|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
   |
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:28:36
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:21:35
Preface
The following paragraphs reflect my own experience and is based on my grasp of game mechanics. Since I started using Amarr Recon ships, some game mechanics changed. Apparently the impact is not obvious to all involved parties. Thus I wrote this text to outline all corresponding facts, their consequences and possible solutions.
Bear with me: it is a text wall.
Furthermore this text is only about Amarr Recon ships. I refrained from any comparison to other recon ships. I ask all posters in this thread most kindly to stick to Amarr Recon ships and their claimed roles only and to argue based on facts. Remarks to other recon ships were only made for filling specific roles. Any comparison whatsoever is not intended. Any hints, suggestions or corrections welcome.
Hydrogen
Content
I. Summary
II. Amarr Recon ships and their role
III. Issues on Amarr Recon ships
IV. Consequences
V. Possible solutions
VI. Discussion of solutions
VII. Hydrogen's remarks
I. Summary
Amarr Recon ships had a dedicated role. Due to the NOS changes this dedicated role can not be filled anymore. As such the Amarr Recon ship line is broken as it is now. Also diversity has been taken from the game, effectively elimnating a full range of viable game tactics. Several solutions are offered to compensate, thus enabling Amarr Recon ships to fill their niche once again.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:16:00 -
[2]
II. Amarr Recon ships
II.1 General
According to the description, Recon ships are "Cruisers specialized in reconaissance operations and electronic warfare." For that goal, two design lines are available:
- Combat Recon ship, designed to take on enemy support vessels.
- Force Recon ship, designed as reconaissance vessels and to enter enemy territory unscathed to open Cyno fields for incoming friendly Capital ships.
Combat Recon ships are basically Heavy Assault Cruisers specialized in Electronic Warfare. Force Recon ships are in general the Cruiser equivalent of Covert Ops frigates specialized in "hidden" operations and Electronic Warfare.
Both Amarr Recon ships heavily rely on drones as their damage dealer. In sorts of Electronic Warfare, both ships got a bonus to NOS/Energy Destabilizers and to Tracking Disruptors.
Additonally Amarr Recon ships have superior Radar strength (24 and 28) and a drastically increased targetting range (104 and 130 km). Keeping their main strengths in mind, Amarr Recon ship are least or less likely affected by tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners and ECM.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:16:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:22:50
II.2 The Curse
"Built to represent the last word in electronic warfare, combat recon ships have onboard facilities designed to maximize the effectiveness of electronic countermeasure modules of all kinds. Filling a role next to their class counterpart, the heavy assault ship, combat recon ships are the state of the art when it comes to anti-support support. They are also devastating adversaries in smaller skirmishes, possessing strong defensive capabilities in addition to their electronic superiority."
A Curse's tasks:
- Tank-breaker in a gang: by draining/destabilizing a target's cap, the target can't repair/boost.
- DP-killer: by draining/destabilizing a target's cap Hybrid or Laser turrets are effectively disabled.
- Disabling targets: Tracking Disruptors can reduce turret ships effectiveness drastically.
- Nano-killer: With 28.5+ km range on NOS/Neut a Curse can disable any Nano-ship in range within mere seconds (except for the Nanophoon ;) )
- Ratting (PvE) in PvP setup: while a Curse does not excel in PvE, it is able to stand its ground in PvE, while in a PvP setup
- Solo/gang-nano ship: up to 7,348 km/s with a snake set and 10.8 km/s with a snake set and overheating are feasible. This while maintaining either ECM or a shield tank. Drones and missiles kill target.
For this task, the Curse offers the following functionality:
1. Increased Radar strength
2. Increased targetting range
3. Bonus to Tracking Disruptors
4. Similar but slightly lower resists compared to Amarr HACs (lower in Explosive and Kinetic resists)
5. Bonus to range and draining/destabilizing amount of NOS/Neutralizers
6. Bonus to drone hitpoints and damage
7. 4 low slots, 6 medium slots and 5 high slots
8. 4 launcher hardpoints
There are several distinct setups allowing the Curse to fill its role:
i. bred and butter setup: NOS/Neut in high, MWD and EWAR in mid, Armor tank in low
ii. Nano: Launcher/NOS/Neut in high, MWD/EWAR in mid and speed in low
iii. Shield tank: NOS/Neut/Launcher in high, Shield tank in mid and dmg mods or speed in low. The shield tank also exists as a passive shield tanked Curse.
Variations exist to these setups, still they cover the most common ones. In all those setups, the NOS basically fuel the tank, speed, neutralizers and/or the ECM.
Tactics:
Basically a Curse tries to keep targets in range of 15km+ or even better 30km+, while drones, NOS/Neut and/or missiles do their dirty work. Tracking disruptors keep other enemy turret ships at bay or can be used to further disable the target. A Curse heavily relies on keeping distance to enemy vessels. In close combat a Curse generally dies really fast.
As a result: the Curse heavily relies on Cap to fuel MWD, tank, EWAR and neutralizers.
Usability:
- solo in 1vs1: a Curse poses a threat to any turret-reliant ship. Due to its specific prey it is most unlikely for a Curse to find this specific prey. Missiles as a rule of thumb kill a Curse. Specialized drone boats (Gallente) kill a Curse too.
- gang: In a gang a Curse is an assett offering crowd control mechanics. A Curse dies extremly fast in gangs.
- fleet: A Curse lacks tank to survive fleet battles. Due to their abilities Curse's are often hit as first, without a chance to even travel to their range. Also a Curse's range is too low (up to 45km) to offer safety. Last but not least: a fleet offers so much raw firepower, that a Curse's "surgical abilities" are not needed.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:29:12
II.3 The Pilgrim
"Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships, they are nonetheless able to do their job as reconaissance vessels very effectively, due in no small part to their ability to interface with covert ops cloaking devices and set up cynosural fields for incoming capital ships."
A Pilgrim's tasks:
- Cyno ship: a Pilgrim can enter almost any system unharmed and travel deep into enemy territory to finally set up a cyno field.
- Reconaissance vessel (see further down)
- Solo ship: A Pilgrim can choose its targets and thus is able to find its specific prey. Solo-miners in lowsec and 0.0, ratting ships etc. are preferred targets. Basically a Pilgrim can hit where it is least expected - the EvE equivalent of a real life assassin.
For this task, the Pilgrim offers the following features:
1. Increased Radar strength
2. Increased targetting range
3. Bonus to Tracking Disruptors
4. Increased resists compared to T1 Cruisers; way less resist than HACs
5. Increased Armor hitpoints compared to a Curse
6. Bonus to draining/destabilizing amount of NOS/Neutralizers
7. Bonus to drone hitpoints and damage
8. 5 low slots, 5 medium slots and 4 high slots
9. Bonus to use Covert Ops cloak
10. Bonus to liquid ozone consumption
Two variations of a Pilgrim setup exist to fill its role:
i. standard setup: NOS/Neut/cloak in high, ECM (scrambler/webber/TD) in mid and armor tank in low.
ii. speed setup: NOS/Neut/cloak in high, MWD and ECM in mid, speed in low ( a shield tank does not appear to be viable on a Pilgrim).
Usability in varying scenarios:
- solo in 1vs1 a Pilgrim poses a threat to any solo ship. The Pilgrim can wait and hit when the target least expect it, eg until rats are fighting the target or when capacitor is low or...
- scouting/reconnaisance: a Pilgrim lacks the ability to fit scout/recon probe launchers. As a matter of fact a cov ops can do anything in recon better, than a Pilgrim (less sig size, higher agility, probe launchers,...). Whenever a Pilgrim tries to live to this task it is more likely a suicide commando, whereas a cov ops gets away anytime if played smart. Usability as scout: close to non-existant.
- gang/fleet: nothing a Curse can not do better, except setting up Cyno fields.
- Cyno setup: a Pilgrim excels in this task.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:17:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:24:04
III. Issues on Amarr Recon ships
Due to recent changes the following issues now exist.
III.1 General
The changes to NOS force the Amarr Recon ship line to mount an additonal Capacitor booster. Changes to grid were needed and applied by CCP to fit the Capacitor booster. This effectively took a medium slot off the Amarr recon ships, heavily increased cargo bay needs, crippled one or even several high slots and reduced the effectiveness of several mid slots.
- A NOS is useless against ships with low capacitor. Thus all NOS slots are crippled in its effectiveness on Curse and Pilgrim. Before the NOS was an offensive weapon, while fueling an Amarr Recon's capacitor. This is no longer possible.
- The need to "play" with an Amarr recon ships capacitor cripples the effectiveness of the mid slot ECM modules. Simply as those will deactivate by times due to lack of capacitor. A single Capacitor booster is not able to supply the capacitor needs for a full neutralizer setup and ECM and tank.
- Recent developments in PvP gameplay show, that a ship without MWD lacks survivability (even on Pilgrim). Thus taking another mid slot away, while drastically increasing the already existant Amarr Recon's capacitor issues.
- additionally the Curse was already tight on grid. By now a Curse simply lacks grid to fit what it needs.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:27:10
III.2 The Curse
Curse as they are today fullfill their role as follows:
- Tank-breaker: A Curse in a gang can still break heavy tanks and speedtanks by using 1 NOS with several Neutralizers together with its missiles, drones and capacitor booster. On the not so bright side, heavy tanks are uncommon on Cruisers nowadays, but more likely speed tanks. Whereas Huginn and Rapier as well as other speed tanked Cruisers are more suited to break speedtanks. In gang combat a Curse pilot is well advised to choose a different Cruiser type (preferably HAC, eg. Vagabond, Sacrilege, Ishtar) instead of a Curse. A Curse is thus unable to fullfill its role in real game play. Simply as other ships can fullfill the same task (bringing down speedtanks) while offering their owner a higher survivability. Finally NOS/Neutralizing cripples a Curse's tank, making it more a glasship (not a glasscannon).
- DP-killer: Due to recent NOS changes, the Curse is unable to fuel its tank. Being a DP-killer cripples a Curse's tank, makes the Curse primary and is effectively a suicide playstyle.
- Disabling targets: A Curse can still disable a target. On the not so bright side, turrets are only affected by tracking disruptors in specific and not in all situations. Furthermore a lot of damage is done by drones and missiles, thus effectively making sure, that a Curse is soon primary and due to lack of tank - killed. Additionally a Curse lacks range to disable sniper ships at 110+ km distance. Caldari ECM jammer ships, but also sensor dampener ships are better suited to disable enemy ships.
- Shield tank: The role as active shield tank is no longer viable, as a Curse can not fuel its capacitor for the shield tank reliably. The role as passive shield tank always crippled a Curse's effectiveness, while drastically increasing signature radius. Still the Curse is a good passive shield tank plattform.
- Ratting (PvE): The Curse is good in ratting still. A PvE ratting setup is no longer an effective PvP setup due to neutralizers having no positive effect for a Curse pilot on rats. NOS is not viable as a primary weapon for a Curse in PvP. Thus the PvE in a PvP setup role is no longer viable. Dedicated PvE ships are way better: Ishtar, Sacrilege, Myrmidon and Raven. Even with the upcoming changes there are still loads of better PvE ships.
- Solo-/Nano-ship: there are several feasible solo or nano setups available for a Curse. Still the lack of mid-slots and armor generally result in a rather poor tank, which is not comparable to HAC-tanks at all (compare mid slot layouts and resists and armor values with Zealot and Sacrilege). Also the need for MWD nowadays and Cap Injector reduce the EWAR-effectiveness of a Curse. Last but not least a fitting heavily relies on specific named items to unlock a Curse's specific abilities, this includes esspecially Diminishing NOS and Unstable Neutralizers. In 1 versus 1 a Curse does not excel at all. The only exception being a Nano-killer. But the same applies here too: as a Nano-plattform other ships appear to be better suited. Examples are Huginn, Rapier,... On a last note a nano Curse still seems to be a viable option. Due to limited low slots (4) the Curse doesnt excel here.
Issues:
- it is impossible to field a decent setup with NOS/Neut/Neut/HML/HML in high, MWD/Cap booster/... in mid and MAR/tank in low. It is close to impossible to field this setup with an Afterburner even without sacrificing tank/EWAR in rig slots. Setup issues arise simply due to lack of grid.
- To use its special abilities a Curse is Cap hungry and never able to use its special abilities to its fullest extent. Even jigsaw games with its own capacitor are unplayable - the least said.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:18:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:30:25
III.3 The Pilgrim
Pilgrims as of today fullfill their role as follows:
- Cyno ship: a Pilgrim can enter almost any system unharmed and travel deep into enemy territory to finally set up a cyno field. A Pilgrim excels here and fully fills this role.
- Reconaissance vessel: A Pilgrim is basically a Cruiser able to use a cov ops cloak. Besides that a Pilgrim doesnt offer distinct advantages which outweigh Covert Ops ships. As a scout a Covert Ops is better suited at all times (higher agility, higher survivability due to size,...). Additionally the Pilgrim is not a solo ship anymore, thus negating any combat advantages for scout ships.
- Solo ship: To solo a Pilgrim already uses 4 mid slots. MWD is needed to escape gate camps and cloak directly after initiating warp. A scrambler is needed to hold targets and a webber is needed to keep a target in range, as a Pilgrim lacks the NOS/Neut range bonus. To break a tank with Neuts, a Capacitor booster is a must, leaving 1 mid slot of the Pilgrim for ECM. The best setup possible to stand a chance for solo requires 2 Neutralizers and 1 NOS, thus also disabling dual repper setups as a setup alternative due to cap and grid usage.
Despite having 5 low slots and more armor than a Curse, a Pilgrim heavily suffers from less resists than a Curse.
Example1: in a fully T2 setup including rigs, leaving grid issues aside, using dual repper setups, a Pilgrim can achieve a 433 reinforced defense value (while crippling its grid for Neut/NOS, MWD/AB and Cap booster), whereas a Curse achieves 403 reinforced defense value (also crippling mid and high slot setups). Considering other design lines of ships, the Amarr Recons in general and the Pilgrim in specific are unable to offer a more than average tank, while still maintaining an acceptable offense at all.
