EVE Search - Amarr Recon

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Amarr Recon - Current state

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.11 14:52:00 - [1] Edited by: Brother Welcome on 11/04/2008 14:56:25 Originally by: PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik I dont think the answer is complete immunity to the nos nerf but I really cant provide an alternative to that atm. Now that I've driven a Curse (flown one, whatever) a bit, my feeling is that the Nos nerf is a poor fix. The first issue I have with Nos in general is that you get very little feedback and nothing to indicate what you are doing to your opponent. Guns at least creep the little red bar. My second issue is that having to run your cap close to zero so your Noses work means you have to have a booster or risk the odd moment sitting dead in space. With the Curse being a fragile sort of ship, those dead moments can (as I discovered) prove fatal. Now the issue with a booster is that they're heavy and make the Curse a difficult fit. It's kind of hard to get your head around the idea that a ship set up for sucking cap from its opponent must fit a cap booster! I'm not arguing for or against Noses needing nerfing, but only the implementation. It's too dicey. It might be fixed by giving feedback, perhaps a little green light when the unit is usefully sucking or perhaps a cap bar for the enemy ship... -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.13 17:47:00 - [2] Edited by: Brother Welcome on 13/04/2008 17:47:30 Originally by: Depp Knight There are some great ideas in this thread and some interesting ideas as well. The OP was right in observing the Curse is short 100pg or so, but the issue is the Nos/Cap situation. Amarr recons fit their ewar in weapon slots, so what about that? What other ewar asks you to jam yourself before you jam your enemy? If we're giving up weapons for ewar, would it be a crime to give us a cap bar on our enemies so we know we're doing something? Fix Nos. If necessary make 'em like cov-op cloaks, or make 'em take turret slots to stop them being de rigeur on every fit. -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.15 13:07:00 - [3] Originally by: Kingwood Please increase cap recharge rate of the Curse and Pilgrim, or give them a role bonus so that medium NOS works like before. And please, for the love of god, forget the idea to make the Pilgrim a gang ship. It's a solo roamer, not a damn gang ship. Fix the Nos. Fix the Curse. Suggestions Undo the previous nerf, then make cap gained less than amount drained. That will address the issue described in notes to build 36191. The algorithm for cap gained should incorporate relative capacitor regain rates of the ships over one another, times the cap drained. The idea is to use that rather lovely and mysterious cap recharge curve so that when their capacitor is recharging more strongly than your own (at around 2/3rds depletion) it is much harder for you to gain cap from it, and in any case you can't gain more than you drain. Note that we don't care about the actual numerical amount recharge per tick, but the %age recharge, so as not to penalise small ships over large. A Curse at 1/3rd cap would therefore gain near to 1:1 of drain from their target. Make noses deactivate whenever they drain exactly zero cap. That will only happen where you are both at 100%, or they are at 0%, giving the minimum feedback needed to work these modules correctly. It will make fitting one Nos alongside Neuts a helpful way to measure their capacitor in 6-second dip-tests. Are these any good? Worth posting to the dev ideas forum? -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.17 09:13:00 - [4] Originally by: Caelum Dominus A Curse is a demanding ship to fit and fly, but once you get it right there's no going back. It's an awesome ship, and I daresay that anyone who doesn't agree have yet to fly one that's fitted properly. That's good news. What = 'fitted properly' in your view? -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.17 09:55:00 - [5] Originally by: Hydrogen Originally by: Brother Welcome Originally by: Caelum Dominus ...anyone who doesn't agree have yet to fly one that's fitted properly. That's good news. What = 'fitted properly' in your view? -vk Apparently this - yeah, I had to learn too, when I saw it: http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Caelum+Dominus&id=2294621&page=1&filter=losses#fitting Surely that's a delivery fit? Not all slots are filled. -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.17 14:07:00 - [6] Originally by: Hydrogen Originally by: Brother Welcome Surely that's a delivery fit? Not all slots are filled. -vk It sure is a travel fit - except he forgot the WCS. Hmmm, no