subs: Swap Obfuscation Manifold subsystem model that is current on SISI to the Electronic Efficiency Sub – it fits way better. And ditch the model you have on that sub currently in favour of the TQ Emergent Locus Analyser model which should go on the Obfuscation sub slot.
With regards to defensive subs: Maybe drop the Supplemental Cooling model which used to be an Engineering model in favour of ANY others. It just looks weird and unsightly.
With regards to prop subs: Swap Fuel Catalyst with Interdiction Nulli. It makes more sense.
Please make the Legion’s Dissolution Sequencer look like the Tactical Targeting Network instead. My Legion used to look awesome, now it looks like a sad anteater…
@FreshMadFruits I feel like the old covert should stay covert and the accel bay should stay accel bay. Not sure if that’s what you’re saying/if I was clear before.
yeah but thats the thing they moved too much of the subsystems around with covert being defensive now and so so, since cov is offensive and will be defensive some of them will overlap meaning the looks overlap. Like cov ops and accelerated bay.
So you cant have accelerated bay and cov ops unless u want to sets of wings on your new tengu.
@CCP_Fozzie Tengu hunters used to refit out of nullification for warp speed/increased agility once past the initial bubble camps. This was an interesting trade off and was still valid before the nullification/warp speed move.
Hunters are now effectively forced to run rubbish agility for nullification. Why can you not add a weakened warp speed bonus to nullification and retain the larger bonus on the chassis optimisation. Alternatively add a second low slot to the Tengus nullification sub and remove its warp speed increase entirely, allowing for increased agility or warp speed fitting as required.
As a side note the Proteus CPU in drone fit is awful and needs adjusting.
The reason T3Cs should cost more is because they’re versatile hulls. You’re paying a premium because you can swap roles – there’s no need to buy several separate hulls, you just need one and multiple subsystems.
It’s like a regular screwdriver versus a screwdriver that can fit different bits. The latter is going to cost more because it has the functionality of multiple screwdrivers, but it’s also going to be cheaper than buying multiple screwdrivers.
That is how you balance by cost. You don’t use cost as a justification for something being too powerful – you use cost logically, consistently.
Here’s how I see it:
T1 ships are regular screwdrivers. T3 ships are screwdrivers that can fit multiple bits. T2 ships are ratcheting screwdrivers for specific screws.
So if you just want a regular screwdriver (general), you go T1. When you have a specific screw in mind (specialized), you go with T2. If you have multiple screws in mind (versatile), you go T3. However, T3 isn’t always the best choice – while it can work on multiple screws, T2 is better and quicker because it’s ratcheting.
… but what I’m seeing is that T3 should be better than T2 anyway, purely because T3 costs more – that should not be how it works. Again, the increased cost for T3 should purely be because it’s a versatile ship – you’re not paying for a better ship, you’re paying for multiple hulls in one.
Hi folks! Big thanks to everyone who has been giving feedback so far, especially on the industry changes and the subsystem graphics.
Today’s SISI updates includes some changes to industry and graphics based on the great feedback we’ve been getting so far:
We have cancelled the plans to reduce the number of runs on T3 BPCs invented from ancient relics. Instead we are reducing the invention chance by a similar amount. The new invention chances for all ancient relics on SISI are:
26% for Intact Relics
21% for Malfunctioning Relics
14% for Wrecked Relics
We are also increasing the manufacturing time for the T3 Cruiser Hulls and Subsystems themselves.
We have also made a set of changes to the graphics of several specific subsystems to bring them closer to their current TQ visuals. These changes are visible on SISI now and we encourage you all to check them out and provide your feedback.