(remark: reinforced defense value is from EFT and is one possibility to evaluate a ships tank. Eg the Sacrilege achieves 500+ easily and can go upt o 660+ in T2 setups while still offering decent offense of its main weapons.)
Example2: Now looking at a viable tank setup with one MAR only, the Pilgrim can achieve 266 reinforced defense maximum, whereas the Curse achieves 252.
Conclusion from both examples: the increased resists of a Curse almost evens out the additonal low slot of a Pilgrim. Survivability with maximum skills is below average.
That said, a look at offense of a Pilgrim is needed.
1. a Pilgrim needs to stay in range of less than 12 km on Medium Diminishing NOS.
2. a Pilgrim has a low damage output with its drones, thus needs to disable/break an enemies tank with cap draining/destabilizing.
3. a Pilgrim thus needs to tank damage or disable a targets turret
4. one Tracking Disruptor requires the Pilgrim to orbit a target at high speed to reduce opponent's turret damage. But: an Afterburner is too slow and an MWD is suicide with less than 2,500 speed (at less than 12 km orbit!!). Please also consider opponents drone damage, which a lot of ships offer.
5. ...
This list could go on and on... The result is simple: a Pilgrim might excel in killing non-Khanid Amarr ships of less than bs size. So in the end viable and preferred targets are most Amarr T1 Cruiser, T1 battlecruisers, the Zealot and maybe an Absolution (with some luck).
Well as long as there are Zealots, Absolutions,... without capacitor injectors...
A lot more examples show, that a Pilgrim is unable to solo at all. The ability to kill poorly set up opponents is not a niche for the Pilgrim but daily business for an average player in almost any ship.
Issues:
- the Pilgrim lacks survivability
- the Pilgrim lacks ECM
- the Pilgrim lacks a niche to be useful except setting up Cyno fields. There is no other role, which the Pilgrim fills.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:19:00 -
[8]
III.4 Future changes
With the proposed bandwidth change to 50MBit/s, the Curse also drastically looses its usability in PvE, where it was close to average so far. A Pilgrim would need a lot longer to kill enemies (if at all). Or in other words: a lot more time for opponents to call for and receive help. Before such a change takes place I recommend to completly delete the line of Amarr recon ships.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:19:00 -
[9]
IV. Consequences
Both Amarr Recon ships lack distinct advantages and a usable niche to fill - again except setting up Cyno fields for the Pilgrim.
V. Possible solutions
Solutions for both ships come in a package.
V.1 General option
The simplest solution would be to remove the NOS nerf from both Pilgrim and Curse, while maintaining their drone offense at 75MBit/s (Please look at discussion further down). This would also be inline with on how the ECM nerf was handled.
Additonally the Pilgrim lacks a tank enabling it to solo. The role defintion as a force recon ship is already applied by a lack of high slots. Thus in this package it is recommended to offer the resists of the Curse to the Pilgrim too.
V.2 Curse options
The following options exist solely for the Curse alternatively:
1. One more mid slot and 120 grid increase and a drastic cargo bay increase by 300m3 at least (cap booster charges). Also leave armor hp as it is and increase shield hp. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
2. Neutralizer bonus, which effectively decreases the cap use of neutralizers by 10% per recon level. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
3. Apply HAC resists and armor to the Curse. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
4. Double the NOS/Neut drain amount of the Curse. Leave the Curse at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
5. Increase tracking disruptor range by 25% per Amarr recon level
V.3 Pilgrim options
Options to change the Pilgrim are:
1. One more mid and one more high slot. Increase Cargo to 500+ m3. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
2. Drastically increasing Pilgrim's cap by 50%. Increase Cargo to 400+ m3 and add a mid slot. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
3. Add 10%/level to cap recharge of Pilgrim. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
4. Increase range of Neut/NOS on Pilgrim like on Curse. Increase Cargo to 500+ m3 (left in place as some consider it a valid change). Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
5. Add a Neut bonus of 10% less cap usage of Neuts per recon level. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
6. Double the NOS/Neut drain amount of the Pilgrim. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
7. Apply HAC resists to the Pilgrim, thus freeing up the rig slots for Neutralizer/Cap improvements. Leave the Pilgrim at 75MBit/s bandwidth.
8. Add a high slot and a launcher hardpoint to the Pilgrim and apply a 10% reduction to duration/activation time of modules requiring Astrometrics per level.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:20:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:32:00
VI. Discussion of solutions
VI.1 General option
Applying this solution would bring back the Nano Curse. Due to the common appearance of Nano ships, a Curse would be the most effective anti-nano Nano ship and a serious threat to any ship. Still a Curse's speed is subpar to eg. Vagabond as it lacks natural speed advantages and low slots. Effective counters to a Nano Curse are some missile types and all other race's recon ships. Apart from the Nano-Curse (which needs a close look at), the Curse would be able to fill its old role.
For the Pilgrim this change would bring back its old role, while the Nano-setup is not an issue, simply as a Pilgrim lacks range on NOS and Neutralizers. This change would bring back the Pilgrim's old role and enable it to fill its niche to solo perfectly. A Reconaissance role is not available but still reserved for Covert Ops.
VI.2 Curse options
Corresponding to "V.2 Curse options" my remarks to those options and its consequences
1. This would enable the Curse to fill its old role once more and change its status from glasship to glasscannon. A trade off: still primary, but offering advantages, which make suicide missions beneficial to the gang. A Curse would have the option to trade off ECM for a heavy shield tank with speed.
2. This option would enable the Curse to fill its role once more, where cap and grid limit the Nano-Curse option. Shield tanks are not viable.
3. The lack of drastic offense is equaled out by decent defense. Grid and Cap limit a Curse's options. Due to lack of low slots, a Curse's tank will always be subpar to HACs, while raw dp power compared to HACs is exchanged with a mix of dps (missiles) and EWAR (NOS/NEUT/TD).
4. This option would also bring the Curse back to fill its old role, where a lack of defense is equaled out by raw EWAR offense. The Curse would be a glasscannon, more of the type of a surgeon's instrument, which is easily broken.
5. The Curse would fill a complete new role in disabling sniper ships and become a great assett to fleet fights by protecting close range fleet wings.
VI.3 Pilgrim options
Corresponding to "V.3 Pilgrim options" my remarks to those options and its consequences
1. A viable option for the Pilgrim, but needed to be able to use its strength at all effectively. A poor solution, as the cap booster usage would be implied by design.
2. A poor solution, as the cap booster usage would be implied by design.
3. Similar to the new desing lines, this would enable a Pilgrim to at least use Neutralizers. 3 Neut setups would be viable.
4. The Pilgrim could become a cloaked nano-wonder. But on the bright side it would enable a Pilgrim's role as a solo ship, able to disturb enemy fleets even and/or to take out support ships. While offering a fleet use, the Pilgrim would compete with the Curse, while being subpar compared to the Curse. The cloak would be useless in these scenarios.
5. The Pilgrim could fill its old role.
6. A Pilgrim could fill its old role again.
7. This option would strengthen a Pilgrim's solo role and as a Cyno ship.
8. Where Amarr lacks an Astrometrics T1 frigate, this version would still heavily lack in the solo department but the Pilgrim would be of extreme use for fleets. Scouting behind enemy lines, finding targets and even able to Cyno support in - in future maybe even Black Ops? The versatility makes this ship usefull and a great assett to any fleet without pushing a solo ship setup. Still its size and lack of agility would not make Covert Ops obsolete. The design of a Covert Op's "big brother" would finally come true. Last but not least a Covert Ops in exploration is useless when it found a site. This bonus would enable the Pilgrim to fill a whole new role and to excel in it.
__
|
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:21:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 24/10/2007 23:33:16
VII. Hydrogen's remarks
All these are my personal thoughts with different input from various threads, players,... I really hope that I was able to point out various issues with Amarr recons and do not claim thatI offer a final solution, but... food for thought on a more informed basis.
Personally I favor option 3 of the Curse options and option 8 for the Pilgrim. In both cases both ships would fill completly new roles. Apart from that it is a pitty, that there is no real solo-ganker covert ops ship. Simply as I strongly believe that a highly effective sneaky assassin type adds a lot to balance and gaming experience in a PvP setting.
Additonally one needs to keep in mind, that sensor dampeners, jammers and stasis webifiers are of greater use in PvP settings than tracking disruptors. This is also the reason on why I highly recommend to not compare Recon ships of different races to each other. To me offense, defense and usability must correlate to each other. In current Curse and Pilgrim designs this balance does not exist.
It needs to be said, that the appearance of ships with a covert ops cloak in local totally contradict their purpose - being sneaky. This should be changed in any case. Using a covert ops cloak must remove the pilot from appearing in local.
Any critic - if constructive - and corrections welcome.
Bear with me for the text wall.
Yours
Hydrogen
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 07:19:00 -
[12]
 Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Too long, too repetitive. Stopped reading. Sorry. 
In fact if you are familiar with the issue, I recommend you start reading at Chapter III and all is good ;)
This text is meant to start with the basics, thus giving non-Amarr-Recon players a chance to understand the issues.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 07:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Cailais
My reccomendations are:
<snip>
Fair play. On your Pilgrim recommendation I truly fear the cloaked nano Pilgrim fotm and the Pilgrim competing with the Curse. Still I am not sure here, but point out my concern.
Your Curse recommendation appears to me as a viable and good improvement. One needs to keep in mind, that a Curse is meant to be a HAC by design (Chapter II.2 lists CCP's intentions). Currently it does not come close. Your suggested changes makes it an EWAR HAC, thats what it is meant to be by design.
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 07:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bardi MecAuldnis
Hydrogen,
I like your analysis, and agree with it, up until your solutions. Honestly, most of them are trying to make the Recons into HACs.
Suggested solutions are just that: suggestions. Still reading through (here again Chapter II) it is appaerant, that Amarr Recons are meant to be designed as HACs. It is not my opinion, but CCP's design goal.
Your answer clearly shows one part on what my proof is about: Amarr Recons are not HACs right now at all.
Originally by: Bardi MecAuldnis
Short version:
1. I believe they should be returned to viable Recon ships without making them HACs.
2. Long post is long.
ad1. There are a lot of options. But: if there is a design goal, CCP should stick to it, or change the design goal. I believe there is a niche for true EWAR HACs, but anythign goes, as long as they got a design goal, which they can fill. Curse and Pilgrim both fail right now.
ad2. Bear with me... Besides that, this post is meant to be complete and to include proof, what is broken and why. This takes some lines...
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 08:10:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 25/10/2007 08:11:17
Originally by: Feng Schui
I'm getting into the mindset that the Pilgrim, and the Curse, are meant to be used as, well.. nothing. Train for Gallente or Minmatar recons.
With close to maximum skills for Amarr recon (AWU 5, Recon 5, close to 7mill sp in missiles for Curse,...) this somehow sums it up...
__
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 08:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Feng Schui
Same here, but the skills for the Pilgrim (max drones, max turret-based ewar, etc..)
I just did the maths: In my past EvE time, I learned 11.52 millions skill points only to use Amarr Recons to their fullest extent.
1. Amarr Recon 5 - sure
2. Missile skills - I only started those, when I felt I cant use a Curse's missile slots... (have to admit I even did Heavy Missile Specialization to 5  ) - 7 mill skill points total
3. Drone skills - only did those to use a Curse's drones to its advantage
4. AWU 5 to reduce overall fitting issues - sure
I am all in that a fine ship needs skill. But laying waste to all that effort (and skill points) in fact has a major impact for players.
__
- click here -
(http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0608/A-WAR_Hydrogen.jpg) |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 08:50:00 -
[17]
@Cailais: could you change the sig and remove the black text? Just write somethign less agressive instead, like: "Amarr Recons: in dire need of love!"
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:35:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Feng Schui
OMG! my third pilgrim loss of the day!
why? CAP ISSUES.
<snip>
In my last Pilgrim loss I had no cap issues, but thus died due to lack of tank ;)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Aramendel
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 10:03:01
Curse:
It's dead, Jim.
Well, not really. Honestly, the curse is fine. Yes, it can only use 5 meds now, but having twice the drone bay more then balances this. Having no replacements was the biggest achilles heel of the curse before.
Well, like outlined in the Chapter about CCP's Curse design goals, it is meant to be a HAC with EWAR. Even in your suggested setup it is nothing like that at all. Also the Pilgrim was meant to be the solo-mobile (heavy scout), heavily limited by range.
The design goals are effectively not met except on the Pilgrim in setting up Cyno fields.
About your comments:
1. I understand your reasoning and concern.
2. The Curse lost a mid slot and lacks grid. The Pilgrim lacks a mid slot.
3. All playstyles involving to fuel a tank or to fuel offense are disabled. A playstyle for which the Curse and Pilgrim were designed for.
4. About the drones the replacement is nice, but in my case I was able to keep my drones alive. High drone skills, scooping if needed and also using Minmatar drones helps a lot combined with tracking disruptors. The drone bandwidth change takes a full load of dps.
If there are other changes, I am all in.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:56:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Hydrogen
Well, like outlined in the Chapter about CCP's Curse design goals, it is meant to be a HAC with EWAR.
IMO you are misinterpretating the flavor text there (and nevermind that that one is most likely the very worst thing to use as guideline for what a ship can do..
<snip>
This text is identical for all combat recons. Are the lachesis, huginn and rook "HACs with EWAR"? Not really.
<snip>
At this point you need to compare the effectiveness of each single EWAR module. In fact this is pointless as each EWAR module's use and usability heavily differs. I for myself consider the tracking disruptor the lowest priority EWAR module.
Tracking disruptors are limited to specific situations: turret ship, preferably at high transversal velocity, dependant on falloff range and without a tracking speed buffer when shooting at its target. Or in short words:
On a more extreme point of view: Tracking disruptors are a great assett on Nano Recons versus turret ships or on "normal" Recon setups versus Nano-Battleships with turrets. The last one is a poor setup for the bs pilot, the first one is imho not a viable setup in standard T2 equipments.
Keeping this usability in mind, you can not compare the non-EWAR setups of different race recons at all. You can only stick, what we know about the Amarr Recon's former design goals.
