EVE Search - PILGRIM

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

PILGRIM

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:30:00 - [1] Every Force Recon get a bonus to operate at range: Falcon - 20% bonus to ECM Jammer range / lvl (cruiser bonus) Huggin - 60% bonus to Stasis Webifier range / lvl (recon bonus) Arazu - 20% bonus to warp disruptor range / lvl (recon bonus) EXCEPT the Pilgrim. My suggestion is the Pilgrim recon bonus reads: "Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level" Its slot layout is changed to; 4 High 4 Mid 5 Low Mid slots reduced so that in order to sensor damp the fit you would prob have to sacrifice either an AB/MWD, Cap Inj, or Scram to fit a second Damp. Please, someone help this ship! C. - sig designer - eve mail
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.08 02:34:00 - [2] i would rather have a cap reduction tbh other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Devian 666 Sectoid Technologies	Posted - 2007.10.08 07:03:00 - [3] That slot layout would make the pilgrim a t1 ship and would nerf it out of existance. If the slots became that I'd never fly a pilgrim. I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Originally by: rycar Devian 666 is awesome quote this if you're down
FlyinBryan The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.08 07:11:00 - [4] I agree with the bonuses, however the slot layout isn't what it should be. _______________________________________________
Warble Warble	Posted - 2007.10.08 07:17:00 - [5] Originally by: Devian 666 If the slots became that I'd never fly a pilgrim. You're still flying the pilgrim these days? Bravo, you are quite the brave one to pilot a space-faring piece of ****.
Devian 666 Sectoid Technologies	Posted - 2007.10.08 07:41:00 - [6] Originally by: Warble Warble Originally by: Devian 666 If the slots became that I'd never fly a pilgrim. You're still flying the pilgrim these days? Bravo, you are quite the brave one to pilot a space-faring piece of **. Recons were never intended to be solopwn mobiles so they're balanced back to the same level as other recons. That and no need to troll in the development forum. I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Originally by:** rycar Devian 666 is awesome quote this if you're down
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.08 08:29:00 - [7] Originally by: Devian 666 Originally by: Warble Warble Originally by: Devian 666 If the slots became that I'd never fly a pilgrim. You're still flying the pilgrim these days? Bravo, you are quite the brave one to pilot a space-faring piece of ***. Recons were never intended to be solopwn mobiles so they're balanced back to the same level as other recons. That and no need to troll in the development forum. Agreed, plenty of trolling to e found elsewhere. I also agree the Pilgrim shouldnt be a 'solopwnmobile' but each race has a cloaked vessel that can support a fleet at a stand off range, but the Amarr do not. The Pilgrims need to operate close up to make use of its nos/neut bonus coupled with a lack of any other range bonus skews its role from that of its class. While Im not denying the pilgrim can be useful in solo engagements it strikes me this isnt what this class of ship are really designed to do. In small gangs / fleet ops the pilgrim is a poor contender. With jump capabale Black Ops ships coming the Pilgrim really needs a review. I believe that its nos / neut range should be increased but something* else paired down. The question is what 'something'? Drone damage bonus? What would pilgrim pilots be prepared to let go to get this much needed ability? C. - sig designer - eve mail
Andreya	Posted - 2007.10.10 05:49:00 - [8] woah, no no, the pilgrim should have 6 meds, not more lows. its meant to be a ew ship, ALL the recons are, currently, i think its the only one who doesnt have 6 mids slots. if anything ditch a low slot for its intended mid slot... also, yes i agree it needs a range bonus, but what to drop for it? the energy amount bonus... make its nos like a curse, but without the bonus to amount drained. very simple changes without making the ship overpowered by any means
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.10.10 08:59:00 - [9] Did You noticed that Pilgrim already have long-range ECM? Did You noticed that Pilgrim have bigger dronebay, than any other recon, including both gallente ones? Only Curse have similar dronebay. So, why not use what we have? Load some EW drones, fit drone link augmentor et voila... You have 75km range ewar with 50% increased effectiveness by Amarr Cruiser bonus. