Sounds like the impact of virus strength on exploration needs to be tweaked to allow for a more linear progression. If anything, this thread helps underline issues with exploration.

Zero for high-sec
+5 for low-sec
+10 for null-sec.

or update it to be:

+5 for high-sec
+10 for low sec
+15 for null-sec.

That assumes the only limited factor in success is virus strength.

I'd say CCP would also need to adjust sites by skill level too.

level III for high-sec.
level IV for low-sec.
T2 and level V for null-sec.

Allow for progression. Even with the 'ideal' skill set, there should be a chance for failure. SoE probes and modules should also help improve success. Nothing should be 100%.

Agreement or disagreement, this conversation has acted like a mini-Pandora's box. It has let some exploration issues out of the bag for open discussion ... even under the guise of SoE ships. IMO of course.

What we're shooting for is ships that are themed around exploration and therefor make good platforms for a range of activities including probing, hacking, exploration combat sites, anoms, killing anom runners, spying on people, looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome.

+5 for high-sec
+10 for low sec
+15 for null-sec.

That assumes the only limited factor in success is virus strength.

I'd say CCP would also need to adjust sites by skill level too.

level III for high-sec.
level IV for low-sec.
T2 and level V for null-sec.

Allow for progression. Even with the 'ideal' skill set, there should be a chance for failure. SoE probes and modules should also help improve success. Nothing should be 100%.

Agreement or disagreement, this conversation has acted like a mini-Pandora's box. It has let some exploration issues out of the bag for open discussion ... even under the guise of SoE ships. IMO of course.

People have frequently reported being able to hack null sites in a T2-bonused ship with a T1 analyzer. I can even do it myself. So let's... analyze... the situation:

A T2-bonused ship gives +10 strength. A T1 Analyzer gives +20 strength. This gives you a total of 30 strength.

Certain parties have said "this is all we are asking for" so we'll use it as the baseline goal, just theoretically.

A T1-bonused ship gives +5 strength. A T2 Analyzer gives +30 strength. This gives 35 strength, which is even higher than the asked-for 30 strength.

Remind me where the problem is, again?

Just for the record, I'm arguing in favor of +5 strength on the SoE ships as a Cheetah pilot who plans on switching to the SoE ships. Trading up for cargo space and actual weapons, yum yum.

...Unless the +5 turns into +10, which will require the weapons being blunted, which basically puts me flying a more expensive and larger-sig version of what I already have.

Two things would happen if the site difficulty were increased, it would put fledgling explorers in a position where they may get frustrated and stop exploring. Second it would put players who are wanting a increased virus strength in the same exact place as they are now, wanting greater virus strength due to the site difficulty needed to be increased.

Currently I know a guy that has never paid a sub, with a heron and T1 analyzers and NO CLOAK he did enough sites in null to plex out of his trial. Last time I talked to him he had at least gotten a buzzard and a cov-ops cloak and was complaining that he had too much money.

The entire premise that you need +10 strength is false. Its totally not required.

People have frequently reported being able to hack null sites in a T2-bonused ship with a T1 analyzer. I can even do it myself. So let's... analyze... the situation:

A T2-bonused ship gives +10 strength. A T1 Analyzer gives +20 strength. This gives you a total of 30 strength.

Certain parties have said "this is all we are asking for" so we'll use it as the baseline goal, just theoretically.

A T1-bonused ship gives +5 strength. A T2 Analyzer gives +30 strength. This gives 35 strength, which is even higher than the asked-for 30 strength.

Remind me where the problem is, again?

Just for the record, I'm arguing in favor of +5 strength on the SoE ships as a Cheetah pilot who plans on switching to the SoE ships. Trading up for cargo space and actual weapons, yum yum.

...Unless the +5 turns into +10, which will require the weapons being blunted, which basically puts me flying a more expensive and larger-sig version of what I already have.

People have frequently reported being able to hack null sites in a T2-bonused ship with a T1 analyzer. I can even do it myself. So let's... analyze... the situation:

A T2-bonused ship gives +10 strength. A T1 Analyzer gives +20 strength. This gives you a total of 30 strength.