Either they need to be able to fullfill their former design goals or different design goals are needed, including the abilities to fullfill those new goals.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:27:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Aramendel
<snip>
But, yes, TDs are rather meh compared to damps and ECM. But that is no curse/pilgrim issue. It is a TD issue. The EW module must be modified, not the ships.
<snip>
We are lookign at extreme changes to tracking disruptors in this case:
1. usefullness versus missiles
2. usefullness at low transversal speed
3. possible counters
A ship targetted by tracking disruptors is able to reduce and even almost negate a tracking disruptor effect by intelligent playstyle without the use of a module.
You need modules and/or help from another ship to reduce the effect of jammers.
You need modules and/or help from another ship to reduce the effect of dampeners.
There is no real counter to target painters.
Jammers and dampeners affect missile boats, tracking disruptors do not. In all due respect I consider it close to impossible to even out the EWAR ground - it is just too complex, too much, too many differences...
Instead: Look at usability and what a ship needs to fill its role.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:47:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Hydrogen
You need modules and/or help from another ship to reduce the effect of jammers.
You don't. The achilles heel of jammers is that they are chancebased. If a jamming ship is missing a jammer it is in trouble since it has no tank (this includes speedtanks). What you need vs them is in the end luck.
<snip>
If you do a forum search for app. 2005 you will find me reasoning like you do right here. I do understand you, I also see the FoF missiles, usability or lack thereof of target painters, the change to double-stat EWAR modules,...
But the usability of EWAR fits very well except for the trackign disruptors. A target painter on a Cruiser makes it more than just extremly vulnerable to BS-size missiles. We are talking about something along the lines of insta-death paired with Precision missiles.
Reducing lock range is a huge assett today: no chance nothing... In fact a sensor dampener, which only reduces lock range, offers a greater assett to an Amarr Recon ship than current tracking disruptors. The niche of the ships affected by tracking disruptors is so small, that it makes more sense to fit racial ECM jammers, therby disabling a whole race's ship line.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:28:00 -
[23]
I just suspect they didnt see the issues, which their changes implied.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:47:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Kruel
Giving the Pilgrim a range bonus and effectively turning it into a nano-pilgrim would be fine and here's why:
Comparing it to the Curse
> 1 less mid for EW
> No launchers = less dps
> Good luck fitting a probe launcher
^^ you sacrifice the above to fit a cloak
It would still be the least desirable Force Recon for gang, but it would make a good solo ship.
I do accept this change as an alternative, but do not like it as it is not my playstyle. The reason is simple: I enjoy versatility and diversity. The design decision to ensure a huge difference between both, while enforcing different roles is something I like.
Still I agree, that such a change would pretty much enable the Pilgrim to fill a role.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:05:00 -
[25]
Dear Aramendel,
I like you and I do enjoy our discussion. Please take my answers as part of a serious discussion and not personally at all. In fact I do read your posts very closely. If I do mistakes, I gladly accept and tell my wrongdoings.
That said:
- your point is: tracking disruptor need a change and balancing in regards to other ECM-modules.
- 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.
What do I do, when I am affected by trackign diruptors? I tell my teammates on TS and make this one primary. In solo situations I just close in and try to reduce transversal velocity. Even with both tracking disruptor abilities I will/might be able to almost negate tracking disruptor effects on my turrets.
Ok, let us assume it is fixed in any regard and tracking disruptors are on even ground. Still in the case of missiles the issue remains. Tracking disruptors have zero impact on missile turrets. Jammers and sensor dampeners have an effect on a ship in a whole, be it missile or turret ship or both. 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. If I lay ECM on a target, I do not want to be hit by Precision missiles at all.
Those are two different opinions. Please show me where I am wrong or accept my differing opinion.
Kind regards
Hydrogen
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:45:00 -
[26]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 00:18:00 -
[27]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:37:00 -
[28]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:48:00 -
[29]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:07:00 -
[30]
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 - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:55:00 -
[31]
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= 0.6*386.7 = 232.03 < 355,304 = 0.92*386.2 = 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 -
[32]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:16:00 -
[33]
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 -
[34]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:25:00 -
[35]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:15:00 -
[36]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:48:00 -
[37]
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 - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:44:00 -
[38]
Originally by: oniplE
Originally by: Cailais
Quote:
Anyway, you are obviously biased and clueness, there is no point in "complaining" here idd cuz its obviously filled with carrier fanboys screaming about a ship that used to be a solopwnmobile and now is just a good ship.
With a small adjustment your view could be applied elsewhere me thinks....
C.
Which isnt really an argument for anything related to this subject..
Well please look it up again on what I wrote. A blaster Deimos, not a rail Deimos. TBH I do not find a Blaster Deimos a rare occurence at all.
You are perfectly right with the paper-thin tank of a Nano-Deimos. Exactly the same issue is worse for the Curse, as it got less speed potential as the Deimos even.
Yet again: A 1vs1 rail armor tanked Deimos is one of the most favorable targets for a Curse. You are highly cap dependant and tracking disruptors or dampeners deactivate your guns usability by close to 100%. An armor blaster Deimos has the same issues, when it is unable to close in, to get into range - guns are disabled at close to 100%.
Face the truth: Your setup being pwned is not a Curse issue, but a Nano issue. A Nano-Ishtar, in a "Curse" setup can do the exact same to you, except it would be faster in ripping your armor tanked Deimos (no matter if rails or blasters) apart.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:25:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Hydrogen
@Aramendel - I made a mistake. I thought a serious discussion is possible with you, by just ignoring your drama queen attitude.
So we are trying the "injured party" act now?
I like you too ;)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:04:00 -
[40]
Originally by: madaluap
Curse is a very decent recon. Very nice ship.
Why not give the pilgrim a dual range bonus? I doesnt have BS sized drain on its neuts/nos, but it can use them from 60 km range.
Seems like a decent fix. 
TBH from my perception it would still lack tank.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 11:17:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 28/10/2007 11:18:36
Edited by: Hydrogen on 28/10/2007 11:17:29
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Corwain
Yes, the problem with the Pilgrim right now is that it cannot tank and neut at the same time. Range bonus would just result in nanoability. It needs a bonus to neut cap use.
Sounds very reasonable.
TBH a better tank, another mid and keeping current dps with increased drone bay on Pilgrim would fix that too. Why?
1. tank - obviously to survive in close quarter combat. At least the same resist as Curse would fix that.
2. current dps - 315 dps is the maximum in a reasonable Neut/NOS setup. It can not even be modified by modules or implants. 150m3 drone bay with 75MBit, thus having a full wing spare with different damage type or speed or EW would be reasonable.
3. another mid - to keep range on normal ships you need at least AB, scrambler, webber, cap injector, leaving only 1 slot for EW, which is somehow pointless (drones still hit you, missiles still hit you at 100%, blasters would rip the Pilgrim still apart, lasers and Proj would be reduced in effect). Besides that, jammers on Pilgrim are least effective and dampeners are pointless after the change in close combat. Resulting in a must use tracking disruptors.
With those changes we still look at 315 dps maximum on the Pilgrim, with the tank of the target reduced in effectiveness (NOS/Neut vs cap injector). The Pilgrim would have to keep the target in range, sustain its own cap, have its drones survive, hoping the target mismanages its own cap (injector) and hoping the target has no friends closeby (315 dps take their time to bring one down).
Hardly overpowered but doable.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 23:37:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Cailais
Still nothing from any developers?? Maybe I should fly a carrier...
Wether its a buff to nos/neut range, the ability to fit and run neuts with a MAR or what ever, its up to debate: what I do know is my pilgrim isnt popping much on anything atm.
C.
Yah, except Id prefer if CCP does not make another Nano-fotm of the Pilgrim...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:54:00 -
[43]
My personal favorite for the Pilgrim is the classical stealth assassin (I take the approach of UO stealth assassin/DAOC shadowblades/DAOC infiltrators,...).
Let me elaborate on this, first on the corresponding niche/target:
1. ships soloing in general resp. someone who strayed from the group
2. esspecially PvE, but maybe also PvP
3. ships of any size
What are a stealth assassins drawbacks:
1. light armor/no armor
2. stealth is slow, thus targets must either be stationary PvEing (belts/anomalies), Sniping (PvP) or simply being afk for approach
3. other stealth assassins have an option/possibility to find a stealth assassin (keyword tracking in other MMORPGS)
4. uncloak/decloak: less the skill of the stealth assassin, the more likely a target uncloaks a stealther by chance the close the stealther is. At maximum skill a stealther is almost impossible to decloak if he does not stand directly on target.
5. a special position is needed for highest possible effect (to launch a critical hit)
6. long range anti-stealther-stealthers
What are a stealth assassins strength:
1. close to always hits first out of cloak - close to zero delay from uncloak to hit (shock tactic)
2. extremly high alpha hit or ability to disable target for some time (up to 10 seconds)
3. Option to apply DoT (Damage over Time resp. life drain) - poison in UO, Bleeding in DAOC, poison spell in SB,...
4. extremly agile to evade being hit
At least that is how other MMORPGs balanced this role. Main goal was almost always to punish solo play or farming. Players regulated the farming themselves. When there were too many stealth assassins, players started to create anti-stealth-assassin assassins.
In general I believe this is a viable niche for EvE too. It would also apply a challenging assett to the EvE gaming experience and improve CCP's stand on PvP. There should be no safe PvEing outside empire. Risk vs reward - but this relation is out of whack in EvE. Why?
1. we know a farmer closeby in a system, farming belts on regular.
2. there are only 4 belts in system, so once we tried it alone - only one of us. Result: he had stabs on and warped to SS, cloaking.
3. having learned we return a few days later and rally 10 men at gate with frigs and cruisers. We jump in all at once and at least 3 scramble points warp to each belt at once. Result: even though we had no delay, he warped to SS and cloaked.
4. only chance if at all would be to log off and hope to get him in time. TBH: logon/logoff tactic should not be a viable game tactic as the only option to get someone.
This is only one of several examples. That said, what would be needed or could be done to bring some balance to risk vs reward and how could it look like. Another suggestion to Pilgrim - the stealth assassin:
i. can target immediatly after decloaking initiation (app. 5 secs until cloak wears off, so 5 seconds advantage for targetting for the stealther)
1. close to always hits first out of cloak - close to zero delay from uncloak to hit (shock tactic)
2. "Pilgrim device"/Pilgrim ECM burst - all target modules are offline for 10 seconds and then 100% functional again.
3. DoT already exists in form of NOS/Neut
4. "extremly agile to evade being hit" - this could be achieved by applying high resist to Pilgrim, extremly low sig radius, low armor and only allow 1-2 low slots
What happens? The Pilgrim would be extremly vulnerable, but always succeed, if the target didnt assume a Pilgrim's presence.
Those are not ready-out-of the-box changes, but a suggestion on another completly different change for an existant niche, which isnt filled. But again: this scenario highly relies on the target not knowing a Pilgrim's presence, thus using a Pilgrim's cloak requires the Pilgrim pilot to vanish from local or to appear like a friend (blue '+').
What is the point in being sneaky, when everyone knows that someone is there, who is not a friend?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 09:17:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 30/10/2007 09:17:37
Originally by: Phaedruss
I don't see any need to give the Pilgrim a new role or some new bonuses. It was a fine ship for what it did before it became collateral damage in the last patch. Just reverse the damage that was done to it and leave it alone
Actually I have no clue, why CCP does not do it. Also keep in mind, that current EvE warfare changes slowly:
1. targets have higher resists
2. MWD (speed) is standard by now
3. Cap injector is standard in PvP (at least from my perception).
4. It is apparently planned to reduce Pilgrim bandwidth, so it can field only 5 med or 2 heavy drones.
Basically, even in a prepatch Pilgrim, a Pilgrim has its problems in today's warfare. Together with the suggested drone bandwidth change I do not consider a prenerf Pilgrim to perform well...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 12:08:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Depp Knight
Those who had flown in and still try to will realise that the pilgrim is totally lost. Role is now obsolete to any other cloaking recons out there, because what ever the pilgrim can do, others can do better in nearly every situation available.
With TD nerf just like most modules how is the ship even in the game. What is left of it.
By now I got the impression, that some weird things happen on this forum:
1. People who never or rarely flew an Amarr Recon oppose any change to those, saying they are fine.
2. People who do use the Nano-Curse claim the Curse is fine and thus the Pilgrim too.
3. People who fell victim to Amarr Recon in the past (most likely before NOS nerf) claim that the Pilgrim and Curse are fine too.
4. ...
Recons are perceived as a threat, as those offer abilities, which disable most nao-fotms.
That said, I do not believe that most posters really perceive Amarr Recons and Pilgrim in special as fine. They simply do not want a change, most likely due to lack of understanding of game mechanics.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:24:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Feng Schui
I think these are the kills which will ultimately lead to the Pilgrim's demise. Does this mean the Pilgrim is "overpowered" Hell no, considering I could STILL kill these pilots (and have done so) in a freaking T1 cruiser or frigate.
Like I mentioned before: I strongly believe the Pilgrim should be the solo-predator. It was before the NOS-nerf. Not overpowered but well-suited to get the job done, like eg. jumping on ratting Ravens, while those try to tank an average 3 bs spawn.
Now put back the Pilgrim to its old NOS-functionality and remove it from local when cloaked, therby also putting an end to solo ISK-farmers.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:01:00 -
[47]
Someone noticed the dev blog on Carriers? CCP is going back to the drawing board and stopped the Carrier changes for now.
In case of the Pilgrim, well...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:20:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Feng Schui
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=625436
nice one
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:13:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Feng Schui
I tried, heh;
If there are any rooms for improvement, leave a note =) I've been trying to edit and update the post as I go along.
If it gets everyone's stamp of approval, maybe it'll be another Khanid MK2 =)
You offered some valid points. I am just afraid CCP does not know at all on how broken some design lines are :/
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 20:40:00 -
[50]
Actually it is exactly what CCP wanted before. The Carrier thread shows also that CCP is not off to "destroy" complete skillpoint trees of players. Either it is low priority or they are not aware on what happens.