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.10 09:28:00 - [10] Fit energy vampire drones. Use the tracking disruptors, if you don't like those, you didn't understand how it gimps a gunboat and takes them off any chance of hitting you (don't stand still - think tracking and range). At long range, if a damp breaks the locks of a ship because the targeting range gets too short, just look at what a tracking disruptor does to the guns, most of the time, the guy won't even understand what happens and may just think you are tanking great! Also, the tracking disruptor has 48km optimal (higher than damp : 30 km), I remember how efficient it was when using just one in a frigate squad to attack a zealot... No frigate casualities, killed the zealot with 1/4 the investment at most. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.10 11:51:00 - [11] Originally by: Tonto Auri Did You noticed that Pilgrim already have long-range ECM? Did You noticed that Pilgrim have bigger dronebay, than any other recon, including both gallente ones? Only Curse have similar dronebay. So, why not use what we have? Load some EW drones, fit drone link augmentor et voila... You have 75km range ewar with 50% increased effectiveness by Amarr Cruiser bonus. Which is all well and good Im sure, except TDs have 0 impact on missiles. With the EW drones fitted what exactly are you doing any damage with? My point is the other recons can all use their abilities at an extended range - go to range with a pilgrim and what's the point of the nos/neut bonus??? C. - sig designer - eve mail
maarud Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.10 12:28:00 - [12] Your Bonuses are wrong and it's not just the pilgrim that should change... My Thoughts on the subject. Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.10 13:25:00 - [13] Edited by: Aramendel on 10/10/2007 13:25:10 Originally by: Tonto Auri Did You noticed that Pilgrim already have long-range ECM? Did You noticed that Pilgrim have bigger dronebay, than any other recon, including both gallente ones? Only Curse have similar dronebay. So, why not use what we have? Load some EW drones, fit drone link augmentor et voila... You have 75km range ewar with 50% increased effectiveness by Amarr Cruiser bonus. What you did not notice: The drone bonus is only for DAMAGE. Not other effects. If you fit non-damage drones you are wasting its ship bonus. Unlike the gal & minmatar recons the amarr ones have no non-drone based weapons, so they need their dronebay for dps. Originally by: Eleana Tomelac At long range, if a damp breaks the locks of a ship because the targeting range gets too short, just look at what a tracking disruptor does to the guns, most of the time, the guy won't even understand what happens and may just think you are tanking great! Also, the tracking disruptor has 48km optimal (higher than damp : 30 km), I remember how efficient it was when using just one in a frigate squad to attack a zealot... No frigate casualities, killed the zealot with 1/4 the investment at most. Try a tracking disruptor again a non-braindead med blaster or ac ship. it will minimize transversal and kill you because TDs do not really do that much vs these ships unless you have the speed/range advantage (which the pilgrim hasn't). Also the other thing you miss is that TDs have a 24k optimal and damps a 60k optimal. This gives damps a FAR greater range performance than TDs. At 48k a damp has a 94% chance to work, a TD a 100% chance. At 60k it is 84% chance for both modules. At 72k it is a 71% chance for damps and a 50% chance for TDs to work.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.10.10 14:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Cailais Every Force Recon get a bonus to operate at range: Falcon - 20% bonus to ECM Jammer range / lvl (cruiser bonus) Huggin - 60% bonus to Stasis Webifier range / lvl (recon bonus) Arazu - 20% bonus to warp disruptor range / lvl (recon bonus) EXCEPT the Pilgrim. My suggestion is the Pilgrim recon bonus reads: "Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level" Its slot layout is changed to; 4 High 4 Mid 5 Low Mid slots reduced so that in order to sensor damp the fit you would prob have to sacrifice either an AB/MWD, Cap Inj, or Scram to fit a second Damp. Please, someone help this ship! C. I fully agree with revamping the pilgrim. But the issue is the fact that the pilgrim cant do anything special... No other ship can web like a rapier, no other ship can scramble like an arazu, no other ship can jam at the same range as a falcon. The pilgrim on the other hand drains less cap then a battleship. And unless the pilgrim can kill a battleships cap in 1 or 2 cycles (which would be horribly overpowered) it will be useless in gangs. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.10 15:12:00 - [15] The real problem of the pilgrim is that it is using a combat tactic which is more or less outdated. Like someone hiding behind stone fortifications in the gunpowder era. From that viewpoint it fits actually very well into the general "amarr" theme. They key design of the pilgrim was to tank its target somewhat reduced, but not completely negated dps while killing its cap and slowly nibbeling it to death with its drones. Essentially just like a nosdomi. However it missed several key stats which made the nosdomi overpowered. Compared to it it has: - far lower amount of HP - far smaller tank - only half the nos/neut range - only half the dps These weaknesses made the pilgrim mostly balanced (at least after the ECM nerf) when the nosdomi was overpowered and what balanced the nosdomi broke the pilgrim.