EVE Search - Amarr Recon

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Amarr Recon - Current state

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Topic
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:15:00 - [1] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:28:36 Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:21:35 Preface The following paragraphs reflect my own experience and is based on my grasp of game mechanics. Since I started using Amarr Recon ships, some game mechanics changed. Apparently the impact is not obvious to all involved parties. Thus I wrote this text to outline all corresponding facts, their consequences and possible solutions. Bear with me: it is a text wall. Furthermore this text is only about Amarr Recon ships. I refrained from any comparison to other recon ships. I ask all posters in this thread most kindly to stick to Amarr Recon ships and their claimed roles only and to argue based on facts. Remarks to other recon ships were only made for filling specific roles. Any comparison whatsoever is not intended. Any hints, suggestions or corrections welcome. Hydrogen Content I. Summary II. Amarr Recon ships and their role III. Issues on Amarr Recon ships IV. Consequences V. Possible solutions VI. Discussion of solutions VII. Hydrogen's remarks I. Summary Amarr Recon ships had a dedicated role. Due to the NOS changes this dedicated role can not be filled anymore. As such the Amarr Recon ship line is broken as it is now. Also diversity has been taken from the game, effectively elimnating a full range of viable game tactics. Several solutions are offered to compensate, thus enabling Amarr Recon ships to fill their niche once again. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:16:00 - [2] II. Amarr Recon ships II.1 General According to the description, Recon ships are "Cruisers specialized in reconaissance operations and electronic warfare." For that goal, two design lines are available: - Combat Recon ship, designed to take on enemy support vessels. - Force Recon ship, designed as reconaissance vessels and to enter enemy territory unscathed to open Cyno fields for incoming friendly Capital ships. Combat Recon ships are basically Heavy Assault Cruisers specialized in Electronic Warfare. Force Recon ships are in general the Cruiser equivalent of Covert Ops frigates specialized in "hidden" operations and Electronic Warfare. Both Amarr Recon ships heavily rely on drones as their damage dealer. In sorts of Electronic Warfare, both ships got a bonus to NOS/Energy Destabilizers and to Tracking Disruptors. Additonally Amarr Recon ships have superior Radar strength (24 and 28) and a drastically increased targetting range (104 and 130 km). Keeping their main strengths in mind, Amarr Recon ship are least or less likely affected by tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners and ECM. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:16:00 - [3] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:22:50 II.2 The Curse "Built to represent the last word in electronic warfare, combat recon ships have onboard facilities designed to maximize the effectiveness of electronic countermeasure modules of all kinds. Filling a role next to their class counterpart, the heavy assault ship, combat recon ships are the state of the art when it comes to anti-support support. They are also devastating adversaries in smaller skirmishes, possessing strong defensive capabilities in addition to their electronic superiority." A Curse's tasks: - Tank-breaker in a gang: by draining/destabilizing a target's cap, the target can't repair/boost. - DP-killer: by draining/destabilizing a target's cap Hybrid or Laser turrets are effectively disabled. - Disabling targets: Tracking Disruptors can reduce turret ships effectiveness drastically. - Nano-killer: With 28.5+ km range on NOS/Neut a Curse can disable any Nano-ship in range within mere seconds (except for the Nanophoon ;) ) - Ratting (PvE) in PvP setup: while a Curse does not excel in PvE, it is able to stand its ground in PvE, while in a PvP setup - Solo/gang-nano ship: up to 7,348 km/s with a snake set and 10.8 km/s with a snake set and overheating are feasible. This while maintaining either ECM or a shield tank. Drones and missiles kill target. For this task, the Curse offers the following functionality: 1. Increased Radar strength 2. Increased targetting range 3. Bonus to Tracking Disruptors 4. Similar but slightly lower resists compared to Amarr HACs (lower in Explosive and Kinetic resists) 5. Bonus to range and draining/destabilizing amount of NOS/Neutralizers 6. Bonus to drone hitpoints and damage 7. 4 low slots, 6 medium slots and 5 high slots 8. 