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
Crazy Tasty Beyond Divinity Inc Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.10.25 20:49:00 - [61] Quote: Chicken-egg. The pilgrim is limited by range because that was balancing him before. However the advantage why this balance factor was needed is non existant now. Balancing it out again by adding range to it is a rather valid option - especially since its main problems now are casued by its low range. Which is also atypcial compared to all force recons. This sums up the only problem at all with Amarr recons. I would gladly trade the Nos/Nuet amount on the Pilgrim for a range bonus. The Curse is absolutely fine, even post nerf, my setup didn't change a bit (it also doesn't involve a cap booster). What is quite awesome though, atm, you can fully t2/best named fit a curse for 80m. Both Amarr recons are selling for under 50m.
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.25 21:45:00 - [62] Originally by: Crazy Tasty The Curse is absolutely fine, even post nerf, my setup didn't change a bit (it also doesn't involve a cap booster). What is quite awesome though, atm, you can fully t2/best named fit a curse for 80m. Both Amarr recons are selling for under 50m. Meaning you use a Curse to its niche and role by taking advantage of its natural bonus, which is: NOS/Neut in high (similar to other ships in 4 high slots), maybe a missile launcher or similar in 5th, tracking disruptor in med and tank or speed in low? I do miss your setup and would find it kind and nice from you to post more hints about it... __ - click here -
Crazy Tasty Beyond Divinity Inc Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.10.25 22:26:00 - [63] Originally by: Hydrogen Meaning you use a Curse to its niche and role by taking advantage of its natural bonus, which is: NOS/Neut in high (similar to other ships in 4 high slots), maybe a missile launcher or similar in 5th, tracking disruptor in med and tank or speed in low? I do miss your setup and would find it kind and nice from you to post more hints about it... I currently run 2 best named Nuets and 3 named Nos, 3x damps, and typical nano lows. 1x grid rig to squeeze in the 2nd nuet. Its no where near cap stable with both nuets on, I typically run 1 or 2 nuets till they cap out or I get below 25% then cycle as needed. Runs the damps + point fine with no issues. Multiple targets are a little easier as I can Nos one and nuet another. The only difference post nerf is micromanaging cap, I normally finish a fight at about 25% or lower.
Julius Romanus Amarr Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2007.10.25 23:20:00 - [64] I fly an arbitrator when I fly cruisers, and I have to say being able to ajust the modifiers on Tracking Disruptors so they would actually have some effect on Autocannon's would make me very very happy. Vs Amarr and Gallente TD's make for rather effective ewar, but even against the targets they are useful against they fail once the fight enters web range. Against med AC's 2 of them work decently as long as there is transversal, one just doesnt have enough impact unless you are heavily nano'd out. My point being, tracking disruptors in their current state are ineffective inside the combat range of the Pilgrim. If they actually worked as a serious turret dps(which face it most of the time you're dying, its because a turret of some kind is blowing you up) reducer the pilgrim might be effective again. -- All these graphs show is how bad the apocalypse is with different kinds of weapons. -Dr Jigglez
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 00:18:00 - [65] Originally by: Crazy Tasty I currently run 2 best named Nuets and 3 named Nos, 3x damps, and typical nano lows. 1x grid rig to squeeze in the 2nd nuet. Its no where near cap stable with both nuets on, I typically run 1 or 2 nuets till they cap out or I get below 25% then cycle as needed. Runs the damps + point fine with no issues. Multiple targets are a little easier as I can Nos one and nuet another. The only difference post nerf is micromanaging cap, I normally finish a fight at about 25% or lower. Just to sum it up according my view: 1. You need rig slots to fit your main weapons, leaving you with no grid to field a tank 2. Instead of tracking disruptors you use damps 3. you speed the Curse up, where the tank by shield/armor/hull is jsut your buffer before you kill/or be killed. A viable setup for sure. But it is not a Curse's role at all :) Also not viable in fleets - where Curse is meant to excel and be effective.... __ - click here -