testing fit for... nm Well, uhmmm a ratting fit... err next! Must be a ... "I do not hae a clue" fit. Cue opportunity to post a fit. Other ewar is either absolute, or it's tackle which is vital to PvP. The one thing neuts do uniquely is hit repping. I suppose the synergy between neuts and TDs lies in the way they both help your drones. TDs keep them safe, and neuts make them more dangerous. -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.05.06 12:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Angelonico Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde 32 pages on S+M and no word from CCP on what, if any, changes they would be willing to entertain or are out of the question. Interesting... Seriously. Can we get them to at least acknowledge that the pilgrim is outright garbage and needs some tweaking? Come on CCP, a SINGLE dev post per 30 pages would be nice. Yet more hours of flight behind me. No more kills, no more losses. Some pew-pew and general griefing. Specifics: --Curse has 50 more CPU than I ever use, and 100 Grid less than I need to have decent choice over fits. --I never know if my TDs or Neuts are doing much. Choice of targets is limited. --Seems like the key to winning fights is more friends or very, very careful choice of targets. --WTF doesn't Pilgrim have the range bonus instead of the amount bonus on Cap Drain modules? These ships feel like they no longer mesh with the game system. A little designer time could make 'em much better with trivial work. -vk
Brother Welcome Amarr Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.05.08 11:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Brother Welcome Originally by: Angelonico Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde --WTF doesn't Pilgrim have the range bonus instead of the amount bonus on Cap Drain modules? These ships feel like they no longer mesh with the game system. A little designer time could make 'em much better with trivial work. -vk Why do ppl believe that the range bonus worths more than the drain amount bonus? Can't you see that it would be impossible for a cruiser / recon to "damage" anything bigger (read with bigger capacitor to start with, and larger cargo bay for cap boosters) after NOS changes? Range bonus instead of drain amount bonus would only be "better" should you try to nano the Pilgrim and that's not even remotely the right way to fix that ship. You would get some versatility versus other nano-cruisers or ceptors, by sacrificing the ability (possibility) to kill a stronger than yourself tanking ship. I really think that this trade off hurts way more than it helps the Pilgrim. Actually, I agree with you and should say that to my taste I would prefer range bonus to drain bonus. The lack of range commits the Pilgrim to close in body-blow trading. I don't like being forced into that... as a Recon! Some pilots talk about 'doing X if your opponent is cap boosting', but I find it very hard to tell if they are cap boosting. At least ECM you can see for sure whether you are locked or not. Couldn't we at least know if their cap is out? I'm also finding my Pilgrim quite different from my Curse for CPU. Unless you have Recon 5 the cloak - the goddamned purpose of this ship - makes it very tough to fit a tank and solid mid-slot ewar. Or perhaps I should blame the sheer heaviness of neuts and nos as modules. What bugs me is that it would be trivial to put these ships closer to other Recons. C'mon CCP. -vk
Brother Welcome Icarus' Wings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.05.24 08:31:00 - [9] Originally by: Andreask14 You have to not compare the pilgrim to a HAC, you have to compare them to the other recons. If you do this you will quickly find that...the pilgrim is also worst. Rapier is the bane of nano ships and does average against other targets, at the very least it can always escape because of its webs. Comparable DPS and tank to the pilgrim. Falcon is the best ECM boat in the game. Who doesnt like it ? Arazu is like the rapier but with warp disruptors. Stays out of harms way. Comparable DPS to the pilgrim. Of these only the pilgrim has to get close, close where it gets killed by Neuts/Webs. The only inferior ships to the pilgrim are turret boats with an active tank and little cap that dont cap boost (butt need cap to operate) and dont have a web. So your targets are basically only ratting geddons. Yes indeed. Amarr ships Vulnerable to cap drain? Check. Vulnerable to turret disruption? Check. Vulnerable to ECM? Check. Vunerable to sensor dampening? Check. Amarr e-war Good vs Drones? Nope. Good vs Missiles? Nope. Good vs Turrets? 50/50. Good vs ships relying heavily on cap? Check. Such genius. BW

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.