4 launcher hardpoints There are several distinct setups allowing the Curse to fill its role: i. bred and butter setup: NOS/Neut in high, MWD and EWAR in mid, Armor tank in low ii. Nano: Launcher/NOS/Neut in high, MWD/EWAR in mid and speed in low iii. Shield tank: NOS/Neut/Launcher in high, Shield tank in mid and dmg mods or speed in low. The shield tank also exists as a passive shield tanked Curse. Variations exist to these setups, still they cover the most common ones. In all those setups, the NOS basically fuel the tank, speed, neutralizers and/or the ECM. Tactics: Basically a Curse tries to keep targets in range of 15km+ or even better 30km+, while drones, NOS/Neut and/or missiles do their dirty work. Tracking disruptors keep other enemy turret ships at bay or can be used to further disable the target. A Curse heavily relies on keeping distance to enemy vessels. In close combat a Curse generally dies really fast. As a result: the Curse heavily relies on Cap to fuel MWD, tank, EWAR and neutralizers. Usability: - solo in 1vs1: a Curse poses a threat to any turret-reliant ship. Due to its specific prey it is most unlikely for a Curse to find this specific prey. Missiles as a rule of thumb kill a Curse. Specialized drone boats (Gallente) kill a Curse too. - gang: In a gang a Curse is an assett offering crowd control mechanics. A Curse dies extremly fast in gangs. - fleet: A Curse lacks tank to survive fleet battles. Due to their abilities Curse's are often hit as first, without a chance to even travel to their range. Also a Curse's range is too low (up to 45km) to offer safety. Last but not least: a fleet offers so much raw firepower, that a Curse's "surgical abilities" are not needed. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:17:00 - [4] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:29:12 II.3 The Pilgrim "Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships, they are nonetheless able to do their job as reconaissance vessels very effectively, due in no small part to their ability to interface with covert ops cloaking devices and set up cynosural fields for incoming capital ships." A Pilgrim's tasks: - Cyno ship: a Pilgrim can enter almost any system unharmed and travel deep into enemy territory to finally set up a cyno field. - Reconaissance vessel (see further down) - Solo ship: A Pilgrim can choose its targets and thus is able to find its specific prey. Solo-miners in lowsec and 0.0, ratting ships etc. are preferred targets. Basically a Pilgrim can hit where it is least expected - the EvE equivalent of a real life assassin. For this task, the Pilgrim offers the following features: 1. Increased Radar strength 2. Increased targetting range 3. Bonus to Tracking Disruptors 4. Increased resists compared to T1 Cruisers; way less resist than HACs 5. Increased Armor hitpoints compared to a Curse 6. Bonus to draining/destabilizing amount of NOS/Neutralizers 7. Bonus to drone hitpoints and damage 8. 5 low slots, 5 medium slots and 4 high slots 9. Bonus to use Covert Ops cloak 10. Bonus to liquid ozone consumption Two variations of a Pilgrim setup exist to fill its role: i. standard setup: NOS/Neut/cloak in high, ECM (scrambler/webber/TD) in mid and armor tank in low. ii. speed setup: NOS/Neut/cloak in high, MWD and ECM in mid, speed in low ( a shield tank does not appear to be viable on a Pilgrim). Usability in varying scenarios: - solo in 1vs1 a Pilgrim poses a threat to any solo ship. The Pilgrim can wait and hit when the target least expect it, eg until rats are fighting the target or when capacitor is low or... - scouting/reconnaisance: a Pilgrim lacks the ability to fit scout/recon probe launchers. As a matter of fact a cov ops can do anything in recon better, than a Pilgrim (less sig size, higher agility, probe launchers,...). Whenever a Pilgrim tries to live to this task it is more likely a suicide commando, whereas a cov ops gets away anytime if played smart. Usability as scout: close to non-existant. - gang/fleet: nothing a Curse can not do better, except setting up Cyno fields. - Cyno setup: a Pilgrim excels in this task. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:17:00 - [5] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:24:04 III. Issues on Amarr Recon ships Due to recent changes the following issues now exist. III.1 General The changes to NOS force the Amarr Recon ship line to mount an additonal Capacitor booster. Changes to grid were needed and applied by CCP to fit the Capacitor booster. This effectively took a medium slot off the Amarr recon ships, heavily increased cargo bay needs, crippled one or even several high slots and reduced the effectiveness of several mid slots. - A NOS is useless against ships with low capacitor. Thus all NOS slots are crippled in its effectiveness on Curse and Pilgrim. Before the NOS was an offensive weapon, while fueling an Amarr Recon's capacitor. This is no longer possible. - The need to "play" with an Amarr recon ships capacitor cripples the effectiveness of the mid slot ECM modules. Simply as those will deactivate by times due to lack of capacitor. A single Capacitor booster is not able to supply the capacitor needs for a full neutralizer setup and ECM and tank. - Recent developments in PvP gameplay show, that a ship without MWD lacks survivability (even on Pilgrim). Thus taking another mid slot away, while drastically increasing the already existant Amarr Recon's capacitor issues. - additionally the Curse was already tight on grid. By now a Curse simply lacks grid to fit what it needs. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:18:00 - [6] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:27:10 III.2 The Curse Curse as they are today fullfill their role as follows: - Tank-breaker: A Curse in a gang can still break heavy tanks and speedtanks by using 1 NOS with several Neutralizers together with its missiles, drones and capacitor booster. On the not so bright side, heavy tanks are uncommon on Cruisers nowadays, but more likely speed tanks. Whereas Huginn and Rapier as well as other speed tanked Cruisers are more suited to break speedtanks. In gang combat a Curse pilot is well advised to choose a different Cruiser type (preferably HAC, eg. Vagabond, Sacrilege, Ishtar) instead of a Curse. A Curse is thus unable to fullfill its role in real game play. Simply as other ships can fullfill the same task (bringing down speedtanks) while offering their owner a higher survivability. Finally NOS/Neutralizing cripples a Curse's tank, making it more a glasship (not a glasscannon). - DP-killer: Due to recent NOS changes, the Curse is unable to fuel its tank. Being a DP-killer cripples a Curse's tank, makes the Curse primary and is effectively a suicide playstyle. - Disabling targets: A Curse can still disable a target. On the not so bright side, turrets are only affected by tracking disruptors in specific and not in all situations. Furthermore a lot of damage is done by drones and missiles, thus effectively making sure, that a Curse is soon primary and due to lack of tank - killed. Additionally a Curse lacks range to disable sniper ships at 110+ km distance. Caldari ECM jammer ships, but also sensor dampener ships are better suited to disable enemy ships. - Shield tank: The role as active shield tank is no longer viable, as a Curse can not fuel its capacitor for the shield tank reliably. The role as passive shield tank always crippled a Curse's effectiveness, while drastically increasing signature radius. Still the Curse is a good passive shield tank plattform. - Ratting (PvE): The Curse is good in ratting still. A PvE ratting setup is no longer an effective PvP setup due to neutralizers having no positive effect for a Curse pilot on rats. NOS is not viable as a primary weapon for a Curse in PvP. Thus the PvE in a PvP setup role is no longer viable. Dedicated PvE ships are way better: Ishtar, Sacrilege, Myrmidon and Raven. Even with the upcoming changes there are still loads of better PvE ships. - Solo-/Nano-ship: there are several feasible solo or nano setups available for a Curse. Still the lack of mid-slots and armor generally result in a rather poor tank, which is not comparable to HAC-tanks at all (compare mid slot layouts and resists and armor values with Zealot and Sacrilege). Also the need for MWD nowadays and Cap Injector reduce the EWAR-effectiveness of a Curse. Last but not least a fitting heavily relies on specific named items to unlock a Curse's specific abilities, this includes esspecially Diminishing NOS and Unstable Neutralizers. In 1 versus 1 a Curse does not excel at all. The only exception being a Nano-killer. But the same applies here too: as a Nano-plattform other ships appear to be better suited. Examples are Huginn, Rapier,... On a last note a nano Curse still seems to be a viable option. Due to limited low slots (4) the Curse doesnt excel here. Issues: - it is impossible to field a decent setup with NOS/Neut/Neut/HML/HML in high, MWD/Cap booster/... in mid and MAR/tank in low. It is close to impossible to field this setup with an Afterburner even without sacrificing tank/EWAR in rig slots. Setup issues arise simply due to lack of grid. - To use its special abilities a Curse is Cap hungry and never able to use its special abilities to its fullest extent. Even jigsaw games with its own capacitor are unplayable - the least said. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:18:00 - [7] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:30:25 III.3 The Pilgrim Pilgrims as of today fullfill their role as follows: - Cyno ship: a Pilgrim can enter almost any system unharmed and travel deep into enemy territory to finally set up a cyno field. A Pilgrim excels here and fully fills this role. - Reconaissance vessel: A Pilgrim is basically a Cruiser able to use a cov ops cloak. Besides that a Pilgrim doesnt offer distinct advantages which outweigh Covert Ops ships. As a scout a Covert Ops is better suited at all times (higher agility, higher survivability due to size,...). Additionally the Pilgrim is not a solo ship anymore, thus negating any combat advantages for scout ships. - Solo ship: To solo a Pilgrim already uses 4 mid slots. MWD is needed to escape gate camps and cloak directly after initiating warp. A scrambler is needed to hold targets and a webber is needed to keep a target in range, as a Pilgrim lacks the NOS/Neut range bonus. To break a tank with Neuts, a Capacitor booster is a must, leaving 1 mid slot of the Pilgrim for ECM. The best setup possible to stand a chance for solo requires 2 Neutralizers and 1 NOS, thus also disabling dual repper setups as a setup alternative due to cap and grid usage. Despite having 5 low slots and more armor than a Curse, a Pilgrim heavily suffers from less resists than a Curse. Example1: in a fully T2 setup including rigs, leaving grid issues aside, using dual repper setups, a Pilgrim can achieve a 433 reinforced defense value (while crippling its grid for Neut/NOS, MWD/AB and Cap booster), whereas a Curse achieves 403 reinforced defense value (also crippling mid and high slot setups). Considering other design lines of ships, the Amarr Recons in general and the Pilgrim in specific are unable to offer a more than average tank, while still maintaining an acceptable offense at all. (remark: reinforced defense value is from EFT and is one possibility to evaluate a ships tank. Eg the Sacrilege achieves 500+ easily and can go upt o 660+ in T2 setups while still offering decent offense of its main weapons.) Example2: Now looking at a viable tank setup with one MAR only, the Pilgrim can achieve 266 reinforced defense maximum, whereas the Curse achieves 252. Conclusion from both examples: the increased resists of a Curse almost evens out the additonal low slot of a Pilgrim. Survivability with maximum skills is below average. That said, a look at offense of a Pilgrim is needed. 1. a Pilgrim needs to stay in range of less than 12 km on Medium Diminishing NOS. 2. a Pilgrim has a low damage output with its drones, thus needs to disable/break an enemies tank with cap draining/destabilizing. 3. a Pilgrim thus needs to tank damage or disable a targets turret 4. one Tracking Disruptor requires the Pilgrim to orbit a target at high speed to reduce opponent's turret damage. But: an Afterburner is too slow and an MWD is suicide with less than 2,500 speed (at less than 12 km orbit!!). Please also consider opponents drone damage, which a lot of ships offer. 5. ... This list could go on and on... The result is simple: a Pilgrim might excel in killing non-Khanid Amarr ships of less than bs size. So in the end viable and preferred targets are most Amarr T1 Cruiser, T1 battlecruisers, the Zealot and maybe an Absolution (with some luck). Well as long as there are Zealots, Absolutions,... without capacitor injectors... A lot more examples show, that a Pilgrim is unable to solo at all. The ability to kill poorly set up opponents is not a niche for the Pilgrim but daily business for an average player in almost any ship. Issues: - the Pilgrim lacks survivability - the Pilgrim lacks ECM - the Pilgrim lacks a niche to be useful except setting up Cyno fields. There is no other role, which the Pilgrim fills. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:19:00 - [8] III.4 Future changes With the proposed bandwidth change to 50MBit/s, the Curse also drastically looses its usability in PvE, where it was close to average so far. A Pilgrim would need a lot longer to kill enemies (if at all). Or in other words: a lot more time for opponents to call for and receive help. Before such a change takes place I recommend to completly delete the line of Amarr recon ships. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:19:00 - [9] IV. Consequences Both Amarr Recon ships lack distinct advantages and a usable niche to fill - again except setting up Cyno fields for the Pilgrim. V. Possible solutions Solutions for both ships come in a package. V.1 General option The simplest solution would be to remove the NOS nerf from both Pilgrim and Curse, while maintaining their drone offense at 75MBit/s (Please look at discussion further down). This would also be inline with on how the ECM nerf was handled. Additonally the Pilgrim lacks a tank enabling it to solo. The role defintion as a force recon ship is already applied by a lack of high slots. Thus in this package it is recommended to offer the resists of the Curse to the Pilgrim too. V.2 Curse options The following options exist solely for the Curse alternatively: 1. One more mid slot and 120 grid increase and a drastic cargo bay increase by 300m3 at least (cap booster charges). Also leave armor hp as it is and increase shield hp. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 2. Neutralizer bonus, which effectively decreases the cap use of neutralizers by 10% per recon level. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 3. Apply HAC resists and armor to the Curse. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 4. Double the NOS/Neut drain amount of the Curse. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 5. Increase tracking disruptor range by 25% per Amarr recon level V.3 Pilgrim options Options to change the Pilgrim are: 1. One more mid and one more high slot. Increase Cargo to 500+ m3. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 2. Drastically increasing Pilgrim's cap by 50%. Increase Cargo to 400+ m3 and add a mid slot. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 3. Add 10%/level to cap recharge of Pilgrim. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 4. Increase range of Neut/NOS on Pilgrim like on Curse. Increase Cargo to 500+ m3 (left in place as some consider it a valid change). Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 5. Add a Neut bonus of 10% less cap usage of Neuts per recon level. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 6. Double the NOS/Neut drain amount of the Pilgrim. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 7. Apply HAC resists to the Pilgrim, thus freeing up the rig slots for Neutralizer/Cap improvements. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth. 8. Add a high slot and a launcher hardpoint to the Pilgrim and apply a 10% reduction to duration/activation time of modules requiring Astrometrics per level. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:20:00 - [10] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:32:00 VI. Discussion of solutions VI.1 General option Applying this solution would bring back the Nano Curse. Due to the common appearance of Nano ships, a Curse would be the most effective anti-nano Nano ship and a serious threat to any ship. Still a Curse's speed is subpar to eg. Vagabond as it lacks natural speed advantages and low slots. Effective counters to a Nano Curse are some missile types and all other race's recon ships. Apart from the Nano-Curse (which needs a close look at), the Curse would be able to fill its old role. For the Pilgrim this change would bring back its old role, while the Nano-setup is not an issue, simply as a Pilgrim lacks range on NOS and Neutralizers. This change would bring back the Pilgrim's old role and enable it to fill its niche to solo perfectly. A Reconaissance role is not available but still reserved for Covert Ops. VI.2 Curse options Corresponding to "V.2 Curse options" my remarks to those options and its consequences 1. This would enable the Curse to fill its old role once more and change its status from glasship to glasscannon. A trade off: still primary, but offering advantages, which make suicide missions beneficial to the gang. A Curse would have the option to trade off ECM for a heavy shield tank with speed. 2. This option would enable the Curse to fill its role once more, where cap and grid limit the Nano-Curse option. Shield tanks are not viable. 3. The lack of drastic offense is equaled out by decent defense. Grid and Cap limit a Curse's options. Due to lack of low slots, a Curse's tank will always be subpar to HACs, while raw dp power compared to HACs is exchanged with a mix of dps (missiles) and EWAR (NOS/NEUT/TD). 4. This option would also bring the Curse back to fill its old role, where a lack of defense is equaled out by raw EWAR offense. The Curse would be a glasscannon, more of the type of a surgeon's instrument, which is easily broken. 5. The Curse would fill a complete new role in disabling sniper ships and become a great assett to fleet fights by protecting close range fleet wings. VI.3 Pilgrim options Corresponding to "V.3 Pilgrim options" my remarks to those options and its consequences 1. A viable option for the Pilgrim, but needed to be able to use its strength at all effectively. A poor solution, as the cap booster usage would be implied by design. 2. A poor solution, as the cap booster usage would be implied by design. 3. Similar to the new desing lines, this would enable a Pilgrim to at least use Neutralizers. 3 Neut setups would be viable. 