Persistency always helps.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 00:11:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Madla Mafia
I'm looking forward to one day remove my Amarr recon ships off of my decorative hangar wall...
I was stupid enough to try it and lost horribly....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 15:37:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Corwain
Still awaiting a Dev response on this issue.
TBH it is not an issue. Putting Curse aside, I found consens of all serious posters so far, that the Pilgrim is plain broken.
This matches exactly my ingame experience.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 09:20:00 -
[53]
3rd page - are Pilgrim pilots finally really the minority?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 11:49:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 01/11/2007 11:49:13
Originally by: Cailais
Edited by: Cailais on 01/11/2007 11:05:39
Originally by: Hydrogen
3rd page - are Pilgrim pilots finally really the minority?
Let me check! Well according to E-ON magazine issue 003 there where (at its time of publication) 307 Pilgrims in active service, selling at a market value of 141,040,000ISK.
ineve.net shows 1388 trained pilgrim pilots out of a survey of some 50k capsuleers.
Odd then that while demand has presumabley gone up (there are more pilots), the price has *cough* fallen like a stone...
So your point is?
Pilgrim pilots accept by now, that they are lost? I can not really believe that this is the attitude on how CCP wants to solve things :)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 14:57:00 -
[55]
As long as damps and jammers affect turrets and launchers (and more) at reasonable chances, the TDs will be subpar.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 23:54:00 -
[56]
It is just - TDs are way less effective than jammers and dampeners. That is exactly why the NOS-strength made up for it on Pilgrim. With NOS-nerf Pilgrim is still plain broken.
What bothers me is that CCP does not seem to read their board anymore.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 08:38:00 -
[57]
Well had a look on Sisi, hoping somethign changed. Of course it did: the 50MBit bandwidth is still in effect.
As a result: a broken ship is being nerfed. What is next? Increasing Neutralizer power consumption? Sorry, that is laughable.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 10:05:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Maud
'the curse still is a good ship'
Sorry I tend to disagree, just because it needs to be more definite (imho):
'The Nano/damp-Curse still is a good ship'
Any chance you can agree to that formula :) ?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 17:34:00 -
[59]
Curiosity killed the cat...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 11:20:00 -
[60]
Tbh, CCP's attitude is somehow weird. Amarr Recon Pilots were quite patient after the NOS nerf. In all other threads the point about both is communicated clearly, not offensive. Reasonably - quite contrary to other threads.
Now when a Carrier change was announced, the reaction was constant and less reasonable - if at all. In the latter case quite an immediate reraction - here: no reaction at all. Not a word, not a change on Sisi, plain nothing.
Is it really, that CCP prefers whining masses over reasonable players?
I mean c'mon if CCP believes different, nothing stops them from stating Amarr Recons esspecially Pilgrim is fine. That would be at least a clear statement - instead: nothing at all.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 22:44:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Tench
As a new player (4m sp) I was really excited at the idea of the force recons - I have to say with all the feedback from players on these ships it's put me off training up for them at all.
Real shame as I think I would have really enjoyed them =(
To make them effectively keep someone drained - as they can't do it using NOS anymore - it should be subsidised with greater cap recharge or increase in effectiveness of cap boosters or make it so neutralisers use less cap or that neuts are even more effective on these ships.
I mean if it's obvious to me as a noob..kinda worrying that it hasn't been obvious to CCP.
To add to it: for older players it is even worse, like eg. I dedicated more than 50% of my sp to force recons....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 09:33:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 04/11/2007 09:33:07
Originally by: fgreedryu
Hydrogen, I agree with you 100%,but please aslo be forthright and explain why you feel so passionatly about the curse/pilgrim. I do belive you have the bpo for the pilgrim, and have had it for sometime.
That assumption is not nice at all. But ok, I will tell you why I am so passionate:
1. The whole sensation of MMORPG really started for me with stealth assassins: http://gul.50g.com (yes I was young and my English was very very bad)
2. From then to DAOC (prenerf Shadowblades forever)
3. with some stops to EvE, where suddenly: the Pilgrim enabled one to be when I started: stealth assassin. Was I excited? Sure was! I regret I couldnot rename Hydrogen to Horus Heresy. Thus I dedicated my whole training to Pilgrim. Actually I guess I am the only Amarr, who is flying Amar, who had Missiles maxxed before he could use Tachyon II, just to be effective with Curse. All that after Recon 5,....
Am I dedicated and apssionate about Pilgrim? Hell, sure am. Pilgrim never needed a change, except vanishing from local, when cloaked. Stealth nerf, tracking,.... makes lil me cry....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 01:44:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Cailais
The pilgrim won't get changed Depp. If it was going to be changed they would have made the alteration when the Falcon was boosted.
As you rightly point out the pilgrim is a minority ship, while the eos has been a staple pvp ship for ages: the pilgrim will jsut be forgoten as no one in balancing cares.
C.
Actually that is exactly why it needs the boost. The Pilgrim enables totally different playstyles when viable. No other ship offers similar playstyles - removing those from game is actually ... well.
Variety is making a game good. Removing variety thus can not be CCPs goal.
What bothers me is Black Ops ships. Those got bonusses, which are plain stupid. No target delay? WTF? Learn cloaking 5 and change cloaking 5 to "no target delay" on cov ops. WHY in hell make no target delay a ship bonus? There is a device. There is a skill. If you feel uncomfortable in changing cloaking skill, then add a skill "Cov Ops cloaking" which at level 5 makes it a "no target delay" and dont forget to remove those ships from local as long as they are cloaked.
Black Ops ships are thrown on market and a lot of newbs with only basic skills can use them already to their fullest extent. WHY BUST THE PILOTS WHO TRAINED CLOAKING 5? This is a serious flaw in the whole new ship concept.
Make it right or get a designer who looks for consistency and balance. Common sense sure helps too. So as a result: when those people are looking at Pilgrim, they need to fail, simply as they dont understand the ship, its former abilities and its potential.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 10:18:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 05/11/2007 10:21:37
Originally by: Garia666
Anyway guys what could be a decent solution?
1. Remove the NOS nerf for Pilgrim/Curse only and
2. make Covert Ops vanish from local (cloaking 4), Pilgrim vanish from local (cloaking lvl 5), when cov ops cloak is on and
3. make Black Ops ships use the cloaking skill instead of giving a "no target delay" - bring the cov ops - recon - black ops ships inline to each other.
4. EDIT: dare not touch the Pilgrim drone bandwidth of 75MBit - it cant kill **** if you reduce it to 50MBit!!
Perfect change - no harm done, but consistent.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 13:10:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Aaron Mirrorsaver
my friends the falcon has been boosted to 20% jam strength for ecm per level, up from 10
die pilgrim die!
so which will you use my friends? The tracking script or the range script? Seeing as its a close range ship the nerf to range is ****y anyhow!
Ermm how many Pilgrims used Tracking Disruptors anyway?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 15:52:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Corwain
Originally by: Hydrogen
Ermm how many Pilgrims used Tracking Disruptors anyway?
I used to fit 2, now I can only fit 1 since that extra mid has a cap injector in it now.
TDs are excellent for taking on turret ships. I'd like to see a pre-nerf Pilgrim kill a Blasterthron without TDs...
Actually I avoided Blasterthrons since one beat me into the ground. So nice one - never really tried those. Preferred targets for me were Ravens :)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 18:52:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Madla Mafia
This topic should have ended with the first post, which should have been:
"@CCP: Amarr Recon - Current state: Broken!"
Sounds right, but not constructive ¦^¦ - looking at current changes I get the impression, that those devs who are tweaking ship blance right now lack *some* understanding and/or experience with Amarr. Changes anmd tweaks appear to be ... inconsistent, somehow unmotivated, as if someone is following a grand scheme without looking at the game.
This is bad news.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 23:36:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Nhi'Khuna
I've been flying both the Curse and the Pilgrim pretty exclusively pre and post nerf and honestly, I did notice a change in tactics but no change in the 'uber-ness' of these ships.
Amarr recons, IMHO are just as deadly as they were, they just require the finesse that a recon pilot should be using with a ship such as this.
Just remember that you needn't put all of your highs into nos/neuts, the curse in particular is MUCH more viable if you go with 2 x heavy missiles, 2 x best named neuts and 1 nos.
you will of course need a cap booster in your mids, which honestly is fine. If you ever have issues with being shot at just move out, let them lose their lock (all the while your drones are eating them) and come on back into that uber nos/neut range.
If you are solo-ing don't bite off more than you can chew. Honestly, once I get my transversal up there isn't much that hits me.
*sigh* I am sorry Nhi, but please read full thread before posting this way.
To clarify:
A short look at Nhi'Khuna's kills shows the following picture:
1. No solo kill in a Curse or Pilgrim at all.
2. Killed by a Raven in a solo encounter 1vs1 of Pilgrim vs Raven.
3. Her Curse is a Nano-Curse and always in gang.
Nothing wrong except:
1. When you fly in gangs try a Sacrilege and you will help your gang a lot more than a Curse or Pilgrim (*gasp*) in gang.
2. Solo Pilgrim vs Raven a Pilgrim should win, but it simply can not. Something your KB prooves too (ok except when Raven is too stupid)
3. Nano Curse is the only really viable setup and you can actually *breaking news* even solo in it, which you did not do.
Yes, I am a little bit sarcastic, when answering your post. Simply as your post did not help at all for the problem that is:
I. Nano-Curse is the only really viable current setup for a Curse and it doesnt even excel there.
II. Pilgrim is broken, simple as that.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 23:47:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Mortis Tyrathlion
Edited by: Mortis Tyrathlion on 05/11/2007 20:55:50
Mmmm... I concur, after my first Pilgrim test-flight, it's not as broken as the stats might suggest. Took on a Zealot that attacked me while warping out (damned lack of Cloaking IV on sisi  ) and would have won, if it weren't FFA1 and some Golem hotshot hadn't started pelting me with cruise missiles. He kept having to stop firing, which combined with TDs meant I was taking very little damage after the first few volleys. Cap wasn't too bad either with me pulsing the neuts. Of course, I didn't need the hardners...
Plus, the TD nerf isn't as bad as you might think. Switching scripts is instant, and although it's not as good as before, you've still got a lot of flexibility. I personally see Tracking as being more useful than Range, except maybe on blastboats...
Do a real test versus skilled pilots and I show you the problem easily:
1. versus a skilled blaster pilot on Sisi
2. versus my Zealot on Sisi
Would you guys just have a look at the actual problem instead of gloating and behaving as if you are uber PvPers???? Cmon got issues? This thread is a ****load of work and you want to tell me you know it all better after some testing with a n00b on Sisi?
1. Use TDs in both setups versus a skilled pilot in blasterboat or zealot. Result? Other has cap injector and will approach and reduce trans speed. The one with most cap charges will win or if the Curse or Pilgrim makes a mistake. The Zealot doing a mistake looses some armor. The Pilgrim/Curse pulsing/injecting wrong is dead extremly fast. Also if the Zealot or Blasterboat is doing bad, it leaves; the Pilgrim can not leave (ok except when you got stabs, which could bne discussed as a viable setup ;) ).
2. Comparing TD's with jammers and dampeners even after nerf shows still a great gap. *breaking news* using TD's actually does somethign to other ships. Then go out, use a Nano Curse, fit dampeners with lock range scripts, orbit at 23km and kill the idiot who is scrambled. Breaking news: no risk for you but dead opponent, almost no matter which ship. Show me somethign like that in a Pilgrim or with TD's.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 08:45:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Mortis Tyrathlion
Hey, easy boy! I didn't say there was nothing wrong with it, just that it wasn't as bad as I thought, seeing as I was heavily looking at just the bonuses. I can at least see potential for the ship, but I can also see what happens when something pounces on it instead of vice-versa. I certainly think the ship needs to be changed, especially considering that the zealot was something of an ideal situation, not having the hardeners draining my cap and dealing with an energy-intensive ship. I've flown blasterboats enough to know what would happen if it got an edge over Pilgrim.
Heya ;) your answer sounded very much like: "Hey, it is all ok". Sorry I got that wrong apparently - my fault. I hope no harm done.
- the ships have potential esspecially their roles
- currently the trend is even going down with the TD and drone bandwidth change.
Somehow I just look on Sisi daily and my jaw drops, that CCP is serious on applying these changes (50MBit, TD change) without tweaking both ships. Also... silence by CCP to these issues - more like: "Hey it is all ok". Maybe (only maybe) I tend to overreact to posts sounding as if all is ok and Hydrogen is just a drama-queen (ok, that also ;) ).
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 08:57:00 -
[71]
Well I changed the topic - tell me if you disagree. If it is ok with you, I leave it as it is now.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 12:02:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Grytok
Gives me a great laugh, when I see people telling, that the Amarr-Recons are fine as they are
As stated in this thread so many times, they are not.
<snip>
Woot, thanks - decent summary of the thread so far :)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 19:37:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Dlardrageth
Originally by: Hydrogen
[...]Also... silence by CCP to these issues - more like: "Hey it is all ok".[...]
Rather more like:
"He's dead, Jim!"
<snip>
I hear ya. Again: my fault somehow was to pause EvE for some time, so I came back for the 7 last glory days of Amarr Recons. Still, since those came out, my training focused solely around Amarr Recons (like I said earlier - heavy missile spec 5 ftw with all missile base skills just for the Curse ;) - no kidding).
Persistency pays - that is how I look at it.
About this thread:
1. Either it is simply locked - if they do, then go figure about a capitulation against sane reasoning by CCP or
2. there is a definite dev answer or
3. something changes on Sisi and then on TQ. Something reasonable, not a throwaway grid increase for only one ship, which addressed no issue for real.
For that long, this thread stays and you are all invited to add your comments. And if it is only just because you see this thread on a daily basis ;)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 23:46:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Nhi'Khuna
Quote:
*sigh* I am sorry Nhi, but please read full thread before posting this way.
Wow Hydrogen, you came out guns a blazing. See here I was looking to provide some constructive criticism but then you came out looking to knock me out at the knees.