Crazy Tasty Beyond Divinity Inc Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.10.26 01:44:00 - [66] Originally by: Hydrogen Originally by: Crazy Tasty I currently run 2 best named Nuets and 3 named Nos, 3x damps, and typical nano lows. 1x grid rig to squeeze in the 2nd nuet. Its no where near cap stable with both nuets on, I typically run 1 or 2 nuets till they cap out or I get below 25% then cycle as needed. Runs the damps + point fine with no issues. Multiple targets are a little easier as I can Nos one and nuet another. The only difference post nerf is micromanaging cap, I normally finish a fight at about 25% or lower. Just to sum it up according my view: 1. You need rig slots to fit your main weapons, leaving you with no grid to field a tank 2. Instead of tracking disruptors you use damps 3. you speed the Curse up, where the tank by shield/armor/hull is jsut your buffer before you kill/or be killed. A viable setup for sure. But it is not a Curse's role at all :) Also not viable in fleets - where Curse is meant to excel and be effective.... I really don't think any recon is meant for the typical fleet warfare. TDing, Damping, Or Jamming a handful of a fleet means nothing when you are called primary and dead a few seconds later. My setup is not even meant for gangs, its meant purely for solo work. I also don't really need the rigs, I only added the grid rig to be able to fit another Nuet instead of a launcher. All that said, you're last comment hit the nail on the head for the Pilgrim. The only reason the Curse is viable is because of the nano fit, which for various reason the Pilgrim is not good at. Bottom line, is you can still TD fit and armor tank either ship, just with current game mechanics (short range in a recon is suicide, armor tanked Curse is slow and almost as bad) its not as effective. Those same mechanics really make the Pilgrims shortcomings obvious.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.26 01:52:00 - [67] Edited by: Aramendel on 26/10/2007 01:55:09 Originally by: Hydrogen - my point is: if a fitting and implementable change exists, I am all in, but I doubt it exists. Therefore my point is: Curse and Pilgrim need a complete readjustment with the shortcommings of tracking disruptors in mind. And I answered that already. Two times. With examples. Which you so far utterly ignored. I won't repeat myself again, read my last post. You "doubt it exists". I showed with which changes it WOULD exist. Twice. Why are you ignoring that? Please tell me what would be the problem there. Because I for sure cannot see it. Quote: Still in the case of missiles the issue remains....A missile ship needs to use FoF missiles then, but those are missiles, which a Curse or Pilgrim do not fear at all. Precision Cruises and Torpedos make a huge difference in damage output compared to FoF missiles. Damp specced ships do not have the same speed potential as the curse. FoFs are about as dangerous to it than Precs for the curse. Nevermind ECM ships. Originally by: Hydrogen But it is not a Curse's role at all :) Also not viable in fleets - where Curse is meant to excel and be effective.... No I've heard it all. The curse is anything but a fleetship. Your problem is that you have a very subjective perception of its role and are using that as fact for what it is "intended".
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 07:37:00 - [68] Originally by: Crazy Tasty Bottom line, is you can still TD fit and armor tank either ship, just with current game mechanics (short range in a recon is suicide, armor tanked Curse is slow and almost as bad) its not as effective. Those same mechanics really make the Pilgrims shortcomings obvious. All other discussion aside for a second: So far we have one viable Curse setup (Nano) and still a broken Pilgrim... Simply as the Nano option forces the Pilgrim to enter web range, thus die. __ - click here -
CountDrakula Fracked Inc	Posted - 2007.10.26 08:20:00 - [69] all i ahve to say is LMAO
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 13:48:00 - [70] Edited by: Hydrogen on 26/10/2007 13:49:24 Originally by: Aramendel And I answered that already. Two times. With examples. Which you so far utterly ignored. Simply put your change doesnt work, as you can not do the math it seems. 3 jammers on a Rook (multi jammers with skill) reduce average damage output of turret ships by 60%+ 3 jammers on a Curse (multi jammers with skill) reduce average damage output of turret ships by 38.6% 3 targetting range dampeners (only use targetting range) reduce damage of turret ships to 0% when used on a Curse. Why? 1st Curse can NOS/Neut speedtanks. If the Curse is in a speedtank himself, he can dictate range. About missiles: Precision Cruise eg do close to 92% damage (of 386.2) on a Curse with MWD off. Fury or T1 make app. 60% damage (at 474.4 resp. 412.5 base damage at max skill). FoF Cruise make app. 60% damage (at 386.7 base damage at max skill). In the missile scenario a TD is worthless. Jammers and/or dampeners make a huge difference. Now one can argue, that your Falloff script makes a huge difference, disabling all turrets in range. 1. blasters: heavily rely on falloff, when not in extremly short range. Curse can and should dictate range. Your change works here. 2. rails: Falloff is less an issue. Your change might reduce damage output depending on playstyle. 3. lasers: Falloff is not a real issue with lasers as long as you are in optimal. Result: Jammers and targetting range dampeners are by far more effective than TD with your changes even with your falloff script, even after the proposed scripting changes. Now please tell me, where your suggested change is an improvement? __ - click here -

Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.26 14:11:00 - [71] Originally by: Hydrogen 3 targetting range dampeners (only use targetting range) reduce damage of turret ships to 0% when used on a Curse. Why? 1st Curse can NOS/Neut speedtanks. If the Curse is in a speedtank himself, he can dictate range. Jepp, it will be more effective than ECM or damps against turret ships. But could you please tell me why this should not be the case? TDs are are more specialized module and should be vs their specialized target more effect. In turn they have disadvantages mainly not vs missiles but vs enemy EW. Quote: About missiles: Precision Cruise eg do close to 92% damage (of 386.2) on a Curse with MWD off. Fury or T1 make app. 60% damage (at 474.4 resp. 412.5 base damage at max skill). FoF Cruise make app. 60% damage (at 386.7 base damage at max skill). Firstly, copy-paste: Damp specced ships do not have the same speed potential as the curse. FoFs are about as dangerous to it than Precs for the curse. Nevermind ECM ships. Feel free to ignore it again. Secondly, do you really think that the damage difference between precs and FoFs makes any practical difference here? If you do: Doesn't matter if it is shot by precs or FoF, in both cases the curse has to pull out AFAP or go boom. Quote: In the missile scenario a TD is worthless. Jammers and/or dampeners make a huge difference. Yes, you said that already 10 times or so. Yet you still fail to aknowledge that damp specced ships have virtually the same vulnerabilities because you fail to realize that they cannot "tank" FoF fire as well as the curse. Quote: Now one can argue, that your Falloff script makes a huge difference, disabling all turrets in range. 1. blasters: heavily rely on falloff, when not in extremly short range. Curse can and should dictate range. Your change works here. 2. rails: Falloff is less an issue. Your change might reduce damage output depending on playstyle. Already answered that in my very first post here. Copy-paste: Scripts are basically "ammo" (which does not run out) for some modules which modifies what they do somewhat. You could for example add a script which removes the tracking reduction of TDs but adds a falloff reduction. So amarr recons could actually use TDs to be out of effective turret range in the sub 30k area. And a script which removes the range reduction but is boosting the tracking reduction for closerange work. Different turret types, different vulnerabilities, different scripts. The vulnerability of closerange turrets is their range. So you reduce their range. The vulnerability of longrange turrets is their tracking..so you reduce that. Quote: 3. lasers: Falloff is not a real issue with lasers as long as you are in optimal. Pulse lasers are just as efficiently neutralized by a range & falloff reduction as ACs. Do the math. For beam lasers - see previous paragraph. Quote: Result: Jammers and targetting range dampeners are by far more effective than TD with your changes even with your falloff script, even after the proposed scripting changes. Completely wrong, as shown.
Mortis Tyrathlion Twisted Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.26 16:08:00 - [72] I feel a lengthy post coming on... While all the stats and ideas being thrown around here about tracking disruptors are all well and good, and certainly gave some food for thought, I suspect it is something of a moot point. TDs are Amarrian ewar, that is not going to change, we are not going to get a different type of ewar bonus on the Curse/Pilgrim. Since we're talking about droneships, any kind of module that can help protect said drones must be a good thing, yes? Effectiveness beyond this, while important, is not the real problem with the Curse/Pilgrim. And yes, they are effective - killing a Wolf took ages the other day because of the combination of rapid orbits and a TD against my Brutix. The other point is that there is a counter to each type of ewar, and not just in terms of counter-modules. Damps you beat by getting up close, jammers by FoF (or luck =P). TPs you just gank the painting ship. Let's take a look at the other recons. Based on the ewar bonuses they have, each has a specific role. Arazu/Lachesis have the Scram/RSD bonus, making them very good tacklers - they warp in, stop the target from running and screw over its locking so that by the time it can start shooting back, it's already taken a lot of damage. Rapier/Huginn have web/TP bonus. In effect, this is like a secondary tackler. Someone goes in and scrams the target - the Rapier/Huginn then gets in, webs to stop said victim from outrunning everyone and paints them to give everyone else in the gang a boost to ganking. Falcon/Rook just have obscene ECM bonuses in terms of range and strength. This is a simple support role