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.10 17:29:00 - [16] Originally by: maarud Your Bonuses are wrong and it's not just the pilgrim that should change... My Thoughts on the subject. Agreed your bonuses are infact better, but when I suggested a missile bonus loads of Curse pilots wailed 'oh noes!' and I also got the 'oh noes a nano pilgrim!' winnage. I pretty peeved since the nos nerf as its broadly trashed two decent amarr ships (not to mention being a total waste of training time). Those that argue 'oh just fit nos and neuts' quite frankly need their heads examining as the overall performance is nowhere near close. 15 curse lost on sisi for 2 kills, 10 pilgrims for 0 kills thus far.... C. - sig designer - eve mail
Myra2007	Posted - 2007.10.10 17:35:00 - [17] A recon with 4 meds? No, thank you very much. 5 are already not enough! Why does everybody think the pilgrim should be changed into a very, very weak curse? I do agree pilgrim is a bit gimped atm but if you want range on nos/neuts then curse is the way to go. What does your new pilgrim do better than a curse and please don't say cloaking? And why does the lost med slot not at least become a hislot/lowslot or something that well is not nothing? Imo a cap reduction bonus on neuts (instead of amount) plus a bit of powergrid and a medslot would do much, much better. You wouldn't get your old pilgrim back, but it would be a ship again thats worth soloing in. Just my 2 cents.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.10 17:40:00 - [18] see the above post. leave the pilgrim's slot layouts alone. add another 100-150PG, and, even as the dev's said, "the pilgrim's isn't a good gang ship," change the cyno duration bonus to a 75% energy emission systems capacitor use reduction. fixed. other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.10 18:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Feng Schui see the above post. leave the pilgrim's slot layouts alone. add another 100-150PG, and, even as the dev's said, "the pilgrim's isn't a good gang ship," change the cyno duration bonus to a 75% energy emission systems capacitor use reduction. fixed. But isnt that the point? The Pilgrim should be a good gang ship, the other force recons are all very useful in small gangs; except the pilgrim. Fine, leave the slot layout as is, but something needs boostin!! C. - sig designer - eve mail
Pezzle Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.10 21:10:00 - [20] Just a random though, why not try dumping the nos bonus and adding a falloff or some range bonus for TD to the Pilgrim? Of course TD is the runt of the Jam/Damp/Web/TD litter so this may not bring it quite up to speed. It would give Amarr a combat recon ship effective at range like everyone else though.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.10 21:45:00 - [21] Originally by: Pezzle Just a random though, why not try dumping the nos bonus and adding a falloff or some range bonus for TD to the Pilgrim? Of course TD is the runt of the Jam/Damp/Web/TD litter so this may not bring it quite up to speed. It would give Amarr a combat recon ship effective at range like everyone else though. Its a valid option, but youve got to ask yourself whats really useful in pvp? Warp Disruption: Yep very handy. Webs: Excellent ECM: Variable, but great on the right ship (i.e effects missiles and guns, and if you cant lock drones too!) Damps: excellent: (i.e effects missiles and guns, and if you cant lock drones too!) Tracking Disruptors: erm...not so much. C. - sig designer - eve mail
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.10 22:05:00 - [22] Depends really. If the pilgrim had a 100% TD range bonus you could get an optimal of 144k with TDs. And a falloff of 36k. This would mean with ONE TD: - a 100% chance to disable a sniper at 144k - a 87% chance to disable a sniper at 160k - a 70% chance to disable a sniper at 170k And in addition the option to boost the optimal to 207k with EW range rigs. This would make the pilgrim per module a lot more efficient in anti-fleet sniper EW than the falcon. The pilgrim would have fewer meds for EW though, but even with 3 TDs it would be still as efficient as the falcon with 5 racial ECM - and would have 5 med slots free. The only problem here is that that ability would only really be useful for fleet EW. 1 TD will only disable a sniper ship. Against a ship at close range its effect is not really that big. An ECM ship can support a sniper fleet or a closerange gang equally well.