To clarify on your 'research'
That KB has only been up for a while and I haven't gone out soloing in my ships for a bit
The Raven kill was my own damned fault, I had that guy into structure and if I hadn't been a fool and turned off my sensor disruptors than I would have been cap sustainable long enough to pop him. Bad piloting, not a bad ship.
Yup, I nano my curse, isn't that what she's designed for? Honestly. With as many mids as it has why wouldn't one be thinking of speed and sheilds? Is this a bad thing?
I think you are confusing sarcasm with patronizing... Neither of which win you any arguements mate.
Solo'd plenty of times in the past with both ships, successfully. Care for a demonstration?
Nice answer - read the thread it is all answered there. Esspecially on shield tanks, Nano,...
The remark: "Pilgrim is fine, I can kill stuff - nothing wrong" (that is what you sound like) is either dumb, a blatant lie, ignorant or you got the super-setup and tactic which someone did not find yet besides you.
You hint on the latter one - after you have shown you didnt read the thread, basically saying: you are all newbs here. Read your first post again and yes: "came out guns blazing" is correct.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 10:27:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 07/11/2007 10:34:53
Edited by: Hydrogen on 07/11/2007 10:27:50
While having a nap, I just thought on what and why a Pilgrim would need it. So on a more constructive side to point out possible changes:
Role:
- Special role: Cyno-maker
- Solo Role: "Stealth-Assassin"
- Fleet Role: Scout and skirmish warfare
Design Comments:
- The Pilgrim by design is a fighting vessel with superb cloaking.
- Cloaking and EWAR (esspecially NOS/Neut) combined with fighting abilities are a powerful combination and need to be balanced.
- This design is a pure PvP design.
The "Pilgrim father" design:
Name: Pilgrim Father
Hull: Arbitrator
Role: Power Recon Ship
Power recon ships are the successfull merge of covert ops frigates and Heavy Assault ships. Strong armor, powerfull electronic warfare abilities paired with top-notch cloaking technology and the ability to set up cynosaural fields for incoming Capital ships make the Pilgrim father a huge assett to any fleet.
Since the failed design by Carthum Conglomerate, Viziam continued the Pilgrim design line and merged state of the art technology with the Pilgrim's original design.
Developer: Viziam
As if in response to Khanid Innovation's shield-intensive designs, Viziam have for their starship design opted to neglect shield systems in favor of the strongest armor plating in cruiser history.
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% reduction to duration/activation time of modules requiring Astrometrics per level and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level.
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Neutralizer transfer amount and capacitor consumption and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Role Bonus: 200-unit reduction in liquid ozone consumption for cynosural field generation and 50% reduction in cynosural field duration. Invisible in local when cloaked.
armor hitpoints: 1800 armor
60 armor em damage resistance
70 armor explosive damage resistance
53.125 armor kinetic damage resistance
35 armor thermal damage resistance
5 low slots
5 med slots
4 high slots
1050 powergrid output
350 cpu output
1 launcher hardpoints
0 turret hardpoints
150m3 drone capacity
80m3 drone bandwidth
43 km maximum targeting range
---
Hold your breath and read on:
- The Pilgrim father design is definitly versatile. Three major setup lines are feasible: Probe/Cyno Tackler, Probe/Solo Hunter, Skirmisher.
- When fitting the Pilgrim father design you will realize, that the additonal probe launcher - if used - heavily hurts the whole setup.
- Long range abilities do not exist at all. Any mid range ship or sensor dampener ship kills a Pilgrim without risk.
- When looking for versatility in a setup, the Pilgrim father must sacrifice low slots for fitting mods. And even then maximum skills are a must and not obligatory for a decent setup.
- The Pilgrim father is - when entering close combat - doomed to finish, no matter the result.
- The launcher hardpoint offers a chance to use Defender missiles, which plain suck, but could offer a needed edge vs. missile boats.
Bottom line: solo targets need a fast reaction to avoid a Pilgrim father. Also a cap booster is obligatory to be able to survive the Pilgrim father. Alternatively killing the drones renders the Pilgrim Father helpless.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 12:37:00 -
[76]
Originally by: moumou78
Plz fix the Pilgrim it really doesn't fit anywhere right now, and with the coming EWAR nerfs I dont see it getting any better.
\signed
moumou
May I add that it is getting way worse with the new EWAR and drone changes for the Pilgrim.
broken ship + nerf = extinction
Without doing anything, there is no point at all to not delete the Pilgrim. Actually it would be fair to offer all pilots a one-time 100% recycling of their Pilgrim. At least it would show humor on CCPs side...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 13:53:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Grytok
I still think that there is hope for the Pilgrim with a few little tweaks to it's stats.
1. double the bonus to TDs from 5% to 10% Tracking Disruptor Effeciveness
2. make it a "Cap-Monster" by giving it 20% better CapRecharge-Rate
3. get rid of the targeting-delay after decloaking
This would help allready to some extend imho.
Actually - all discussion on EWAR aside - the tracking disruptor was meant to offer some sort of "EWAR-tank" for the Pilgrim, while the Pilgrim chews slowly through its target. At least that is how I interpret CCP's setup.
This idea is a huge fail - plain and simple. I doubt you can do the Pilgrim any good with this bonus. In case of the Curse it is totally different. Curse can fit Defenders (discussable, but can), Curse can be faster than most missiles and TD's help against turrets. Here a TD can help - for a Pilgrim I consider TD's by now a huge fail in any tweak.
Or where am I wrong?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 16:07:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Ruciza
You are wrong in the sense that Recons are not designed as solo ships but as gang support ships, much like any other ship actually. Tracking disrupts are not only a tank for you, but for all your friends too.
<snip>
Comparing EWAR unfortunately leads nowhere, as you suddenly need to discuss EWAR and solve those issues before looking at Amarr Recons.
If you had a look at the complete thread, you will realize, that the Pilgrim is a solo ship and as such broken.
Suggested it should be a gang/fleet ship, then it plain lacks needed gang support features. As such it lacks most importantly: RANGE.
No matter how you look at it - in solo and gang it is plain broken.
My suggestion: forget about EWAR issues, forget about,... but look at a Pilgrim's role and give the Pilgrim what it needs to fill the role.
Sidenote: your attitude in posting is not nice at all. Here comes why...
Originally by: Ruciza
Capless weapons are a counter to cap warfare. ACs are a counter to range disruption. Lamenting that Amarr recons are vulnerable to missiles is like lamenting that the Arazu must be able to solo a Vagabond. You have a fixation on soloing. They are NOT solo ships. Use them that way at your own risk.
1. you completly forgot (said it the nice way) that you can counter TD with playstyle. Not a module, not a specific ship, just by playstyle.
2. Amarr Recons are not only vulnerable to missiles, but also to blasters, lasers, rails,... any of those (see 1st). If you are in doubt, just have a look at the TD effectiveness chart in the EWAR thread.
3. You plain say: "You have a fixation on soloing" - accusation first in my direction.
Do us both a favor: learn to read the thread and please bring arguments. I gladly correct what is wrong, but your claims are plain pointless.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 17:23:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Aaron Mirrorsaver
i thought the boost was 100 grid.
also who are you kidding making the max targetting range 48 km?
one good thing would be built in high resistance to ecm and damps for the pilgrim. or any reocon.
I wrote that post out of my head, without research. So if it was 100 grid - my fault.
About the range: the Pilgrim does not need more range. Look at the stats of my suggestion. Then look at what you can do - requires imho a load of skills (EvE-skills) and player skills to use, but... if you can you got a reason to *droool*
Like I said - give it time and think about it and you will realize that my suggestion offers loads of weaknesses but also incredible strong points.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 17:26:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Cailais
Im wondering, what if the recon bonus was changed from..
"20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount"
to this...
15% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer efficiency.
So both the curse and pilgrim increase the amount of cap drained by 15% per level, whilst also reducing the modules activation cost by 15% per level.
Any thoughts?
C.
You did not mention range when saying "efficiency". If one would only tweak NOS/Neut, then range is an issue for the Pilgrim. In case of the current Curse and its NOS/Neut range, this would imho fix the Curse completly. Maybe - not sure yet though - the Curse still could need some tweaks to its grid (like 100 more or so) and a thorough look at its cap.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 19:01:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 07/11/2007 19:01:51
Originally by: Feng Schui
Name: Pilgrim
Hull: Arbitrator
Role: Force Recon Ship
<snip>
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level.
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Role Bonus: 75% reduction to Energy Emissions Capacitor use and 50% reduction to Turret Destabilization capacitor use.
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators
Some remarks:
1. I do like your basic idea here.
2. It imho needs the reduced Liquid Ozone Consumption.
3. Cargo bay is still an issue. A Capacitor booster is in most cases not needed, but not obsolete either.
4. Adding a general 75% reduction to Neut use for the ship makes it imho too easy. I would prefer a 15% reduction to Neut cap use per Recon level here.
5. Tracking disruptor cap use - similar to 4. Id prefer a 10% per Recon level.
6. The playstyle "fuel your tank" with enemy's tank is still obosolete which imho is a pitty.
7. Current problems with TDs are stille xistant with this change.
My five cent, as I truly believe that having high skills shouldnt be punished by adding important skills as ship imminent boni. But those tweaks are anyways flavors and minor tweaks :)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 19:05:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Feng Schui
Name: Curse
Hull: Arbitrator
Role: Combat Recon Ship
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level.
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per level
My five cent:
1. From what I see, the Nano-Curse would still be the only viable setup. I do believe that this indicates a still at least semi-broken design...
2. Add to 1. it lacks versatility and it lacks still grid as it needs a cap booster. Due to the cap booster a mid slot is still missing.
3. In addition to 1. the self-fueling hield tank is not possible which is a pitty - as it was an itneresting and totally new playstyle.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 19:07:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Feng Schui
Edited by: Feng Schui on 07/11/2007 17:44:13
or even, a seperate module?
Energy Nosferatu
Description:
Neutralizes a portion of the energy in the target ship's capacitor. Can only be fit on the Amarr recon.
Attributes:
Activation time / duration: 12 seconds
Energy Neutralized: 120 energy
Energy Transferred: 60 energy
Range: 15km
Fittings:
CPU: 10,000 tf
Powergrid: 150mw
edit:
OR a skill:
Advanced Energy Emissions: Advanced understanding with Energy Emission Systems.
Rank 6 skill
15% reduction in energy emissions capacitor use per level.
The module:
- creating an Amarr Recon only module would for sure upset people and tbh it sounds like patchwork (sorry for saying that openly *g*)
- the skill would wreak havoc. Like the Neut Domi will start to rise as FOTM and it will rule like no tomorrow. An even more fearsome ship than ever before.
Just my five cents. Please tell where I am wrong.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 19:33:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 07/11/2007 19:33:35
Originally by: Grytok
Pilgrim:
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Armor Resistances and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level.
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level.
Attribute Tweak: 20% better Capacitor Recharge Rate
Curse:
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level.
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per level.
Attribute Tweak: 20% better Capacitor Recharge Rate
Done, without making them FOTM.
EDITs: Colours and misspelling
With your tweaks you achieved the following:
1. The 5-low-slot Pilgrim now finally can use its 5th low-slot to its advantage (compared to Curse). Nice tweak and tbh it fits my personal taste ;) .
2. The Pilgrim is not longer that heavily dependant on a cap booster.
3. Pilgrim has a higher survivability which it direly needed.
4. The Curse can take advantage of the igher cap recharge.
Critique/suggestions
a. Capacitor change for Pilgrim: it still needs one cap booster according first calculations... Seems as if the 20% cap increase is not enough and/or doesnt solve the cap issue at all. My suggestion: use the above mentioned "efficiency" instead of the capacitor recharge change. Thus with each recon level, the Neuts on a Pilgrim need less cap. In the end a Neut uses only like 25% of the cap per cycle than it does now.
b. Pilgrim survivability: Besides the resist increase I would suggest a signature radius reduction. Why? A Pilgrim has a more than 10% higher sig radius than a Sacrilege. Where the Sacrilege has way more armor hp and even better resists. Imho a Pilgrim sig radius should be max 110m3, maybe even less when tweaking the armor resists. It just happened now that I noticed that 140m3 for Sacrilege and 156m3 for Pilgrim is a *sorry* plain stupid difference. Totally out of whack and should be considered a typo in regards to the 156m3 for Pilgrim.
c. Pilgrim still lacks cargo bay (cap boosters might still be needed)
d. Same as c. for Curse - cargo bay to small
e. The Nano-Curse is still the superior choice. In fact your tweak increased a Nano-Curses viability but didnt add versatiltiy to the game. I strongly believe that versatility is needed.
f. Drone bay is still an issue when next patch comes in.
g. There is still a mid slot issue - one mid slot missing.
My five cents, please dont hit me ;)
ATM I ask myself, how many dps a NOS and a Neutralizer has. It is an interesting question, difficult to find out, but definitly worth to answer... I guess I will sit down and calculate it if I can.... or anyone else already did?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 23:58:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Feng Schui
<snip>
just giving some options  however, those would be the very last option.
In answer to your points:
1. about liquid ozone reduction I am plain unsure on future roles. Also I got no clue what some Capital pilots would say if the Pilgrim didnt have it anymore.
2. 75% ship ability to cap use of Neuts = 15% cap use reduction for Neuts per Recon level at Recon 5. Please keep in mind, that the Pilgrim is no Cap-wonder - repper,... use cap too. TBH I didnt do the maths, so I dont know for sure.
3. 50% ship bonus to TD cap use = 10% per Recon level less cap use at Recon 5
4. drone bandwidth - I actually dont know, how you use your Pilgrim and for which purpose. To me it is a sudden drop by 80 dps. Considering it was/is 304 dps total for me, this is a huge drop by 26% +. And 304 dps by drones which can be shot down is not impressing at all, but still close to the 315dps maximum for current Pilgrim.
5. You flew a Curse post nerf... *sigh* please stop it. You flew a Nano-Curse, the only viable setup for a Curse. The Nano-Curse might be overpowered, the Curse as such is not.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 10:08:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Grytok
New Pilgrim
Amarr Cruiser: 5% to Armor Resistances and 10% to Drone damage and hitpoints per level.