to stop the target from shooting back. All three of these allow for a lot of range. An ordinary web gets 40k range on the rapier/huginn, T2 disruptor 48k on the lach/arazu, TPs and RSDs 45k with 90 falloff, and the falcon and rook easily get triple figure ranges, over 200 including falloff. These are ships that are designed to engage from long range and keep a target locked down while the HACs and company gank the hell out of it. Now let's look at the Curse. A T2 tracking disruptor has 72k range with 36k falloff, which matches the other races. Similarly a Med Dim nos gets 38k range. So far, we seem to be getting a similar story - a ship designed to lock down and screw over from long range. Pilgrim also has TD range of 72/36. So far so good. Nos range of... oops, 13k! Suddenly we have a choice of wasted bonus or getting in far too close. Now, this could be understandable for a ship designed for gang support, able to get close and provide additional DPS while killing the target's cap. So that's fine - except wait, it isn't, because this is a Force Recon, not a Combat Recon, and has inferior damage! To make things worse, because the ewar that is restricting that range is Nos/Neut, it takes up valuable high slots that could be used for guns! Frankly, this feels like the main problem, for the Pilgrim at least. It's in a nasty mid-way zone between a short-range ewar duellist and a long-range support ship, lacking the tank and damage for the former and the nos range for the latter. If it were a combat recon ship with more high slots and better resists, this could work. In terms of what feels right, if nothing else, the Pilgrim should have a range bonus rather than an amount bonus, although the usefulness of this is highly dubious. (Continued in next post)
Mortis Tyrathlion Twisted Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.26 16:37:00 - [73] Edited by: Mortis Tyrathlion on 26/10/2007 16:38:37 So how do we stand? We've got a combat recon that sits back (or at least can based upon the bonuses, I'm not making any sweeping comments on setups or stats or anything) like the rest. We also have a Force Recon that has to get up close to be effective. Surely in the very names of the classes we can see that this is wrong, and possibly even the wrong way around. The other thing to note is the damage bonuses. The Rook only has the one missile bonus, while the Lachesis and Huginn have a missile bonus and a hybrid/projectile bonus. This kind of makes sense, looking at the relative ranges - Lachesis and Huginn have a maximum operational range of around 40-50k, where artillery and railguns are still more or less effective. The Rook only has the missile bonus because it operates in the triple figure region, and thus cannot make use of an alternative weapon, and damage is less important. Besides, while the Huginn and Lachesis have 3 launchers, the Rook has 5! The Curse has only a drone bonus and 4 launchers. However, it has the lowest ewar range of all, and unlike the others, is in danger of losing its damage through drones getting popped! Moreover, because the nos/neuts take up high slots, it cannot fit many weapons at all, giving a wasted set of hardpoints... Stat tinkering is not my speciality, but out of this twisted mess of information, here are the best conclusions that I can come up with. I'm aware that these are far from ideal, but I would be interested to see what the general opinion is. 1. Remove the amount bonus on the Pilgrim and replace it with a range bonus. Its ability to kill enemy cap is greatly reduced, but now it can do it from a safe distance, where fragility is less of an issue. Its soloing abilities are effectively null, but it can provide some kind of support in a gang. Alternatively, remove the drone bonus and keep the amount bonus, but raise the bandwidth. Not out of the question, as the cruiser bonuses are changed between the Bbird and Falcon/Rook. 2. Remove the range bonus on the Curse and replace it with an additional drone bonus; maybe bandwidth increase? Add on some cap tinkering to allow it to nos and neut properly without crippling itself, and you have the interesting situation of a borderline nanoship that can do a fair amount of damage to both cap and hull, but at the cost of being very close in. The primary problem here is that the 13k range of a med dim puts it at great risk of getting webbed and slaughtered. The Curse change suggested is just thinking aloud, and almost certainly shouldn't be implemented. The Pilgrim one is also far from ideal, but something along those lines might be necessary. As far as I can see, the biggest problem is that the nos/neut bonuses are split into range and amount, whereas for the other races it is one or the other. Caldari have three bonuses, but they have plenty of range, and more importantly only one Ewar. The Curse suffers now from cap problems, but it has been shown to still be semi-effective. The Pilgrim is crippled, as it is forced to engage at a range it cannot survive at. My rather lengthy 2p.