Pezzle Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.11 15:34:00 - [23] What is happening here is the result of flaws being revealed. At this point there are at least two separate issues. Tracking Disruption's role and the Pilgrim. As it stands Tracking disruption is weak for reasons already outlined (poor vs blasters, useless vs missiles etc) and it is short range. Is TD supposed to be Short - Mid ranged EW or is it meant to be Mid - Long? If the answer id Short the mechanics need to be looked at because it is not performing an adequate role. If it is long, range is the issue. Back to the Pilgrim. At first glance I have no real issue with the Pilgrim being the bane of Long range ships. (first glance no flames) If the NOS bonus stays the ship must be short range. If the ship is short range it needs effective short range EW. TD is not short range. If the Bonus goes this ship can become the ranged vessel all other races seem to enjoy. TD is not that useful in close. Even 'working' you will get torn apart. It will not stop missile boats at ALL. Having the arguably weakest EW really shine at long range and be of less and less use as you get in close is at least worth looking at.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.11 18:36:00 - [24] Originally by: Pezzle Edited by: Pezzle on 11/10/2007 17:41:42 Edited by: Pezzle on 11/10/2007 15:37:47 What is happening here is the result of flaws being revealed. At this point there are at least two separate issues. Tracking Disruption's role and the Pilgrim. As it stands Tracking disruption is weak for reasons already outlined (poor vs blasters, useless vs missiles etc) and it is short range. Is TD supposed to be Short - Mid ranged EW or is it meant to be Mid - Long? If the answer is Short, the mechanics need to be looked at because it is not performing an adequate role. If it is long, range is the issue. Back to the Pilgrim. At first glance I have no real issue with the Pilgrim being the bane of Long range ships. (first glance no flames) If the NOS bonus stays the ship must be short range. If the ship is short range it needs effective short range EW. TD is not short range. If the Bonus goes this ship can become the ranged vessel all other races seem to enjoy. TD is not that useful in close. Even 'working' you will get torn apart. It will not stop missile boats at ALL. Having the arguably weakest EW really shine at long range and be of less and less use as you get in close is at least worth looking at. edit I guess I say this because there are few available options. TD took a big hit. Unless TD itself gets re worked Amarr ships are stuck with an EW that really does not perform as well. If the Pilgrim is meant to be short range TD (the EW it gets) should WORK short range. I am open for other ideas of course. Some good valid points there, to me TDs should mean a ships accuracy is impaired (a bit like trying to shoot a rifle while shaking), which would imply it's best as a long range EW weapon. So if both the curse and the pilgrim both get a bonus to range and effect of their nos/neuts whats to distinguish between them? Well if you count the nos/neut bonus as a singular bonus then the curse has one free bonus to be applied (the pilgrim's being used up to fit a cov ops cloaking device). This bonus to the curse could either come as a missile bonus or armor bonus (both fitting for its khanid origins) or an additional bonus to drone damage. An armour bonus to the curse would work reasonably well although its 4 lows are limiting. One possibility is to move the lows around on the two ships - the pilgrim becoming a 4/5/4 and the curse a 5/6/5 with maybe a 5% bonus to resists per recon level. The question is, would such a change make the curse too powerful, while actually nerfing the pilgrim even more? C. - sig designer - eve mail
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.10.11 23:35:00 - [25] Is there room to make the Pilgrim a useful ship through adjusting its stats, rather than changing the bonuses? For instance, what if it had decent armor hp, an extra low, and the fitting to get a respectable tank on? Would the range problem with medium cap warfare still limit it too much? Another idea would be trade the transfer bonus for a fitting bonus to NOS/neuts, in such a way that it could fit larges. Thus getting some range and extra cap suckage with one bonus. (Neuts would be problematic because of the cap use, but maybe it's workable.) Anyway, just tossing ideas out there for fun. It's probably obvious that I don't actually fly Amarrgh. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.12 02:05:00 - [26] large neuts / nos's would be horrible. i can barely have 1 fight w/o going back to the station to restock on cap boosters (and i'm using 400's). couple of ways to "fix" the pilgrim: Stat Change 1) Increase powergrid by another 150PG 2) Double the amount of capacitor 3) Halve the recharge time on the capacitor 4) Increase cargo capacity by 100m3 This change would potentially make the pilgrim overpowered. Bonus Change 1) Change cyno duration bonus to a 75% reduction to capacitor use for energy emission systems. 2) Increase powergrid by another 150PG 3) Increase cargo capacity by 100m3 This change, would essentially un-nerf the pilgrim. other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Pezzle Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.12 17:21:00 - [27] Edited by: Pezzle on 12/10/2007 17:24:10 If the Pilgrim's problem (suggested by op) is lack of real range how will PG changes help? I will grant you the cargo could be useful. Drop the nos and give it a bigger dronebay maybe? I still think EW is the way to go though. Pilgrim deserves to have ranged focus. edit I suppose combined with the cap reduction the PG becomes useful, still it leaves the ship a close range neut machine with poor EW potentials.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.12 19:09:00 - [28] Originally by: Pezzle Edited by: Pezzle on 12/10/2007 17:24:10 If the Pilgrim's problem (suggested by op) is lack of real range how will PG changes help? I will grant you the cargo could be useful. Drop the nos and give it a bigger dronebay maybe? I still think EW is the way to go though. Pilgrim deserves to have ranged focus. And if it can use nos/neuts at range then youve 'indirectly' improved its EW capability. C. edit I suppose combined with the cap reduction the PG becomes useful, still it leaves the ship a close range neut machine with poor EW potentials. - sig designer - eve mail

Pages: [1] :: 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.