Recon Ship: 20% to Neut/NOS transfer amount and 5% to Neutralizer activation cost per level.
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in CPU needs for Covert Ops Cloaking devices and 100% reduction for targeting delay.
*Notice the new Role Bonus where you only get 99% to Covert Ops Cloaking Device instead 100% with ReconShip LvL 5? I think that this should level it somehow with the targeting delay bonus added.*
-----------------------------------
New Curse
Amarr Cruiser: 10% to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness and 10% to Drone damage and hitpoints per level.
Recon Ship: 20% to Neut/NOS transfer amount and 40% to Neut/NOS range per level.
! Change Curse slotlayout to: 5 High / 5 Med / 5 Low !
I do not like to say it, but your suggestions sound pretty balanced.
Let me tell you what it is I do not like or feel uneasy with:
1. I am unsure on the Pilgrim's survivability still with the 5% armor bonus. Granted it is higher, but the Pilgrim is plain not right in its base stats. Having high armor hp and neglected shields it plain should already have higher base resists. Making a bonus for something which the ship should already have (already lacks a high slot) doesnt sound right. I did not do the maths, so this is an assumption and general feeling only.
2. Some people hate me for always adding it. Esspecially a Pilgrim should vanish from local when cloaked. Actually Id take "vanish from local" over "no target delay" anytime. With the "vanish from local" instead "no target delay" I would *drool* when CCP implemented your suggestion.
3 The Curse - phewwwwww tough one. You would kill shield tanked Curses (which are somehow still viable). On the other hand the Curse is Khanid and not at all inline with Khanid design currently (more so with your change). Additionally NOS/Neut is a Curse's prime weapon and the Curse has HUGE fitting problems when starting to fit 3 or more and actually use them. Also Curse has general fitting problems. It does not "feel" right at all.
Curse sidenote:
A Nano-Curse is so dangerous as speed, damps and NOS/Neut range/drain complement each other so nicely. Both just fit very well together. Esspecially when other Nano ships close in to the Nano-Curse.
If - and only if - the dampener change really ensures, that a Nano-Neut-Damp-Curse doesnt work (by taking away the Damp part) your change could be nice, except: the Curse lacks 95 grid exactly. 95 grid is exactly what is needed to fit a base setup with a full neut rack, MARII and MWD II with max fitting skills. Changes to tank to dual-rep or plated would then require to drop Neuts for Missile slots.
On another sidenote: it feels bad to have a Khanid ship without missile bonus. Somehow a mix should be viable with like 3 heavy missile launchers (with a bonus) and 2 Neuts. Or a 4 missile launcher/1Neut combo with huge tank and TDs,... DPS of Heavy Missile Launcher (only real viable missile launchers for Curse due to range) are pitiful atm.
Keeping all that in mind, I would prefer a tweaked Curse like that:
New Curse
Amarr Cruiser: 10% to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness and 10% to Heavy Missile Launcher ROF.
Recon Ship: 20% to Neut/NOS transfer amount and 40% to Neut/NOS range per level.
! Change Curse slotlayout to: 5 High / 5 Med / 5 Low !
+95 grid
75MBit drone bandwidth
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:24:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 08/11/2007 12:25:52
Originally by: Holly Chance
Unfortunately, any changes which will allow the Curse and Pilgrim to be solo ships will almost certainly not be implemented.
Then the Pilgrim will stay broken or needs a total revamp. Also "solo" as you use it is overrated. Nowadays a Curse runnign around solo dies a fast death (except Nano-Curse which will change now anyways). Faster than a Hac. These changes make it playable in gangs. With damp change, the solo I-win button Nano-Damp-NOS/Neut Curse is dead - which is imho a good thing.
Originally by: Holly Chance
Recon ships are meant to be stealthy gang ewar support, nothing more. If you take a look at the capabilities of the other races' Recons, the Curse and Pilgrim are the only ones that could ever effectively solo. Sure they have a more offensive type of ewar, but CCP will not return them to the old days, regardless of the logic put forward. The only way we're going to get a Curse-equivalent again is if a new ship type is introduced - which like I said, I've been playing with. I've actually got the base stats and bonuses sorted out, but after looking over them again, I realise quite how obscenely powerful they are... back to the drawing board for a while -_-
The Pilgrim can simply not be compared to other races force recons. I recommend actually reading this whole thread :) All that as Amarr EWAR cant be compared to other EWAR at all. Changing Pilgrim with gang support in mind, similar to other Recons, will make it a beast which pwns even more solo. This is simply due to the EWAR it has.
Example?
For gang support, the Pilgrim needs range, resulting in a NOS/Neut range increase. This will remove the range boundary in solo and make it a killer.
Alternatively one could remove drone bay and drastically icnrease NOS/Neut effectiveness. Nice gang support, but then you see 2 men gangs pwning each and everything. Eg Pilgrim and Sacrilege (Sac with Improved cloak).
Whatever you say about inline with others and solo: I still do believe that there must be a ship which punishes solo ratting in 0.0 by our Ravens and others. Pilgrim is well suited to do so if it vanishes from local.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 18:46:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Feng Schui
Well, 65 days, 13 hours; and if nothing is done, I'll start training for the Rapier 
Why that specific time?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:06:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Aaron Mirrorsaver
certainly any of the more recent suggestions on ths page of the thread would be better than what ccp did.
It is not about what CCP did decide for those ships. It is plain that the consequences of the NOS nerf were app not that obvious. Just hoping to be able to bring it to their attention....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 09:30:00 -
[90]
Oha, actually I was thinking about retraining too, except...
1. fully specced for Amarr Recon
2. training new ship lines atm so no time to do.. :(
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 10:04:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Grytok
<snip>
But how boring this will be?
I think we've made good points so far, in how the Amarr-Recons could be changed, to make them more usefull again.
Good points? C'mon we offered like 4 different flavors for each: Pilgrim and Curse. Also we listed almost all possible tweak points and discussed them intensively.
What I liked so far is the reasonnable discussion (ok except me ;) ). Seems most pilots are tired of nerfs and prefer a fitting nerf-resistant ship line, which is viable.
Good? Way more, I believe one can not expect a lot more.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 10:52:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Grytok
Sorry, didn't want to underestimate our efforts
Have at thee!
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 13:52:00 -
[93]
Had a look, no change so far...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 19:50:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 11/11/2007 19:51:24
Originally by: Grytok
I've made a new Thread especially for the new Role Bonus' for all Force Recons, to keep that out of this thread.
Force Recons - Role Bonus Change
Cool stuff. Like already shown, I got a somehow different vision, thus I am not a 100% fan of your suggestions, but:
1. they are thought out.
2. they work
3. they appear to be blanced
4. I lack the mention of modified ship bonus's, something which still needs tweaking (and if it is only the missing 95grid for Pilgrim).
PS: I would soo much be in love with CCP if they really made Pilgrim the solo stealth assassin, as I still believe it is what they invisioned it to be (and why I trained it). At least that is what it was (except vanish from local).
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 20:19:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Cailais
Well, having tested both the pilgrim and the curse on sisi Im feeling pretty despondent about the amarr recons.
Managed to drop onto a hurricane and apply a webbifier: surely a good chance? Nope. Barely scratched his shield, and then the pilgrim died a miserable death despite having 1600mm plate and a overheated MARII. My curse, well that didnt even last that long.
Its all pretty hopeless.
C.
Nahhhh, fast and easy death is by design (of current Pilgrim design). Makes you feel less miserable and makes it easier to decide for another ship ;)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 09:00:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Cailais
Well, Ive finally completed the long road to command ships, Iwon't be buying anymore curse or pilgrims (I've just got one of each left now). Thinking of using my pilgrim as an exploration vessel - fitting cloak, scan probe launcher and maybe a hacking module. Not sue if it'll fit, but might do as a work horse for a bit.
Actually: if you look at some suggestions of mine for Pilgrim changes, I suggested an Astrometrics bonus several times.
1. It would make the Pilgrim actually usefull as a semi-professional exploration vessel.
2. The Pilgrim could hunt down exploration sites and do those of sig strength 0.8 and higher. For lower sites it just lacks tank and firepower.
3. Amarr lack a low end scanning vessel in Frigate class. Thus only fair to offer a high end vessel by now.
At least one more role and an actual use for the Pilgrim...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 13:47:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Cailais
Its certainly an option if ccp don't want the pilgrim as 'combat' orientated vessel (and appears they don't). If the current cost of the ship drops below the 20mil mark it could be worth using in this fashion -perhaps as a support ship to the cov ops anathema.
So for this case it could be like:
Pilgrim:
Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 5% bonus to Armor Resistances and 10% bonus to Drone damage and hitpoints per level.
Recon Ship Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer amount and 10% reduction in Energy Neutralizer capacitor use per level.
Role bonus: -98% to -100% reduced CPU need for cloaking device per level and 10% reduction to duration/activation time of modules requiring Astrometrics per level
Therefore some usability in PvP and some in PvE
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 20:59:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Hydrogen
So for this case it could be like:
Pilgrim:
Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 5% bonus to Armor Resistances and 10% bonus to Drone damage and hitpoints per level.
Recon Ship Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer amount and 10% reduction in Energy Neutralizer capacitor use per level.
Role bonus: -98% to -100% reduced CPU need for cloaking device per level and 10% reduction to duration/activation time of modules requiring Astrometrics per level
Therefore some usability in PvP and some in PvE
Oha, not a single comment on this change?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 10:20:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Grytok
Sorry mate, I'd still prefer to get the targeting-delay removed from the Force Recons
Faster ScanningTime is only needed for probing down ships on SS. For probing complexes, it's not needed tbh.
And when you've probed down a ship and got him fast enough, because of your suggested bonus, it will warp away, the very momnet you decloak, having a 5 second targeting-delay.
It's a silly dog trying to catch his tail, you know 
I understand you, still would be better than it is now...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.15 10:22:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Grytok
Still not a simple "We're looking into the issue" so far from CCP
C'mon CCP, we're really trying to comeforward with some well thought out ideas
Irritating, that there is nothing as a reply... by CCP.
Maybe too much facts?
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.15 14:01:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Chronos VIII
Well I like the fact that you trying to change something and the amarr recons definitely need some love from ccp, but I think you are missing the point here. In my opinion, the main problem is that especially the pilgrim is forced to fight in web range, which is ridiculous considering its lack of tank ability. We all know that recons are paper-thin, so alot of experienced recon pilots fly their ships with extenders. This is compareable to the vaga. You stick 2 LSE and a speed tank on your ship. The pilgrim is very limited in its options. Fitting plates to it doesnt make any sense to me either. I mean yea, you have a buffer of like 4k health, but you are very slow, not very agile and your dps kinda sucks. So basically this is just a matter of time when your opponent kills you.
To be honest, I have no idea how to make the pilgrim sexy again with the current nos changes. Boosting/nerfing tracking disruptors doesnt help either in my opinion. A good start would be a range bonus, that allows you to fight outside web range.
5 heavy drones anyone? Oh nvm i forgot, we're talkin about amarr not gallente 
Chronos
Well when you take the time, you will realize, that your points are already addressed. Pilgrim lacks versatility and tank and....
just too much what it lacks...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 03:19:00 -
[102]
Frustrating the least said. Also reading a dev saying that he scores nice kills in his Pilgrim thus it is fine...
Well I see decent kill mails with a HELIOS of DOOM. Does it make the Helios a fine PvP ship?`
Phear the Ibis of Doom.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:04:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Sol Basso
Fleet - dont bother you'll just die!
Solo - Nos nerf means I can't solo [everything] anymore!
1. You miss the important part between Fleet and solo: gangs. There are enough ships, which are a greater assett to a gang than Pilgrim or even Curse. Simple as that.
2. A Pilgrim is unable to solo a worthy opponent (worthy as in skilled). Again: the ability to kill unskilled pilots and/or poor setup is not a unique ability to the Pilgrim but applies to almsot any ship in EvE.
Keeping those points in mind, your whole post appears to be biased, lacks infomation or plain experience piloting those ships on your side.
Originally by: Sol Basso
While you didn't want comparisons drawn with other recons I suspect that every recon pilot would tell you that 'fleet = death' simply because there is so much firepower on the table _anything_ primaried is going to die in short order (and not enough E-War to get rid of it all)
Actually even in fleet all Recons offer more specific and efficient abilities than the Pilgrim. The Curse is still considered a threat and quite often primaried. The last point is the curse of the Curse but no design flaw.
Originally by: Sol Basso
As such your post decends basically into a complaint about not being able to solo [everything] anymore after attempting to justify why these ships aren't fit for fleet work.
I am sorry that is plain not true - a Pilgrim does not work in any scenario. But I do believe that an extremly well skilled Pilgrim pilot should be able to stand his ground versus any ship up to BC size. After all:
- the Pilgrim always engages close range on a: all or nothing basis. One mistake and it is dead. Risk vs. reward that is what EvE is about. By now a Pilgrim risks all and got no chance versus any skilled opponent.
Originally by: Sol Basso
In addition you mention fitting ECM at several points, did you really mean 'E-War' or are you suggesting a Amarr recons should be fitting ECM (a point I would disagree with)
EWAR = EWAR
EWAR <> ECM
EWAR to me includes NOS, TD, Neuts,...
Originally by: Sol Basso
I've never felt that recons were intended to be solo [pwn]ships (due to E-War sharing space with tackle, cap boosters and propulsion) and all about small gang work (although the Force Recons could participate in fleet combat given their ability to arrive cloaked and wait for an opportune moment to strike)
1. Pilgrim as Force Recon is the worst choice for fleets simply as it lacks range - plain pointless.
2. Lack nullifies any cloaking advantage.
3. Operating this way (cloaked approach, uncloak, attack) in fleets is in fact soloing again. Something where the Pilgrim definitly lacks like you agreed.
Originally by: Sol Basso
You state that the Amarr recons are still able to engage and destroy [solo] ships up to Battlecruiser size under certain circumstances but I would say that this is really not any different to the other recons or indeed any other ship type, specifically that Drones and FOF missiles will 'work around' ECM, Damps or Tracking Disruptors (and Painters dont really feature in this kind of discussion)
Well here comes the old point: its pointless to compare each race's Recon. Since you need to compare the whole EWAR of each race by then. Something where Amarr fail anyway. Also all Recons except Curse and Pilgrim fill an intended role - very well. Curse and Pilgrim not at all.