Natalie Jax	Posted - 2007.10.26 17:15:00 - [74] I agree with much of the above poster's analysis. The Pilgrim is forced to fight at such close range that it's risky business at best. It does make the ship rather dissimilar to its peers. I don't think the drones need the adjustment, as even restricted to Mediums the Pilgrim has a decent amount of DPS. The other three Recons get much more of a choice when it comes to "fight or flight" once an engagement begins. The Arazu starts the fight well out of opponent warp scram range, the Rapier will invariably be much faster than its opponent, and the Falcon is most likely unlocked and free to zip away. Not the Pilgrim. Once the fight begins the ship is much more difficult to remove from battle, especially if its making use of both bonuses. To use both bonuses the ship is just an unlucky MWD pulse away from being webbed, where it's death is ensured.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.26 17:20:00 - [75] Originally by: Natalie Jax I agree with much of the above poster's analysis. The Pilgrim is forced to fight at such close range that it's risky business at best. It does make the ship rather dissimilar to its peers. I don't think the drones need the adjustment, as even restricted to Mediums the Pilgrim has a decent amount of DPS. The other three Recons get much more of a choice when it comes to "fight or flight" once an engagement begins. The Arazu starts the fight well out of opponent warp scram range, the Rapier will invariably be much faster than its opponent, and the Falcon is most likely unlocked and free to zip away. Not the Pilgrim. Once the fight begins the ship is much more difficult to remove from battle, especially if its making use of both bonuses. To use both bonuses the ship is just an unlucky MWD pulse away from being webbed, where it's death is ensured. Well put. While too often we focus on can ship A kill ship B, we can forget that a ships ability to survive (even if that means running away) is as much of an aspect of its design. C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.26 18:06:00 - [76] Originally by: Feng Schui Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 09:45:40 ran through 21 cap booster 400's, with just my MAR going, the 2x Balmer TD's, warp disruptor, and 1 nos. but of course, the PROPHECY i was fighting, was able to shoot throughout the fight, and repair, and web, and scramble. seriously, what the ** it this **? I may as well be flying a god damn arbitrator again. Don't worry about dieing to Kaileen, damned best Proph pilot in the game bar none. However he agrees with me that the Pilly is broke. Said he deliberatly emptied his own cap and just injected enough to run guns and DC (passive hardeners) and used his enormous HP+resists advantage on you. He runs a 1600mm plate, 2x EANM II, 1x DC II, MAR II tak with some nano pumps. Coupled with the resist bonus on the Proph he has like 20k armor HP with Ex (lowest) resist at something like 65-70%. Max comp skills (lvl5). When I met him he almost killed my 800dps Myrm, no joke. That proph has claimed many lives of people underestimating him. That said Pilgrim definatly has issues, which Kaileen admitted when describing the fight to me on Vent. --
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 18:07:00 - [77] Something very special happened in the last 15+ posts. It became obvious, that you can not compare each race's recon ships. You end up in EWAR discussions each time. Problem is not the EWAR, it is a Curse's and Pilgrim's ability to fill specific roles. By now we got it several times: Both simply do not fill their roles. Not at all. It is even worse: 1. The Curse offers one viable base setup: the Nano setup, enabling it to solo. A setup, which is far away from its role. Still viable, works and is able to kill. 2. The Pilgrim is not viable at all - in no single setup. As a sidenote on Pilgrim dps: - The absolute maximum in damage output in T2 on a Pilgrim as it is now is 518 dps with no tank at all. Here drones make up 315 dps which can be killed. - The absolute maximum with 50MBit bandwidth is 441 dps without any tank whatsoever. Here 238 dps are drones which can be killed. - In a viable setup with tank, the Pilgrim currently offers 448 dps, with subpar tank and 371 dps with 50 MBit. What do I mean with subpar tank? 339 reinforced dps tank in a dual repper setup with rigs. In this dp scenario, a Pilgrim can not use NOS neither Neutralizers. - In a NOS/Neut setup, a Pilgrim dps are now 315 dps and soon 238 dps with 50MBit bandwidth. Just to compare these figures properly: - An Arbitrator does 508 dps maximum without tank, while also running one medium neutralizer or NOS. - With the 50MBit bandwidth, the Arbitrator is at 431 dps maximum without tank. - The rest of the figures is similar.... Those figures would be ok, if a Pilgrim were able to totally disable other ships (since Pilgrim has no tank with those dps). In all due respect those figures are not decent at all. __ - click here -
Mortis Tyrathlion Twisted Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.26 18:45:00 - [78] Originally by: Hydrogen Something very special happened in the last 15+ posts. It became obvious, that you can not compare each race's recon ships. You end up in EWAR discussions each time. Problem is not the EWAR, it is a Curse's and Pilgrim's ability to fill specific roles. Unfortunately, the discussions are, at the end of the day, one and the same. The Curse and Pilgrim are made by their ewar bonuses. If, to pick a random example, they had TD/RSD bonuses, we wouldn't be having this debate. The fact is, they have Nos/Neut bonuses, and the restrictions this places on them are at the heart of the issue. As I said, Tracking Disruptors are neither here nor there. Discussion of how to solve the crippling Nos/Neut issue and the ramifications of the way that it works now is the only way we're going to work out a viable solution for the Amarrian recons.
