EVE Search - Specialized Ships(pilgrim/curse/etc) vs new Battery behavior

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Specialized Ships(pilgrim/curse/etc) vs new Battery behavior

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kitanga Lowsec Border Marshals 2	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:31:00 - [1] - Quote recently a change was made to how capacitor batteries behave. see below... "Provides defense against Energy Leech and Energy Neutralizer effects." i want to open a discussion about this change and how it affects specialized ships such as the pilgrim/curse, legion, cruor, sentinel (there maybe be a few more) these ships have a bonus to "energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer amount". and some of these ships take a good amount of training to fly. i feel that these ships, especially those that take a while to train such as the curse and pilgrim, should be immune to this new battery behavior. much like the way a heavy interdictor is immune to the affect of a warp core stabilizer if the dictor points the ship with this mod fitted (not talking about dropping a bubble). the fact that a tech 1 battery can effectively cripple a pilgrims behavior of neuting a target just seems unfair. this was my personal experience recently in tackling a target in lowsec. i found myself cap-less very quickly. I found this to be frustrating mainly because i spent the time to train for a pilgrim, and now find it to be somewhat of a crippled ship in that its bonus attribute is strongly hindered by a tech 1 mod that anyone can use. TLDR; i am proposing that specialized ships be immune to the new battery behavior. i am hoping that a dev will read this post and provide his/her opinion on the matter. Thank you Kitanga
Jim Era HARD KNOCKS CORP 1884	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:32:00 - [2] - Quote rrewr
MIrple BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team 96	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:34:00 - [3] - Quote Wow really? Batterys are fit rarely at best and yet everything has a counter. Now your Cap drain has a counter deal with it
Kalen Pavle Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:34:00 - [4] - Quote Kitanga wrote: Someone fit a mod which effectively countered my ship, this is unbalanced as my ship should have no effective counter. Please nerf the thing which caused me hardship. Kitanga
Bullz3y3 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 18	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:34:00 - [5] - Quote Posting in a my iWin button doesnt work anymore thread.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 2387	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:40:00 - [6] - Quote MIrple wrote: Wow really? Batterys are fit rarely at best and yet everything has a counter. Now your Cap drain has a counter deal with it Well, not that I disagree with you entirely, Cap drain already had an effective counter in Cap Injectors. The Pilgrim really does need a boost though. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Swordfingers Restless Obsession 33	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:41:00 - [7] - Quote You do know that they don't provide total protection, but just some % chance of reflecting one cycle back?
James 315 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 2544	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:43:00 - [8] - Quote Energy neuts shouldn't cost cap. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MinerBumping.com -½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½ The daily saga of one man's quest to bring civilization to highsec by bumping miners out of range.
Kitanga Lowsec Border Marshals 2	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:44:00 - [9] - Quote Swordfingers wrote: You do know that they don't provide total protection, but just some % chance of reflecting one cycle back? looking at my logs, it was triggered often..
Swordfingers Restless Obsession 33	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:46:00 - [10] - Quote Kitanga wrote: Swordfingers wrote: You do know that they don't provide total protection, but just some % chance of reflecting one cycle back? looking at my logs, it was triggered often.. I know I read the description of the module incorrectly (and I feel bad for it), but it's still just about 12% reflected back with a large battery.

