If you’re gonna troll, try and at least troll the whole sentence.
You can fit an afterburner to a frigate and do a wide angle approach. The Succubus is best because True Sansha.
Thrashers vs succubus = ??
T3D can already Sig tank the ABCs so the AF would still just be a worse t3d
I agree; my original statement was that the T3Ds eclipse AFs (among many others). If T3Ds were nerfed (again) AFs could have some wiggle room to fit into a niche.
or you would just have two useless ships.
T3Ds just never should have been added
I cannot argue that. But I doubt CCP will just delete T3Ds, so they’re left with the problem of finding a viable use for both classes.
T3Ds eclipse AFs because where the AFs offer “a frigate with a reasonable tank and some dps”, T3Ds offer something very nearly as fast with WAY more tank and WAY more dps. By nerfing the T3Ds we may end up with useless T3Ds… but I cannot see any other way to preserve balance, without making AFs way too strong.
Then AFs can no longer be “a frigate with a reasonable tank and some dps”.
They need to be something different.
To me an assault something is usually relatively short ranged, low support, high attack speed and high mobility.
On that basis maybe AFs and HACs could be tweaked for better speed and agility to get in and out fast, bonuses to grapples/scrams, bonuses on short range variants of weapon systems and possibly be d-scan immune. Think of them as the commandos of frigates and cruisers.
1 Like
Why are these called “recon” ships again? They are based on an e-war ship and are in fact advanced e-war ships. The cloak and d-scan immunity seems like just random stuff that was put on them. If anything, they are anti-recons. And we have no T1 explorer cruisers, which would give a much better base for actual recon ships.
The way I would do this is have a long range e-war for fleets with weak tank and weapons, a short range e-war brawler with good-ish defensive and offensive abilities - this basically mirrors the EA frigates and navy frigates relation.
Then the recon cruisers could have the cov-ops cloak with exploration equipment, while the d-scan immune version could get increasing range to the point where a single ship can keep most systems under observation.
I wouldn’t give them d-scan immunity, but I like the fast attack vessel line.
Combat and Force recons actually perform their niche very well. I’d love to see the Rook get a little love, because it’s basically just an auto-primary and it could use a bit more tank, but ultimately, the recon boats are in a pretty good place I think.
That’s not to say that I think they’re balanced with T3Cs, I still hold that T3Cs eclipse T2Cs in all regards.
The Combat recon dscan immunity fits in with the “recon” role because they’re good for vanguard style attacks. A few recons jumping in ahead of the main fleet to get tackle and cripple the target(s), completely off scan (insert Samuel Jackson’s catchphrase here). Then your main fleet lands and leaves their anus gaping.
The cloak on the force recon fits very well with blops intent. Jumping a “■■■■ you” fleet in to mess with them, in concept. When they respond, you gtfo and cloak up. They can hunt reasonably well, which the cloak certainly helps with, assuming you handle the sensor calibration period properly. Tackle, use ewar to cripple the target, cyno in friends with your ultra-short cyno duration.
The problem with the recon ships now is that a T3C can do all of that better, sans dscan immunity.
Edit:
Regarding the “commando” approach to HACs, I do believe that’s where the recons belong. They’re already the sneaky bastards that come in where you aren’t looking. They mess with your ■■■■, so that when things get lit up, all of a sudden you find out they screwed everything up for you.
you really like commenting on ships you don’t know how to fly do you? let me guess you fly the rook like a falcon with a full rack of ECM and maybe a prop mod?
I have an idea (again) about that. How about that mode-switching only works in w-space and them t3 destroyers have to be in defense mods until they leave k-space.
And if t3 sleeper cruisers were only allowed to fit meta and t2 modules, all of a sudden they wouldn’t be so strong anymore.
Arbitrary restrictions and rule exceptions are something ccp has been wisely removing the past decade. Let’s not add more
My view on tech III is that they are supposed to be flexible fit. So make the hierarchy be T1<T3<T2 in terms of specialization. A tech III should outclass it’s tech I counterpart on dps for instance, but should not outclass a dedicated T2 gunship. However with the right mods in hold the T3 can reconfigure in space (as t3d’s now) to adapt to the situation.
In this situation a T3 that’s outgunned could for instance switch to an escape config or ecm config to counter. However to do this they would need to be carrying many more modules (i.e. the tech III is effectively much more expensive whilst only applying one set of modules at once). If the T3 gets caught it loses comparatively more.
This would also allow for good exploration fits that carry a travel fit and a combat and/or scanning fit. This way the dedicated explorer has the line in doing so.more options, but must put much more on the line in doing so. I’d achieve this by giving T3’s a module bay to store 2-3 refits and allowing refitting from this bay.
Another option would be to standardize the core/offensive/defensive/propulsion subs and make them configurable. Standardize the H/M/L slots on each hull and have the subsystem apply %bonuses depending on the module config. Then make the module config adapters from tech III salvage as usual, but including self-assembling nano thingybobs too (for lore).
Costs would be easy to balance to current by tweaking manufacturing amounts. Balance of T3c’s would be easier as it’s simply % bonuses that can be tweaked. subs and adapters can simply be modeled internally as scripted modules and scripts.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.