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 18:55:00 - [79] Originally by: Aramendel Quote: About missiles: Precision Cruise eg do close to 92% damage (of 386.2) on a Curse with MWD off. Fury or T1 make app. 60% damage (at 474.4 resp. 412.5 base damage at max skill). FoF Cruise make app. 60% damage (at 386.7 base damage at max skill). Firstly, copy-paste: Damp specced ships do not have the same speed potential as the curse. FoFs are about as dangerous to it than Precs for the curse. Nevermind ECM ships. Feel free to ignore it again. Secondly, do you really think that the damage difference between precs and FoFs makes any practical difference here? If you do: Doesn't matter if it is shot by precs or FoF, in both cases the curse has to pull out AFAP or go boom. Maximum skills assumed: FoF Cruise = 60% * damage= 0.6386.7 = 232.03 < 355,304 = 0.92386.2 = 90% * damage = Precision Cruise Including reload times: FoF Cruise damage <<<<<< Precision Cruise damage Dear Aramendel, there is no need to believe or not. In fact it is obvious, that I know EFT by heart. Except I actually fly these setups and used them before the NOS nerf. You could actually tank FoF Cruise missiles in a Pilgrim shot by a Raven, but not a Raven with Precision missiles. It is debatable if a Pilgrim should be able to solo a Raven. In my opinion a Raven, which is ratting solo in a belt in 0.0 should die to each - at least average - Pilgrim pilot. Anyways: I ask you most kindly to keep some manners and leave your LOLs to yourself or other threads. --- That said: You are right, that tracking disruptors should be more effective versus their specialized targets than dampeners and jammers. But: dampeners are already 100% effective if you can keep range. That is exactly the reason, why the NOS/Neut/Damp/Nano-Curse is a viable solo setup. The currently proposed changes change nothing here, simply as the targetting range reduction is sufficient to keep the ground. 100% effective is 100% effective you can not top it. And dampeners still affect missile boats too, but tracking disruptors dont. You would need to completly revamp all ECM to offer decent ground: 1. it wont happen 2. it would take diversity from the game I do like and enjoy the differences in this game. Back to topic: that is why I ask for a Curse and a Pilgrim which are no solo pwn machines, but which can and actually do fill their role. __ - click here -
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 19:02:00 - [80] Originally by: Mortis Tyrathlion Originally by: Hydrogen Something very special happened in the last 15+ posts. It became obvious, that you can not compare each race's recon ships. You end up in EWAR discussions each time. Problem is not the EWAR, it is a Curse's and Pilgrim's ability to fill specific roles. Unfortunately, the discussions are, at the end of the day, one and the same. The Curse and Pilgrim are made by their ewar bonuses. If, to pick a random example, they had TD/RSD bonuses, we wouldn't be having this debate. The fact is, they have Nos/Neut bonuses, and the restrictions this places on them are at the heart of the issue. As I said, Tracking Disruptors are neither here nor there. Discussion of how to solve the crippling Nos/Neut issue and the ramifications of the way that it works now is the only way we're going to work out a viable solution for the Amarrian recons. Nice thing is that we all agree in the end :) "Crippling NOS/Neut issues" is the major point. I can live with tracking disruptors, as long as I do not need to use them as they are now ;) But keep in mind: the change to drone bandwidth will even further cripple both ships, even if the NOS/Neut issue is solved. __ - click here -

Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.26 20:56:00 - [81] Edited by: Aramendel on 26/10/2007 20:59:06 Originally by: Hydrogen Maximum skills assumed: FoF Cruise = 60% * damage= 0.6386.7 = 232.03 < 355,304 = 0.92386.2 = 90% * damage = Precision Cruise Including reload times: FoF Cruise damage <<<<<< Precision Cruise damage And yet again you juts mantralinke repeat what you already said and utterly ignored what I wrote. Copy-paste: Damp specced ships do not have the same speed potential as the curse. FoFs are about as dangerous to it than Precs for the curse. Nevermind ECM ships. This is your fallacy, which you repeat and repeat and repeat. You assume that TDs somehow put amarr recons in a disadvantage towards missile ships compared to the other recons. They don't. And as a sidenote your numbers are wrong: Prec cruise max damage is 357.5. The damage reduction with lvl4 GMP is 35% for FoFs and 2.5% for precs and with lvl 5 