The Curse is at least able to kill, but face the truth: a damage Sacrilege (3 BCU with Rage) performs much better with higher survivability.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:14:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Sol Basso
I'm not saying that Amarr Recons don't need 'something' to compensate for the Nos nerf I'm just saying that expecting them to return to their previous combat ability might be unbalancing as I suspect these ships were a instrumental for the Nos nerf in the first place (by way of comparison look how long its taken for Caldari to receive an ECM boost since the ECM nerf - i.e. next patch)
Well since some insist.. start to compare ECM and Tracking Disruption. To counter ECM without a boost even, one needs a module. On specialized ships (Caldari) we are talking about killing your target dps at least 67% of the time. Even with a counter we are still at app. 45-50%.
Now look at tracking disruption: it applies to approximately 70% of the ships used in EvE. Of those 70% every single ship is able to counter Tracking Disruption without the use of a module. Simply navigation in space and tactics are needed to counter Tracking Disruption. This would still be ok if Pilgrim and Curse could actually dictate range. Breaking news: a Curse's speed tank is subpar to any other serious speed tank. Not to talk about the Curse which needs to stay in close range for his suicide.
So a Nano Curse is good when fighting non-Nano-tagets, where it can dictate range. Funnily the sensor dampeners after the next patch are still more efficient than using pre patch Tracking Disruptors. Any other Curse setup offers zero additional benefit to a gang or in solo. Zealot, Sacrilege, Harbinger, Prophecy (all in similar price range) offer way more benefit to a gang and unique abilities.
The phrase: "it can kill, thus it is good" is ignorant - the least said.
Pilgrim solo is suicide in any case. A Pilgrim in a gang is too much isk for too low a benefit.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:35:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
OK, first off, please don't hit me right away if my point of view is utterly flawed.
You are not utterly flawed, you miss the major point.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
So I've become inquisitive and tried to come up with a decent Pilgrim fitting, to see if that ship really is as weak and useless as most say.
This is the result:
High Slots:
2x Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
1. your high slots need named modules. Without you can not use this setup.
2. The NOS are worthless here due to the recent NOS change. To use those to full effect you would need to play jigsaw with your cap, which is unplayable.
3. You lack versatility here also.
Your high slots look good on paper but do not work in real.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Med Slots:
10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Medium Capacitor Booster II (200)
Balmer Series Targeting Inhibitor I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Warp Disruptor II
1. The Tracking Disruptor has an effect on unskilled players, but doesnt really increase your survivability. Versus skilled players the Tracking Disruptor is worthless.
2. You can not sustain your Cap even with the 2 NOS active.
3. You need the MWD most importantly to pass gate camps and to close in to targets after decloak. In a fight you need to stay in range due to your low range (12km and less). Thus in a fight a MWD is suicide due to the high signature radius.
4. Your MWD does not enable you to leave a fight at will. I fyou think different try it and feel the effect of your signature radius when you pulled the short end of the stick.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Low Slots:
Medium Armor Repairer II
2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Thermic Membrane II
Damage Control II
A weak tank. Here you chose a armor tank only low slot layout. At maximum skills this offers a 162 reinforced tank (EFT value). Or in practice, out in the real EvE universe: YOU DIE hellish fast. I would not even call this a tank. Granted 80%+ resist (except 71.9% on kin) looks good on paper but is worthless with 2250 armor and 152 m3 sig. Fly it and feel the frustration yourself.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Rigs:
2x Capacitor Control Circuit I
Now here comes the part, where your cap becomes sustainable. But wait: you need your rig slots for a viable PvP setup, while still having an issue to kill anything T2 below BS size?
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Now don't get me wrong and please don't shout at me. I personally don't fly Amarr Recons (yet), so I might miss something fundamental, but that setup looks quite solid to me.
I plain is not - the difference from paper to real play is huge. Playing them is fun at first still. Past that time when actually using them you will realize on how much those issues I listed in this answer and in the whole thread impact your game play.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:43:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Sol Basso
I don't agree or disagree with individual bits or the whole but I'm interested to know what this expectation of [solo] ability is based on? For example I dont see anything in the description that implies solo work and I dont see the Caldari recons capable of the above (as an exmaple - since they cant guarantee the opponent will be perma jammed and they wont be shield, armour or speed tanked) so I can only assume this is based on the Amarr recons previous [overpowered] capabilities?
While you still drop in those [solo] and [overpowered] statements, it does not make your postings right. It is plain bad style when you are looking for a serious discussion.
1. Curse and Pilgrim filled a role before NOS nerf. Those roles included solo play to a fair amount.
2. Curse and Pilgrim do not fill a role by now. Mark me: I do not consider the Nano-Damp-Curse pwning a role. A point on which we can argue for sure.
All I am askin for is: the Pilgrim and the Curse need a role, which they can fill. A purpose, where they excel.
Granted this thread focused to some degree on soloing as a role due to several reasons:
1. Curse: its description - a HAC with EWAR. Well solo somehow feels right, but there is no need to focus on it. Maybe even change it. But right now solo is the single real role of a Curse. In a gang other ships offer more benefit to the gang than a Curse.
2. Pilgrim: the Pilgrim's doom to enter close combat and stay in close combat is clearly a solo role. It is: kill or die.
Mark me: to me it is ok if they got different roles, but they MUST be able to fill those.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:52:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Sol Basso
Originally by: Hydrogen
EWAR = EWAR
EWAR <> ECM
EWAR to me includes NOS, TD, Neuts,...
Originally by: Hydrogen's original post
A Curse's tasks:
<snip>
- Solo/gang-nano ship: up to 7,348 km/s with a snake set and 10.8 km/s with a snake set and overheating are feasible. This while maintaining either ECM or a shield tank. Drones and missiles kill target.
So here you are actually suggesting the Curse is fitted with ECM?.....
Actually a typo - my wrong and thanks for pointing it out.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:59:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Sol Basso
I'll try and summarise as completely as I can. I am open to the concept that Amarr recons need a boost, your analysis of their currents abilities appears to be accurate however I remain unconvinced that returning the ships ability to solo to their previous levels is balancing and perhaps amarr recon pilots need to consider that the ships boost may be more appropriate (or likely) in other areas (such as gang and fleet work)
There is a lot of things I would like to add, where my most important points are of course my attitude:
1. EvE is in need of a balanced stealth assassin. This is also why I am focused on a [solo] role. True and you are right for pointing it out.
2. Solo was the role and the sole purpose of most players who started with Pilgrim and Curse before that bad Nano-Curse FOTM came in, which started the nerf. It is plain wrong that players (in my extreme more than 10 mill sp) invested skill points to fill this role only to face a nerf. My bad for centering more than a year training of my EvE time around the Pilgrim. Still such a heavy nerf is plain wrong - destroying a whoile line of playstyles too.
3. I actually do believe that the Nano-Damp-Curse needs a nerf/will be nerfed. It still has an attached I-Win button.
That said: I somehow *grumble* but can agree to your summary, except that the current state of Pilgrim and Curse is worse than you seem to realize.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:10:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Sol Basso
Originally by: Corwain
40km web ain't shabby EWar, and with the boost to torps TPs will again be useful. BTW are TPs getting scripts? When questioned why they are putting scripts to TDs CCPs brilliant reply was "It didn't make sense not to." OK, so why not put scripts to guns then that lets you suggest tracking or damage? Or armor reps that let you pick amount or frequency? or scrams that let you select range or strength? You can apply scripts to everything, but the reason you applied it to Damps was because they were overpowered. Were TDs overpowered?
Pilgrim used to fit 2 TDs standard. Pilgrim now loses a mid to at least 1 cap mod (injector, battery, etc), down to 1 TD. Now scripts, Pilgrim has 1/2 a TD. Just remove the TD bonus completely if you're gonna do us like that, sheesh!
Bear in mind scripts are being applied to modules that have 2 effects to force the pilot to pick one over the other or accept a lower (nerfed) balance, since painters IIRC only have 1 effect (increase sig) they almost certainly wont get scripts.
Furthermore while the web bonus on the matar recons is nice (wont argue that) webbing is not matar racial ewar (which is what the comparison called for) and be careful if you want to go down the 'non-racial' route because the minute you do Caldari get the short end of the stick as they only get ECM bonuses (not nos/neut, web or scram as the other races do)
Scripts imho only really nerf the Amarr.
1. most likely no script for Target Painters
2. no scripts to ECM
3. script to Sensor Dampeners - but face the truth: targeting range reduction by x%; an ability to drop your targets locking range below Warp Disruptor range is overpowered always and will result in I-Win buttons setups.
4. The only EWAR which has been hit is Trackign Disruption which was weak already as it was.
What freaks me out, is that all that stuff is nerfed and that I am sure that a Curse nerf will appear: 38km+ NOS/Neut range, 20km+ Disruptor range and TDs to drop target lock under 20 km will ask for a nerf soon. 0 chance for a target to escape.
So we got:
- a full range of playstyles nerfed/obsolete
- broken Amarr EWAR
- broken ship designs
- a goal still not achieved and
- a nerf soon incoming when some discover NOS/Neut-Nano-Damp-Curse as another I-win button.
All that without compensating. Additionally I do believe that the Pilgrim was fine before - perfectly. Imho there was never anythign wrong with it. It did risk a lot and it did achieve a lot. Risk vs reward a fair trade off.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:10:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Thanks Hydrogen for your reply. Much appreciated.
I do enjoy reasoning together on a sane level. Much appreciated.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
I should note that the setup also fits well with all T2 modules in the highs.
I actually did not verify. Simply as I got fitting issues in my setups (perfect skills); in best case lacking like 35 - 95 grid.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Apart from that I don't think Nos is worthless. If you bring down your own capacitor to 40-50% fast, Nos adds to the energy loss of your target. Especially on targets with more base cap than the Pilgrim, where relative cap relation vs. absolute cap relation becomes important.
<snip>
Admittedly, the process is much more complicated and dangerous.
Since you are talking here only about the effectiveness geared towards Cap destroyed/leeched - you got a point, except:
1. The playstyle on a Curse and Pilgrim to fuel a shield tank is impossible here (since NOS nerf).
2. Without rig slots a balanced energy management is impossible since the NOS nerf (with rigs only in case the NOS drains Cap all the time consistently).
3. Any interference to a Pilgrim's as well as to a Curse's grid kills a Curse's and Pilgrim's tank completly. Thus an Amarr Recon's main weapon is its greatest bane.
4. Only a Capacitor Booster (like in your suggested setup) enables energy management. This results in a lack of a medium slot. Having cargo issues as its resulting problem. On a sidenote: 200's cap charges are from my experience not feasible. Minimum is 400's.
5. An Amarr Recon's EWAR is unable to protect the issuing Amarr Recon and when draining/destroying a target's capacitor, it not only breaks a target's, but also its own tank.
Due to those reasons and some more additional reasons, an Amarr Recon doing what it can do best, that is destroying/leeching enemy's cap, is a glass ship and not a glass cannon. This to a point, where only dps and passive tank count. Curse and Pilgrim are doomed to loose then:
- to any other T2 ship of cruiser+ size
- to almost any ship of any size with capless weapons
-...
Please take the time and consider how narrow the potential target line for a Pilgrim is for real. And even then the risk vs reward equation seems to me completly out of whack.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Regarding versatility, I'm not sure what you mean. Many ships are basically one-trick ponies. I don't see a big exception there.
There is an exception - you can configure almost any ship for gank, for tank or balanced between both. For the Pilgrim it is only one base setup. Tank, cap leeched/destroyed, drone damage is always exactly the same.
While drone damage has been nerfed also due to the bandwidth change.
After all the Pilgrim is a one-trick-pony more than any other ship and it is very efficient in leeching/destroying energy, but really really bad at its trick to kill an enemy.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:39:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
I totally agree with regard to the tracking disruptor issues. Especially since they don't reduce falloff and the Pilgrim lacks range to stay at a safe distance. Plus the player skill compensation possibilities. That really is a problem.
*nods*
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Regarding the tank - as I wrote it's not super strong. Thus you shouldn't engage targets that make you die hellish fast.
This would be in line with my 'have to choose targets carefully' postulation.
Again I need to point out, that a Pilgrim's target line is very very narrow. A tank which can not consistently supplied and which lacks resists is weak. Reinforced defense values of 120 - 200 are very weak. Esspecially the low end values are Frigate class values, where the high signature radius kills a Pilgrim.
Examples: a Malediction can easily kill a Pilgrim, a Vengeance is very well suited to take out a Pilgrim, a Sacrilege... hands a horrible death to a Pilgrim (natural resists + cap less weapon + common Cap Booster...).
A Pilgrim stands a good chance vs an Omen, maybe also on a Maller, a Caracal can already be risky,... Gallente blaster or drone boats are not really a target.
Give it a shot, it really is that bad...
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Regarding rigs, well there are quite a lot of rig-dependant ship builts out there (polycarbons?). So I think that's nothing all too special here.
You mention the only rig (which is fotm also), which is not feasible on a Pilgrim - see a problem here?
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
All in all I think it's ok that Curse and Pilgrim are limited. I don't agree to the general notion that seems to be they shouldn't be limited and should be able to engage all targets.
Now if they are too limited, that should indeed be fixed.
A Curse is limited to Nano-Damp-NOS/Neut Curse, which I feel is not right as it still offers IWIN-button situations. In any other scenario so far it is safe to cnsider the Curse broken.
A Pilgrim is just that: broken. Limited targets and those targets it has are seldomly found alone and should be taken out with other ships with less risk.