Certain parties have said "this is all we are asking for" so we'll use it as the baseline goal, just theoretically.

A T1-bonused ship gives +5 strength. A T2 Analyzer gives +30 strength. This gives 35 strength, which is even higher than the asked-for 30 strength.

Remind me where the problem is, again?

Just for the record, I'm arguing in favor of +5 strength on the SoE ships as a Cheetah pilot who plans on switching to the SoE ships. Trading up for cargo space and actual weapons, yum yum.

...Unless the +5 turns into +10, which will require the weapons being blunted, which basically puts me flying a more expensive and larger-sig version of what I already have.

I understand the sites are not too difficult if you know what you are doing. My point was to artificially create boundaries for virus strength increases, the sites would need to be proportionally difficult which would create more problems than it would solve.

To precis the argument why on earth should i fly an exploration ship at high cost and high skill training requirements, when the cheap covert ops is in the hangar. I would just use that, IT WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER AT EXPLORING THAN AN EXPLORATION SHIP.and these ships are only worth using for PvP and Pve, No matter how an explorer skills, no matter what he fits, they are explorers in name only, just rename the covert ops to explorer paint it white and be done with the whole thing.

There are NO boundries, you can do the sites with a T1 ship and T1 gear.

"We decided to give some well rounded explorer ships to the community..." or how it was on the announce?
Exploration ships from THE exploration faction, which are worse at exploration than T2 covert ops, and T3 strategic cruisers... That's a logic...
T3 equivalent for poor?
Frigate has terrible layout. Cruiser is better, but won't be used in exploration anyway. Coverts and T3 are plain better.

There are two versions of exploration. One is exploration hacking. The other is exploration combat.

There are two versions of exploration. One is exploration hacking. The other is exploration combat.

Odyssey introduced and defined exploration hacking. Hacking is about avoiding combat and escaping PVP. You only care about opening cans, so virus strength and cohesion are all that matter - you'll never want something other than a T2 cov ops frigate.

But "can opener" exploration misses combat exploration. You cannot use a combat site you find with your hacking exploration ship. It has no weapons. These ships are clearly intended to let you do combat sites you find with exploration. That's why they have minimal can opening bonuses. They aren't can opening ships. They are combat site ships. That they have a bonus to virus strength at all is probably more to tip off players than actually empower can opening.

Will they beat T3 ships? No. T3s aren't intended to be comparable - a T3 is a specialized, "super" tool. It is end game content. It requires the highest investment in skills and isk. This is an entry point to doing combat sites without having to qualify for T3.

Since Sisters are best at exploring, those ships MUST have the best exploring. And since Sisters do not like shooting people, those ships MUST NOT have primary combat capabilities. It was said that those ships are all about self-defense. Well give them the self-defense than. Give them ability to disable their pursuers in different ways, with electronics and speed.
Defender missiles could be used here with some interesting mechanics, like attacking and disabling ships which attacking Sisters ship. But, I guess good old style: "Let's add a ship, I don't know what for, but let's add it" is the most liked by CCP.

Since Sisters are best at exploring, those ships MUST have the best exploring. And since Sisters do not like shooting people, those ships MUST NOT have primary combat capabilities. It was said that those ships are all about self-defense. Well give them the self-defense than. Give them ability to disable their pursuers in different ways, with electronics and speed.
Defender missiles could be used here with some interesting mechanics, like attacking and disabling ships which attacking Sisters ship. But, I guess good old style: "Let's add a ship, I don't know what for, but let's add it" is the most liked by CCP.

False premise 1 explorers only care about no risk hacking.
False premise 2 players that explore for data and relic sites do not wish to do combat sites in these new ships too.
False premise 3 the ships are only designed to do combat exploration sites. They are not meant to do data sites.
False premise 4 the virus strength bonus is only to tip players off that there was good stuff but it just blew up sorry....
Premise 5 that if you want to do relic and data sites you will only use a covert ops frigate, unfortunately, it seems that you are completely correct.

Is it me, or something is wrong here?

Assuming the current T1 and T2 frigs are for non-combat.

Would it be fair to assume that the SoE are combat related and fall into specific roles?