30.7% with FoFs and 0% with precs. This gives us with max skills 268 for FoFs vs 357.5 with precs. This is the reason why I know the game by heart and not EFT. I rather rely on ingame info and my own calculations. Because I know they are right (unless I make an error that is ). Quote: You could actually tank FoF Cruise missiles in a Pilgrim shot by a Raven, but not a Raven with Precision missiles. It is debatable if a Pilgrim should be able to solo a Raven. In my opinion a Raven, which is ratting solo in a belt in 0.0 should die to each - at least average - Pilgrim pilot. Fristly, the pilgrim is not the curse. While the pilgrim can (barely and only if you ignore BS drone damage) tank FoFs the curse cannot. Max skills FoFs deal 292 dps on a 3 damagemod raven, feel free to give me a curse setup without faction or t2 rigs which can tank this on its weakest resistance. But try to get the numbers right this time. Then there is the fact that no other force recon can tank FoFs, they have to disengage just as surely as the pilgrim will when shot as with. Quote: Anyways: I ask you most kindly to keep some manners and leave your LOLs to yourself or other threads. I will when you do not try to sell your opinion as fact. When I read something I find rediculous I will respond in an appropriate manner - by laughing. Quote: That said: You are right, that tracking disruptors should be more effective versus their specialized targets than dampeners and jammers. But: dampeners are already 100% effective if you can keep range. That is exactly the reason, why the NOS/Neut/Damp/Nano-Curse is a viable solo setup. The currently proposed changes change nothing here, simply as the targetting range reduction is sufficient to keep the ground. 100% effective is 100% effective you can not top it. And dampeners still affect missile boats too, but tracking disruptors dont. Would you consider a module which needs 8 of it to have a particular effect as effective as a module which can achieve the same effect with one of it? No? You would need on the curse 3 damps to have a similar effect as 2 TDs with my script suggestion. They do not have the same efficiency. And as already said for a curse it makes no difference if it gets attacked by FoF or prec cruise, it cannot tank either. Originally by: Hydrogen By now we got it several times: Both simply do not fill their roles. Not at all. Actually the only person who claimed that the curse cannot fill its role is you. But you said it several times, I give that to you.
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 21:16:00 - [82] Originally by: Aramendel Prec cruise max damage is 357.5. You are right here, thanks for putting it right. __ - click here -
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 21:24:00 - [83] Originally by: Aramendel Actually the only person who claimed that the curse cannot fill its role is you. But you said it several times, I give that to you. Ok, so if you you think the Curse fills its role, please explain which role and how? or more clear: 1. Does the Curse currently fullfill a role (except the already mentioned Nano-Curse solo)? If so which? 2. Does the Pilgrim currently fullfill a role? If so which? Since you disagree, please tell. __ - click here -
Kruel Blunt Force Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.26 21:57:00 - [84] TBH the role CCP gave to the Amarr recons didn't work, so us players came up with better fittings to compete. For this reason players find themselves using nano+damp Curse and ecm burst+damp Pilgrim. Maybe if TDs didn't suck fat monkey balls compared to damps/ecm, the Amarr recons would fill their original role better. What would you rather have... the ability to disable a ship completely or just affect it's hit ratio? Which I might add, has absolutely no effect on missiles, drones, other ew, nos/neuts. What's worse is that the Pilgrim is forced into web range to use it's nos/neut bonus. After you fit the required mods (mwd, web, scram, injector), you're left with ONE mid for a single TD... and it isn't going to make much difference when you're webbed. The bonuses on the Pilgrim are basically working against each other. At least with the Huggin/Rapier the painter bonus compliments the web bonus nicely... though painters still suck, but that's not the point. How to fix it though? Well the range bonus would help. The TDs would be more effective if you weren't webbed. It would also help to be able to outrun drones and some missiles (or at least reduce the damage taken by them via speed). TDs still need something though. What that is, I don't know. But compared to damps and ecm they aren't that great.
