These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sisters Probe Launchers change
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Never Learn
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-12-17 20:09:54 UTC
Please forgive my ignorance but i find it hard to follow alot of things properly, i was wondering if anyone can fill in more details on this....

[quote=CCP Ytterbium]Hey in there, you are not forgotten, just a bit busy with multiple stuff coming in.

Here are the iteration changes planned for tech2 mods:



  • Sister core probe launcher and expanded probe launcher: now provide a 10% boost to scan probe strength instead of 5%. That's to keep an appeal for the faction mods despite the arrival of a tech2 version.


Right now i'm showing a 5% boost for the sisters mod
Tamiya Sarossa
Resistance is Character Forming
#2 - 2011-12-17 20:27:12 UTC
Never Learn wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance but i find it hard to follow alot of things properly, i was wondering if anyone can fill in more details on this....

[quote=CCP Ytterbium]Hey in there, you are not forgotten, just a bit busy with multiple stuff coming in.

Here are the iteration changes planned for tech2 mods:



  • Sister core probe launcher and expanded probe launcher: now provide a 10% boost to scan probe strength instead of 5%. That's to keep an appeal for the faction mods despite the arrival of a tech2 version.


Right now i'm showing a 5% boost for the sisters mod


Notice the bit where he says 'iteration changes planned'. None of these planned iterations have actually been implemented yet, I'm holding out hope that CCP will do so in the near future but who knows.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#3 - 2011-12-17 22:09:29 UTC
Plus, the sister launcher is still preferred in cases where CPU is an issue (especially true for the expanded sister launcher used with combat probes).
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#4 - 2011-12-17 22:13:01 UTC
Meh, it's not like you're going to have a need for weapons on a dedicated player scanner platform (just a covops cloak and the launcher), and without them, CPU should not be an issue.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-12-17 22:15:24 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Meh, it's not like you're going to have a need for weapons on a dedicated player scanner platform (just a covops cloak and the launcher), and without them, CPU should not be an issue.


You're ignoring all the grey between the black and white.
Drachiel
Mercury LLC
#6 - 2011-12-17 23:06:52 UTC
Indeed. I know a Pilgrim can be combat fit with probes for solo wormhole ganking.
Never Learn
Doomheim
#7 - 2011-12-17 23:15:21 UTC
Ok, so for practical purposes the Sisters of Eve launcher is only attractive to a few pilots on the edge of CPU fittings.

I was wondering why the price took a nosedive. Thats to bad cause working for SOE allowed a nuetral reputation with the probe launchers being the only really viable LP Store item. Now we are reduced to probes and implants and lower value launchers.

Oh well..adapt and overcome.
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2011-12-17 23:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Akita T wrote:
Meh, it's not like you're going to have a need for weapons on a dedicated player scanner platform (just a covops cloak and the launcher), and without them, CPU should not be an issue.

notsureifserious....

ideally you want MWD + expanded probe launcher + point + cyno/covert cyno

often you can offline at least one of these but you never have CPU to spare
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#9 - 2011-12-18 00:02:58 UTC
If they boost sensor probes can I get a refund on my prospector implants please? What's the point of maxing out a probing toon with skills/implants/ship when all you need is the magic probes?
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#10 - 2011-12-18 04:43:02 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
notsureifserious....
ideally you want MWD + expanded probe launcher + point + cyno/covert cyno
often you can offline at least one of these but you never have CPU to spare

The MWD, sure, but why would you want to put a point and/or a cyno on a scanner ship ? The survivability of a covops ship while pointing and/or cynoing is... questionable.
Why not just have the prober remain covops cloaked as good as all the entire time, then have somebody else come in to scouted locations, somebody with a ship more suitable for pointing or cynoing (or at least a more expendable ship).

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Sable Blitzmann
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2011-12-18 04:57:34 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
notsureifserious....
ideally you want MWD + expanded probe launcher + point + cyno/covert cyno
often you can offline at least one of these but you never have CPU to spare

The MWD, sure, but why would you want to put a point and/or a cyno on a scanner ship ? The survivability of a covops ship while pointing and/or cynoing is... questionable.
Why not just have the prober remain covops cloaked as good as all the entire time, then have somebody else come in to scouted locations, somebody with a ship more suitable for pointing or cynoing (or at least a more expendable ship).


There have been many times when I wished I had a point on a cov ops, and there have been a few times when it came in handy. Sure, you'll prolly lose the ship, but it you point a 200mil BS and lose a 40mil frig, I say jobs a good one.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#12 - 2011-12-18 05:15:20 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Meh, it's not like you're going to have a need for weapons on a dedicated player scanner platform (just a covops cloak and the launcher), and without them, CPU should not be an issue.



Even a good exploration ship fails at speed tanking and drone fu and must therefore resort to weapons on board.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2011-12-18 08:07:07 UTC
*lol* Akita gets it handed to him.