4. The Pilgrim could become a cloaked nano-wonder. But on the bright side it would enable a Pilgrim's role as a solo ship, able to disturb enemy fleets even and/or to take out support ships. While offering a fleet use, the Pilgrim would compete with the Curse, while being subpar compared to the Curse. The cloak would be useless in these scenarios. 5. The Pilgrim could fill its old role. 6. A Pilgrim could fill its old role again. 7. This option would strengthen a Pilgrim's solo role and as a Cyno ship. 8. Where Amarr lacks an Astrometrics T1 frigate, this version would still heavily lack in the solo department but the Pilgrim would be of extreme use for fleets. Scouting behind enemy lines, finding targets and even able to Cyno support in - in future maybe even Black Ops? The versatility makes this ship usefull and a great assett to any fleet without pushing a solo ship setup. Still its size and lack of agility would not make Covert Ops obsolete. The design of a Covert Op's "big brother" would finally come true. Last but not least a Covert Ops in exploration is useless when it found a site. This bonus would enable the Pilgrim to fill a whole new role and to excel in it. __

Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:21:00 - [11] Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:33:16 VII. Hydrogen's remarks All these are my personal thoughts with different input from various threads, players,... I really hope that I was able to point out various issues with Amarr recons and do not claim thatI offer a final solution, but... food for thought on a more informed basis. Personally I favor option 3 of the Curse options and option 8 for the Pilgrim. In both cases both ships would fill completly new roles. Apart from that it is a pitty, that there is no real solo-ganker covert ops ship. Simply as I strongly believe that a highly effective sneaky assassin type adds a lot to balance and gaming experience in a PvP setting. Additonally one needs to keep in mind, that sensor dampeners, jammers and stasis webifiers are of greater use in PvP settings than tracking disruptors. This is also the reason on why I highly recommend to not compare Recon ships of different races to each other. To me offense, defense and usability must correlate to each other. In current Curse and Pilgrim designs this balance does not exist. It needs to be said, that the appearance of ships with a covert ops cloak in local totally contradict their purpose - being sneaky. This should be changed in any case. Using a covert ops cloak must remove the pilot from appearing in local. Any critic - if constructive - and corrections welcome. Bear with me for the text wall. Yours Hydrogen __
Hardtail Red Dawn Empire Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:47:00 - [12] tl;dr
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:56:00 - [13] Too long, too repetitive. Stopped reading. Sorry. Taxman IV: Rogue Agent
goodby4u Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 00:08:00 - [14] oh...mai.....gawd!! __________________________________________ Yes it is great being amarr. I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space.
Pure Murder	Posted - 2007.10.25 00:11:00 - [15] One man thread.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 00:52:00 - [16] Fair play Hydrogen you've done some homework there. My reccomendations are: Pilgrim 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per level, bringing it in line with the other recons in 'ability' terms (i.e the Curse and the Sentinel) Reduce the Pilgrims Cap Recharge time by 30% to 240.625sec Set its Bandwith at 50MBit/Sec Curse Add '5% bonus to all armor resistances per level', bringing it in line with other Khanid vessels. Reduce the Curses Cap Recharge time by 30% to 240.625sec Increase Curse Armor HP to 1800 Maintain its Bandwith at 75MBit/Sec C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Heretic Army Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 01:59:00 - [17] Hydrogen, I like your analysis, and agree with it, up until your solutions. Honestly, most of them are trying to make the Recons into HACs. The one thing I wholeheartedly agree with you on is removing the NOS nerf for these two ships. This is their specialization and gives them their survivability and niche. You were right that the Pilgrim was an "assassin" type and played that role well, where the Curse was an anti-tank/support platform. I would like to see those roles brought back, but with the restriction of 50Mbit/s bandwidth. The viability of pre-nerf NOS combined with the larger drone bay and lessened drone damage output would allow for a more combat oriented Recon line (when compared to the other races), but keep them from stepping on the HACs' toes. They would be able to assassinate small ships (up to cruiser some t2), but relegate them to only weakening hardened targets. I say this as a fellow Curse pilot, mind you. Unfortunately, I am not in the position to argue item by item, but I thought I would share my overall view of the situation. Good work on the research and format, but keep in mind that these forums tend to have short attention spans. Short version: 1. I believe they should be returned to viable Recon ships without making them HACs. 2. Long post is long. --- Amarr/Caldari, and proud of it. Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:19:00 - [18] Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Too long, too repetitive. Stopped reading. Sorry. In fact if you are familiar with the issue, I recommend you start reading at Chapter III and all is good ;) This text is meant to start with the basics, thus giving non-Amarr-Recon players a chance to understand the issues. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:29:00 - [19] Originally by: Cailais My reccomendations are: <snip> Fair play. On your Pilgrim recommendation I truly fear the cloaked nano Pilgrim fotm and the Pilgrim competing with the Curse. Still I am not sure here, but point out my concern. Your Curse recommendation appears to me as a viable and good improvement. One needs to keep in mind, that a Curse is meant to be a HAC by design (Chapter II.2 lists CCP's intentions). Currently it does not come close. Your suggested changes makes it an EWAR HAC, thats what it is meant to be by design. __
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:38:00 - [20] Originally by: Bardi MecAuldnis Hydrogen, I like your analysis, and agree with it, up until your solutions. Honestly, most of them are trying to make the Recons into HACs. Suggested solutions are just that: suggestions. Still reading through (here again Chapter II) it is appaerant, that Amarr Recons are meant to be designed as HACs. It is not my opinion, but CCP's design goal. Your answer clearly shows one part on what my proof is about: Amarr Recons are not HACs right now at all. Originally by: Bardi MecAuldnis Short version: 1. I believe they should be returned to viable Recon ships without making them HACs. 2. Long post is long. ad1. There are a lot of options. But: if there is a design goal, CCP should stick to it, or change the design goal. I believe there is a niche for true EWAR HACs, but anythign goes, as long as they got a design goal, which they can fill. Curse and Pilgrim both fail right now. ad2. Bear with me... Besides that, this post is meant to be complete and to include proof, what is broken and why. This takes some lines... __

Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:58:00 - [21] Originally by: Hydrogen Originally by: Cailais My reccomendations are: <snip> Fair play. On your Pilgrim recommendation I truly fear the cloaked nano Pilgrim fotm and the Pilgrim competing with the Curse. Still I am not sure here, but point out my concern. Your Curse recommendation appears to me as a viable and good improvement. One needs to keep in mind, that a Curse is meant to be a HAC by design (Chapter II.2 lists CCP's intentions). Currently it does not come close. Your suggested changes makes it an EWAR HAC, thats what it is meant to be by design. I agree with your concern about a 'nano-pilgrim' as a fotm ship, but then nano-whatever is pretty common place: I even saw a nano-drake a few weeks ago. If thats 'overpowered' then Id suggest its due more to the modules used than the ship itself. Worth noting also that the Pilgrim with only 5 mids lacks the space to EWAR tank, and/or shield tank and would be almost totally reliant upon speed: it might try and emulate the Curse but my thinking is it would do a pretty poor job of it. C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:00:00 - [22] Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 08:00:52 I'm getting into the mindset that the Pilgrim, and the Curse, are meant to be used as, well.. nothing. Train for Gallente or Minmatar recons. I can almost predict that, since there are not enough "whiners" for this issue (Take a look at the Pilgrim/Curse "whines", versus the Carrier "whines" to see the difference), nothing will be done. Which leads me into Rev3 crap, the total amount of m3 drone bay that each of these ships get now (150m3) versus the amount of bandwidth they use, the drone user interface is horrid, and lacks user friendliness. Again, I predict nothing will be done to remedy it. My 2 cent solutions: Curse: Never flown it, but once or twice, and decided it was too; overpowered 1v1. Pilgrim: 1) 150 m3 Drone bay, 50mb/s bandwidth. 2) 100% Reduction to energy emission capacitor use (or recon bonus, per level, of Capacitor use). 3) Change the Energy Emission hardwiring bonuses to: 10%, 30%, 75%, 100% range respectively. 