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 22:25:00 - [85] Ok right now we are at the following points: 1. Tracking disruptors need to be similarly effective like jammers and dampeners aleternatively 2. NOS/Neut needs to be reworked for Pilgrim and/or Curse alternatively 3. Curse and Pilgrim ship stats need to be reworked as in eg. grid, resist, slot layout, cargo bay,... (my suggestions) alternatively 4. Curse is fine since there is a viable nano/damp/neut setup, but Pilgrim needs to be reworked. anything I missed? My personal perception of the discussion: ad 1. unlikely it is too great an impact and even after a long discussion we did not come up with a solution so far that works. ad 2. an intense discussion. Somehow it appears that some players fear the "overpowered" Curse and Pilgrim, thus being extremly against any NOS/Neut change for Amarr Recons only. Others favor the Amarr Recon solo playstyle and would love to have it returned. ad 3. there was close to no discussion about this option, except "LOL" or similar, since I made those suggestions . Still I believe this is an option since it can be implemented easily and fast. Eg. cargo + 1 med slot + cap modification or a boost to armor/resist/grid/cap,... Any comments here? ad 4. it appears that this opinion has no common consent. Some plain do not believe (including me) that nano/damp/neut Curse is a real role, when it is the only viable one. Others seem to be ok. As a general impression: this thread lacks more Curse/Pilgrim pilots and their points of view. __ - click here -
oniplE NED-Clan R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.26 22:52:00 - [86] A curse whine thread? What? They're awesome, wanna trade them for gallente recons? The amarr recons are pretty much the only reason why i would ever train amarr.. x
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 23:15:00 - [87] Originally by: oniplE A curse whine thread? What? They're awesome, wanna trade them for gallente recons? The amarr recons are pretty much the only reason why i would ever train amarr.. Right now that woulda be a load of skill points in the trash bin ;) You might not have realized that Amarr Recons changed completly the past few months from maybe even overpowered to crippled (agreed in the case of the Pilgrim, discussed in case of the Curse). Maybe you got a constructive addition ;) ? __ - click here -
Yakov Draken Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2007.10.26 23:34:00 - [88] Edited by: Yakov Draken on 26/10/2007 23:35:51 I guess I'm the ultimate noob cause I'm training my combat alt for a Curse right now. The Curse has a very clear role that it does well - drain cap and do drone damage while sitting back outside Warp Disrupter range. Neutralising cap is a devestating weapon and the Curse is extremely good at the job. You don't have to target the primary - if they are a Drake with a passive tank you can cap out the oppositions tacklers, recons, laser/blaster boats. Sure there will be the odd gank where you are fairly redundant but that is a part of being a specialised weapon. That the Curse is effective solo as well as in a gang shows just how good it is. The biggest question mark for me on future usage of the Curse is how the Sensor Damp nerf works in practice. If a mix of range and locking time damps works decently then life should still be rosy. If you want to improve Amarr recons then you should focus on the one with problems - the Pilgrim.
oniplE NED-Clan R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.27 00:43:00 - [89] Originally by: Hydrogen Originally by: oniplE A curse whine thread? What? They're awesome, wanna trade them for gallente recons? The amarr recons are pretty much the only reason why i would ever train amarr.. Right now that woulda be a load of skill points in the trash bin ;) You might not have realized that Amarr Recons changed completly the past few months from maybe even overpowered to crippled (agreed in the case of the Pilgrim, discussed in case of the Curse). Maybe you got a constructive addition ;) ? ok, perhaps instead of flying a curse you should fight against a curse and experience it from the other side. I've been testing a lot of ship setups lately (mostly deimos) and the curse is the number 1 threat, hands down. Sure it takes a lot of cap to sustain the offensive capabilities of the curse (neuts), but you should see what it does to the target.. my cap is cut in half instantly and 15 seconds later its completely gone. With my cap injector i can keep the repper going, but there's no way i'll catch the curse cuz i dont have the speed, nor do i have enough cap for the mwd. I like tanking my deimos, im not so much into the damage dealing, so i can usually tank hacs and commandships until i run out of capboosters, but i can garantuee it will be over within 20 seconds if a curse shows up. With the nosnerf its less of a solopwnmobile, but recons are meant to be gang ships, thats why all of the recons have crap damage output, but they all have the ability to tip the scale in gang fights, including the amarr recons. x
Hydrogen Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.27 02:48:00 - [90] Edited by: Hydrogen on 27/10/2007 02:52:26 Originally by: oniplE With the nosnerf its less of a solopwnmobile, but recons are meant to be gang ships, thats why all of the recons have crap damage output, but they all have the ability to tip the scale in gang fights, including the amarr recons. Well then I suggest you learn about your opponent. An armor tanked, slow blaster or rail Deimos is the worst possible fitting to fight a Curse. Try your Deimos with a speed tank or try a Nano-Ishtar. You wont even realize your cap is being drained, simply because, when you could need it, the Curse is already gone. A blaster Deimos with 2 damage mods has 643 dps in T2 fitting. With a speed tank you just close in: Your hybrid alpha and your drone alpha already rip the shield off the Curse. By then it becomes ugly, since you need something along the line of 9 seconds to drop the Curses armor. Since now the Curses repper kicks in, you need 3 seconds more to see a blinking pod of a Curse pilot. That is somethign along the line of 15 seconds total which you need to drop the Curse. In case of a Nano-Ishtar I doubt if you would see your armor scratched even... Check your fittings - this is no mystery, but common knowledge. Edit-On a sidenote: A Deimos with 2 damage mods and the rest of lows and rigs for speed, goes at 4,178 m/s - a Curse at 3,847 m/s (max in T2 fitting). Both without implants. If a Curse outruns you, then his setup is pimped, implant and/or faction/deadspace wise. Pointless for you to complain here. __ - click here -

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.