Karl Planck Heretic Army Heretic Nation 232	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:52:00 - [11] - Quote Honestly, people wont waste a mid to reduce the effects of one of the most powerful forms of ewar in the game (ECCM to counter ECM) and you think that people are going to now waste a mid to fit a cap battery? Yea, im sure this is going to happen often. If anything else at least it makes it possibly viable on a pvp ship, though i am still pretty certain the km will just get laughed off the internet. Low-sec Best-sec
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 2387	Posted - 2012.08.31 16:58:00 - [12] - Quote Karl Planck wrote: Honestly, people wont waste a mid to reduce the effects of one of the most powerful forms of ewar in the game (ECCM to counter ECM) and you think that people are going to now waste a mid to fit a cap battery? Yea, im sure this is going to happen often. If anything else at least it makes it possibly viable on a pvp ship, though i am still pretty certain the km will just get laughed off the internet. Well, actually, the fact that it also benefits the overall cap level available (although inefficiently comparted to other means) that tends to help in terms of benefit. But yes, it won't be mounted often unless you are fitting vs a specific opponent or tactic you know will be involved. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 9302	Posted - 2012.08.31 17:03:00 - [13] - Quote Karl Planck wrote: Honestly, people wont waste a mid to reduce the effects of one of the most powerful forms of ewar in the game (ECCM to counter ECM) and you think that people are going to now waste a mid to fit a cap battery? The difference is that cap batteries actually provide a benefit GÇö ECCM does not. And anyway, people already tend to spend a midslot on fitting the standard anti-cap warfare moduleGÇª so it doesn't seem all that unlikely. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
Xiode Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2012.08.31 17:04:00 - [14] - Quote Got 105 kills and 0 losses with my Pilgrim this month. I didn't encounter anyone using a battery though.
Kitanga Lowsec Border Marshals 2	Posted - 2012.09.03 15:25:00 - [15] - Quote to address the ECCM mod argument: the battery mod has been in the game forever, with the purpose of increasing the cap of a ship. it is not a specialized 'counter' mod. This new attribute has been added to batteries instead of adding a NEW mod whose sole purpose is to "Provide defense against Energy Leech and Energy Neutralizer effects." if a new mod was added whose sole purpose was to provide protection to cap neutralizing ships then your argument would have weight, and i would not have made this post. to address 'my iWin button doesnt work anymore' comments: the cap neutralizing ships are inherently PVP ships. you do not run missions in these ships. and with the affective killing off of empire war decs(R.I.P. war dec corps), you care-bear highsec types will not even see ships like this on your grid. so stop cheering when CCP dumbs down the game.. Let a PVP ship do what they are designed to do, without a tech 1 mod disabling it.
Danny John-Peter The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 136	Posted - 2012.09.03 15:31:00 - [16] - Quote Can't say I have really seen people fitting Cap Batteries much, too many more useful things in those mids (And to be honest if you want a Mid Slot Module on a PVP ship, Cap Boosters are still a better choice). Also, if you are really worried, fit an Injector on your Curse/Piglrim etc (Most do anyways afaik, and also yes the Pilgrim needs a boost). The only ships I can really see it causing a problem too is like Shield Tanked Neuting boats, so basically the Hurricane, which needs a nerf anyhow tbh, the Tempest shouldnt have issues as its Injected as standard.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 122	Posted - 2012.09.03 15:37:00 - [17] - Quote No one really uses the battery because its defence is so feeble (it is effectively 1 med neuts worth of counter neuting). All it really does is requires the neuter to be a bit more sensible when they have the enemy neuted down. Its most definately not dumbing down, quite the opposite. Defence against neuting has always been the primary purpose of batteries anyway (for cap regen recharger is better unless you have all that fitting to spare with an oversize), all cpp has done is make them a bit better at it.
Uris Vitgar Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2012.09.03 15:43:00 - [18] - Quote You haven't seen many of them fitted because they only reflect 12.5% of the neut. This "protection against neuts" is so small it may as well not exist
Cede Forster 45	Posted - 2012.09.03 17:06:00 - [19] - Quote Karl Planck wrote: Honestly, people wont waste a mid to reduce the effects of one of the most powerful forms of ewar in the game (ECCM to counter ECM) and you think that people are going to now waste a mid to fit a cap battery? Yea, im sure this is going to happen often. If anything else at least it makes it possibly viable on a pvp ship, though i am still pretty certain the km will just get laughed off the internet. why waste a midslot if you can complain on forums and blogs in the hope that it will be nerfed?
Marcus Ichiro Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 77	Posted - 2012.09.03 17:11:00 - [20] - Quote You know you could have just turned your neuts off? Posting in a "my win fight butan does not work 100% of the time" thread.