4) Up the cargo bay to 400m3, possibly 500m3 (you will still need cap boosters to fuel your tank). Or hell, just make a new module, 10,000 tf, 10,000 pg when not fitted on a Force Recon ship, that does 1/2 of the energy killing of the neutralizer, but gives the same amount of energy back of a nosferatu. other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:04:00 - [23] Originally by: Feng Schui Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 08:00:52 I'm getting into the mindset that the Pilgrim, and the Curse, are meant to be used as, well.. nothing. Train for Gallente or Minmatar recons. I can almost predict that, since there are not enough "whiners" for this issue (Take a look at the Pilgrim/Curse "whines", versus the Carrier "whines" to see the difference), nothing will be done. Which leads me into Rev3 crap, the total amount of m3 drone bay that each of these ships get now (150m3) versus the amount of bandwidth they use, the drone user interface is horrid, and lacks user friendliness. Again, I predict nothing will be done to remedy it. My 2 cent solutions: Curse: Never flown it, but once or twice, and decided it was too; overpowered 1v1. Pilgrim: 1) 150 m3 Drone bay, 50mb/s bandwidth. 2) 100% Reduction to energy emission capacitor use (or recon bonus, per level, of Capacitor use). 3) Change the Energy Emission hardwiring bonuses to: 10%, 30%, 75%, 100% range respectively. 4) Up the cargo bay to 400m3, possibly 500m3 (you will still need cap boosters to fuel your tank). Or hell, just make a new module, 10,000 tf, 10,000 pg when not fitted on a Force Recon ship, that does 1/2 of the energy killing of the neutralizer, but gives the same amount of energy back of a nosferatu. Heh maybe we need a 'boost teh pilgrim' siggy - start a leaflet campaign, sell T shirts, that might do it I'll get right on it... C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:10:00 - [24] Edited by: Hydrogen on 25/10/2007 08:11:17 Originally by: Feng Schui I'm getting into the mindset that the Pilgrim, and the Curse, are meant to be used as, well.. nothing. Train for Gallente or Minmatar recons. With close to maximum skills for Amarr recon (AWU 5, Recon 5, close to 7mill sp in missiles for Curse,...) this somehow sums it up... __
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:14:00 - [25] Same here, but the skills for the Pilgrim (max drones, max turret-based ewar, etc..) Oh yea, no one mentioned that Tracking Disruptors are getting nerfed as well on SiSi (they require "scripts" - either kill optimal, or kill tracking). Because Tracking Disruptors where sooooooooooooo overpowered other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
munia coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:40:00 - [26] Respect Hydrogen. Good thread. I am full amarr pilot and was like curse and pilgrim. No i don't want fly in that recon ships. cora
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:41:00 - [27] Originally by: Feng Schui Same here, but the skills for the Pilgrim (max drones, max turret-based ewar, etc..) Oh yea, no one mentioned that Tracking Disruptors are getting nerfed as well on SiSi (they require "scripts" - either kill optimal, or kill tracking). Because Tracking Disruptors where sooooooooooooo overpowered TDs should be left well alone. They have a built in nerf - they dont effect missiles, webs, drones, neuts, scrams...we could go on. Yet another 'oompf' for the Amarr... C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:44:00 - [28] Originally by: Feng Schui Same here, but the skills for the Pilgrim (max drones, max turret-based ewar, etc..) I just did the maths: In my past EvE time, I learned 11.52 millions skill points only to use Amarr Recons to their fullest extent. 1. Amarr Recon 5 - sure 2. Missile skills - I only started those, when I felt I cant use a Curse's missile slots... (have to admit I even did Heavy Missile Specialization to 5 ) - 7 mill skill points total 3. Drone skills - only did those to use a Curse's drones to its advantage 4. AWU 5 to reduce overall fitting issues - sure I am all in that a fine ship needs skill. But laying waste to all that effort (and skill points) in fact has a major impact for players. __ - click here - (http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0608/A-WAR_Hydrogen.jpg)
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 08:50:00 - [29] @Cailais: could you change the sig and remove the black text? Just write somethign less agressive instead, like: "Amarr Recons: in dire need of love!" __ - click here -
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 09:29:00 - [30] OMG! my third pilgrim loss of the day! why? CAP ISSUES. this ** is **ing me off.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.