Othran Thundercats The Initiative. 229	Posted - 2012.09.03 17:21:00 - [21] - Quote The problem is that the cap battery doesn't do anything well. Yes it boosts cap and in some cases can get you cap-stable - even on ships you'd think it wouldn't. Yes it mitigates against neuting, but not as much as a cap booster. The thing is that the cap booster helps you with mwd, weapons, ecm - anything that eats cap. The cap battery is only better in very limited situations with specific ships. Cap booster is still the preferred midslot mod over the battery. Edit - I really would like the battery to be better but reflecting neut drain isn't the way to do it. Massively increasing the cap storage AND the PG it uses is the way to go. ie much more cap but so much PG you need a new fit, its not just a simple swap between cap booster and battery.
Rico Minali Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy 985	Posted - 2012.09.03 17:57:00 - [22] - Quote Kitanga wrote: recently a change was made to how capacitor batteries behave. see below... "Provides defense against Energy Leech and Energy Neutralizer effects." i want to open a discussion about this change and how it affects specialized ships such as the pilgrim/curse, legion, cruor, sentinel (there maybe be a few more) these ships have a bonus to "energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer amount". and some of these ships take a good amount of training to fly. i feel that these ships, especially those that take a while to train such as the curse and pilgrim, should be immune to this new battery behavior. much like the way a heavy interdictor is immune to the affect of a warp core stabilizer if the dictor points the ship with this mod fitted (not talking about dropping a bubble). the fact that a tech 1 battery can effectively cripple a pilgrims behavior of neuting a target just seems unfair. this was my personal experience recently in tackling a target in lowsec. i found myself cap-less very quickly. I found this to be frustrating mainly because i spent the time to train for a pilgrim, and now find it to be somewhat of a crippled ship in that its bonus attribute is strongly hindered by a tech 1 mod that anyone can use. TLDR; i am proposing that specialized ships be immune to the new battery behavior. i am hoping that a dev will read this post and provide his/her opinion on the matter. Thank you Kitanga Everything must have a counter. This counters neutralisers. Very few peopel will actually fit tehm so this will actually happen very rarely, but it is right that they are available. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Kitanga Lowsec Border Marshals 2	Posted - 2012.09.03 18:15:00 - [23] - Quote Rico Minali wrote: Kitanga wrote: recently a change was made to how capacitor batteries behave. see below... "Provides defense against Energy Leech and Energy Neutralizer effects." i want to open a discussion about this change and how it affects specialized ships such as the pilgrim/curse, legion, cruor, sentinel (there maybe be a few more) these ships have a bonus to "energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer amount". and some of these ships take a good amount of training to fly. i feel that these ships, especially those that take a while to train such as the curse and pilgrim, should be immune to this new battery behavior. much like the way a heavy interdictor is immune to the affect of a warp core stabilizer if the dictor points the ship with this mod fitted (not talking about dropping a bubble). the fact that a tech 1 battery can effectively cripple a pilgrims behavior of neuting a target just seems unfair. this was my personal experience recently in tackling a target in lowsec. i found myself cap-less very quickly. I found this to be frustrating mainly because i spent the time to train for a pilgrim, and now find it to be somewhat of a crippled ship in that its bonus attribute is strongly hindered by a tech 1 mod that anyone can use. TLDR; i am proposing that specialized ships be immune to the new battery behavior. i am hoping that a dev will read this post and provide his/her opinion on the matter. Thank you Kitanga Everything must have a counter. This counters neutralisers. Very few peopel will actually fit tehm so this will actually happen very rarely, but it is right that they are available. thank you for your opinion but i feel you missed the point i am trying to make. sure maybe it should have a counter. but i do not feel it should be on a mod that also provides other benefits. make the neutralizer counter mod like ECCM mods. specialized to the task. or add a secondary set of 'batteries' that have this new attribute that also have a much reduced benefit as a battery, and in turn remove the attribute from the current batteries. suggestion to CCP : its a long time to train for a pilgrim/curse, and the pilgrim is fun to fly solo. leave it alone. Let it not be countered by a tech 1 non-specialized mod.
Kitanga Lowsec Border Marshals 2	Posted - 2012.09.03 18:43:00 - [24] - Quote i can only surmise at the lack of positive support to my argument that: A) that only high-sec care-bear types actually participate in these forums OR B) only 3 or 4 people in all of eve fly i pilgrim/curse (including me). eve is, at its core, all about PVP. if CCP wants to make high-sec a panacea for the care-bear types in order to boost subscriptions then fine, go for it. a huge step in that direction was killing off wardecs, and boosting exhumer ships. so be happy you care-bear types CCP is listening. But please CCP do not Nerf PVP centric ships. especially in offhand hope they don't notice ways.
Lady Spank Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED 2725	Posted - 2012.09.03 18:58:00 - [25] - Quote I'd rather fit a cap injector and that's even more effective versus your failboat. I can't imagine ever capping myself out in a Pilgrim. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â)
Danny John-Peter The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 136	Posted - 2012.09.04 08:10:00 - [26] - Quote Kitanga wrote: i can only surmise at the lack of positive support to my argument that: A) that only high-sec care-bear types actually participate in these forums OR B) only 3 or 4 people in all of eve fly i pilgrim/curse (including me). eve is, at its core, all about PVP. if CCP wants to make high-sec a panacea for the care-bear types in order to boost subscriptions then fine, go for it. a huge step in that direction was killing off wardecs, and boosting exhumer ships. so be happy you care-bear types CCP is listening. But please CCP do not Nerf PVP centric ships. especially in offhand hope they don't notice ways. I fly the Curse, I find the Pilgrim less useful but still own one and do occasionally make use, the Cap Battery is not in any way a viable counter to either ship, the reflect amount is so small. If your that concerned refit your Curse/Pilgrim to injector set ups, I prefer injected set ups anyways myself, with a good amount of cap management its rare you have to inject but its nice to have the option. Ed; and just because we disagree don't assume we lack knowledge on the subject, makes you look like a bit of an arse.
Kitty Bear Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance 27	Posted - 2012.09.04 10:55:00 - [27] - Quote MIrple wrote: everything has a counter Cloaking Devices ?
Wilhelm Riley Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 94	Posted - 2012.09.04 11:09:00 - [28] - Quote If Cap Batteries are the counter to Neuts then what is the counter to Cap Batteries?
Flamewave Crimson Moon Society 24	Posted - 2012.09.04 11:15:00 - [29] - Quote Kitty Bear wrote: MIrple wrote: everything has a counter Cloaking Devices ? Smartbombs. Some things ISK can't buy. For everything else, there's Jita. YouTube
Danny John-Peter The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 136	Posted - 2012.09.04 12:56:00 - [30] - Quote Flamewave wrote: Kitty Bear wrote: MIrple wrote: everything has a counter Cloaking Devices ? Smartbombs. Interceptors, with SEBOs



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20250619/0816
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.