That said, a Pilgrim is due to its range and abilities, a solo ship. It needs:
- abilities to make it worthwille, an asset to gang/fleets or
- a huge increase to its solo abilties. Since a Pilgrim would solo run into the risk of being blobbed, it would need the power to bring on even battleships solo to offer a fair risk vs reward. In this case, it is not only about comparing stats, but also about comparing this ships environment.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 14:48:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
IF ccp doesnt want to touch the way nos/neut work at all for fixing pilgrim then they should give pilgrim vastly, and i mean sick, cap recharge rate so it can win a cap battle with neuts against a bigger ship with cap boosters without draining himself dry.
On a different board I made the cap to neutralizer to dps equation and back. Actually it is a difficult equation, since it needs reasonable assumptions. Still the result is basically: running Neutralizer and NOS does an unequaled high dps versus the Pilgrim himself compared to all other weapons.
In certain circumstances such an equation makes sense, since the target lacks cap to repair (dropping his repper and/or active tank) and since the cap the Pilgrim uses is cap the Pilgrim misses for running a Neutralizer or running a repper.
Funny thing: a Neutralizer if considered a weapon is completly out of line compared to all others. Thus the huge impact fo the NOS nerf for the Pilgrim.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 07:40:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Garia666
add the not working dirsubter ( close range ) to that.. and bad dmg out put..
its a fun ship with allot of potenttial but thats about it..
Potential and somehow addictive. A pitty to see its current state.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 09:38:00 -
[114]
Originally by: haq aan
Solution
- Nosferatu's on Curse & Pilgrim, ignores enemy cap while transfer. So they can drain like pre nerf.
They were fine before, so end of problem, end of story. period.
regards,
haq
Well... I do believe that the Pilgrim was 100% fine before nerf. The Curse actually was not fine due to the NOS/Neut-Dampener combo and all the other NOS-setups (NOS-Domi...).
Funny stuff: the NOS/Neut-Dampener Pilgrim shines similar still, the only ok ship the Pilgrim is broken :(
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 08:37:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Depp Knight
Another day and still no news of a change. Makes me wonder, if when will there be a fix, a change a bit of light? Atm I am sticking to the sacril. Pretty good **** btw.
More on topic, TD's are broken, med nos is broken, pilgrims cap is broken, pilgrim is broken and new scripts and bandwidth breaks the pilgrim apart. Oh its great being a Pilgrim pilot.
Considering the potential of Amarr Recons (and of course my skill invest) it is a shame on how both ships are set by now.
Is it only me, that I feel the NOS/Neut-Damp Curse isnt right?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 15:08:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Confessor
I love my pilgrim, but it sucks just sitting in the hanger now.
I sold mine. Simply as ppl on TS asked me, why they hear so much weird noise over tS when I logon.
I couldnt tell I was crying seeing my Pilgrim ;) So I sold it...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.23 08:15:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Depp Knight
Damps are overpowered on a non bonused ship so yeh I see theres something wrong with the curse when you use it with damps. Speed, nos, damps and drones is a pretty awesome way to fly things and it has now become overpowered.
The problem I see it as this. Target Disruptors are obviously broken when its combat recon that has its bonus doesnt use them.
Funny enough: Dampeners will stay overpowered even after patch.
The ability as such to use Dampeners in a Nano-T2 fitting, so that you can drop your target's lockrange below Disruptor range plus NOS/Neut range was a problem and will be still in future. Even on the unbonused (as in Dampeners) Curse.
I bet that we will see another nerf in future, probably only geared to Curse. Don't get me wrong: there should not be a foolproof setup, but by then Curse will be broken too and its all over.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 15:20:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 26/11/2007 15:21:56
Originally by: Rudy Metallo
They are not broken, they've just been forced into a gang role, which is where they belong and where the rest of the Recons reside as well.
Let us just assume you are right, such as that Amarr Recons and Pilgrim in special are fine and meant for a gang environment.
So let us go straight for the Pilgrim:
1. It's main weapon, NOS and Neut have a range of 12.5 km in general (no, we do not equip faction stuff every time).
2. Due to 1. it becomes obvious that the Pilgrim needs a MWD in a gang environment. Simply as it will not be able to use its NOS and Neut outside that range. After all NOS/Neut is its primary weapon.
3. Let us assume that the posters claiming "jigsaw games" with your cap using NOS/Neut are fine. You still need a cap booster.
4. Since you are in range of less than 12.5 km you need a tank. Speed tank is not feasible so it is armor tank.
Now let us put it together:
- 2 NOS II/Dim, 1 Neut/Unstable
- 1 MWD II, 1 Cap Booster
- 1 MAR + mix of hardeners/EANM/plate
- we forget about rigs for this one...
What do we have now:
- a ship with a weak tank and low repping (as long as it has sufficient cap)
- a ship which dies fast, when under focused fire (focused fire is overrated - with low cap it has a problem anyway to run its repper forever while using the Neut - or does someone still believe a NOS fuels your Neut while you need cap to rep and for EWAR???)
- a ship which is most likely under focused fire when uncloaking at less than 12.5 km from enemy (EvE players did not learn yet to stand still and ignore a Pilgrim in 12.5 km range, waiting to be dry of cap)
- a ship which needs a looooong time to approach when taking advantage of its cloak (it is not that enemies know you are waiting there and thus are so kind to warp at 12.5 km from your cloaked position)
- a ship with a huge signature radius (larger than any HAC)
- a ship with a ! WORTHLESS ! tracking disruptor bonus
- a ship which needs to stay in range for at least 30 seconds to be effective at all on one target
So we have a real good gang ship:
A. Considering range and speed this ship is on an enemy for at least 1 minute until it is on next target (best case!?!)
B. A ship which offers negligble dps after next patch.
C. A ship which has issues to rep itself.
D. A ship, which is an easy kill.
Now please someone show me gangs, where the fights last at least 4 minutes so that this ship is of use, where it survives long enough and where there is a valid reason to choose Pilgrim over eg. Zealot or Sacrilege or even Curse.
@Rudy: your claim about being forced into a gang role is a not so smart claim and simply shows lack of knowledge and experience.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 09:35:00 -
[119]
Wow, actually I did not expect increasing support over time :)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 12:16:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Baron Goodwill
I want to ask a question, as a reletavily new player (abt 5mil exp) I was looking forward to curse as a solo-pvp ship (mostly pirating), just need an advice from gurus, shall I stick to the training course for curse or switch to HAC (Sac)
Right now I would suggest Sacrilege over Curse:
1. the Curse is fragile in its only viable setup and got no versatility
2. the Sacrilege is extremly versatile but heavily depends on good missile skills
If CCP doesnt change anything, by then I truly consider choosing Curse/Pilgrim a mistake. Sacrilege anytime, when there is no change.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:48:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Grytok
Originally by: Baron Goodwill
I want to ask a question, as a reletavily new player (abt 5mil exp) I was looking forward to curse as a solo-pvp ship (mostly pirating), just need an advice from gurus, shall I stick to the training course for curse or switch to HAC (Sac)
For Solo-PvP I'd go for an Sacrilege, which has a hell of a tank. The Curse can be used, but you'll horribly die to anyone with half a brain, as relying on Drones is not the best option imho, if you're 20km away from your target.
Curse is very good for small gangs tho.
Like Grytok said....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 16:27:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Cailais
Dont totally discount the curse, but if you decide to fly it be prepared for a steep (read: expensive) learning curve.
This
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 10:49:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Sarah Aubry
Just FYI, the Dev's HAVE responded on this issue, just not officially or in this thread.
The amarr recons are being "reconsidered" in their words.
You are right and I got a similar message directly.
Still I got major issues with the current state:
1. Changing a ship should imho be the last step to make it wortwhile before it is totally broken. This should happen before players feel totally lost. It is also a sign of respect by CCP to those players who dedicated a long EvE-time to those ships in question.
2. Considering 1. I actually do see changes to the good for several races. But when you look at which ships got changed from other races and their state ingame, by then I got the impression that I am all wrong.
The fact that CCP doesnt change the Amarr Recons - not even hinting at a change - suggests, that these ships are NOT totally broken from a CCP perspective. Both Curse and Pilgrim are on the low end of the priority list if they are considered for a massive change at all.
Lets get my opinion straight:
1. I do believe that the Nano-Damp-Curse is still a beast. Maybe overpowered still. All other setups on a Curse are broken.
2. Pilgrim is totally broken.
Yet CCP doesnt see a real problem here - compared to other recons - there appears to be no need to react immediately (like on other ships).
This attitude and the missing token of respect by CCP to the dedicated Amarr Recon players - it really freaks me out and I simply can not understand it.
Even if it is too complex to complete it, what is it that stops CCP from saying:
- "Uhmmm we know the issues, but still those are too complex to implement on short notice - please ebar with us." or
- "Too complex to change right now, for the time being we apply Curse resists to Pilgrim too." or
- "For now we revert the NOS change for Amarr Recons and leave drone bandwidth where it is until we can look deeper into this matter." or
- "I am sorry but we disagree here at CCP. From our perception Pilgrim and Curse are fine. By now they are in their intended role."
Of course the last one would make me "Sir Postalot" still an open discussion is fair and shows appreciation of work done.
I dont get it.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 09:45:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Cailais
My worry is that as Trinity is such an extensive patch that post 5 Dec CCP will not make any further changes for a considerable period of time - probably not until well into 2008.
And this.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 13:27:00 -
[125]
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem
Originally by: Depp Knight
Ive still got my pilgrim, I just dont use it.
Its a beast still if fit right...
Since you apparently got a hidden secret of the trade: please share and show how so the Pilgrim is a beast. Like: targets, role you fill and setup.
I am quite sure many seasoned pilots are eager to learn...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 09:51:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Andreask14
Aww, just as i was about to train a Curse because they always kill me when ratting in belts.
In which ship are you ratting :) ?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 14:41:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Depp Knight
Amarr recons will not out nos any ship.
Large nos is nearly as good as a bonuses med nos. More high slots available on bs and more cap. A large neut would just own the poor pilgrim orbiting at 12km.
Actually I can live with the NOS/Neut even compared to Heavies, except:
1. Range on Pilgrim
2. If it was possible to perma run those without a booster
3. If the Pilgrim had a worthwile tank, even a dual repper setup on a Pilgrim sucks balls in regards to tanking efficiency and cap management
Esspecially 2. and 3. are additional impacts to the Pilgrim since NOS nerf. I still dont get it: why break a perfectly fine ship?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 09:51:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Diomidis
unless your supposing changing the way Neuts work for the amarr recons only...
This.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 09:55:00 -
[129]
It is worse: CURSE got HEAVILY nerfed on Trinity!
The huge middle rocket of the Curse has been removed
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 11:17:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Depp Knight
15 pages and still no word on a change or even a hint that the devs know there is a problem.
Game over it seems - the whine-faction got what they wanted and we simply took it too serious it seems. Serious, well-argued facts do not win EvE.
How about some "ommph"?
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 12:48:00 -
[131]
Originally by: arbalesttom
Originally by: Bob Arko
Clearly shows how CCP cares about customers. Not.
Would you be happy to help a whining customer? I wouldnt.
Besides that, stop this 'awwww we got nerfed' madness, recons where never ment to solo freaking battleships etcetera, they got nerfed (just like all other, except minmatar ofc) because they are gangships/reconaissance ships.
You Sir definitly fit the average EvE whine/anti-whine population. Trying to discuss without knowing about what. If you would only read the thread youd have at least some information to know what it is about.
As it is now you are jsut that: a Troll.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 19:26:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Pilgrippa
Rapier > Pilgrim > Falcon > Arazu
It's too bad that the pilgrim is not able to use nos like it used to, but it's still a damn fine ship capable of killing many things. Take advantage of the price :)
Claims without proof. If you believe that list to be true, then add arguments and on how Pilgrim fills its role. Comparing the ability to kill other racial ships of tis class makes you look... well go figure.
The same list in assett for gang looks totally different.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 23:12:00 -
[133]
I read some posts and thought: "well maybe I am wrong so I go out for a test run"
test ship: Pilgrim, dual rep, rep rigs (max T2 tank)
environment: 1vs1 to Drake (T2 tank, but low missile skills)
result:
- able to closely tank it (until the 8x800 cap charges are out)
- running Neut + Nos permanently (until the 8x800 cap charges are out)
- unable to break tank
- unable to hold cap down
conclusion:
- Pilgrim definitly is not a solo ship, as it lacks standing power (lack of space for cap charges).
- Pilgrim cap management is extremly tight, thus the Pilgrim is extremly vulnerable.
- Pilgrim is unable to take advantage of the cloak due to range and target delay.
- Pilgrim can not kill.
- Nos/Neut management plain sucks - target's cap booster disables any cycled Nos/Neut management.
... so much more... disgusting
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 09:38:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 12/12/2007 09:39:21
Originally by: Zhulik
It is widely known that drakes are deathly afraid of pilgrims.
Drake = heavily cap dependant on shield. Anyways it is not so much about the Drake. The thing about solo capabilities and running out of cap boosters (only able to carry 9x800's) sure is a major issue. Also if it is a T2 solo ship, it should be able to bring on a T1 BC. Mark me, where the Drake pilot was for sure at about average skills and the Pilgrim pilot at close to maximum skills.
So, it is not a solo ship as it is now. Also:
- lack of cargo space to bring cap booster charges
- tight cap management even with cap booster
- lack of versatility
are points from that "test".
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 11:49:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Pilgrippa
Pilgrim vrs Drake? Are you serious?
Look man, I'm on your side about the Pilgrim, but maybe try your test on a Brutix, or some other active tank first.
Nah please just look at the reasoning right above your post.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 15:41:00 -
[136]
Some more frustrating experiences in Pilgrim.... If only I could at lest carry some more Cap charges and could survive close combat. Be it gang or solo...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 19:37:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 16/12/2007 19:38:41
Originally by: Bruce Deorum
Be constructive and resonuble in your arguments.
I am generally with you here. Again the thing is not neccessarily the Drake as such, but:
1. inability of Pilgrim to last in a fight due to lack of cap boosters.
2. inability to kill due to lack of dps (even in the case of the drake passive tanked about 150 effective dps are needed, maybe 180)
3. inability to tank opponents with more than average dps
4. ...
As a result the Pilgrim can't be a solo ship or is broken as such.
Like shown before the Pilgrim is not a gang ship either. Thats my attitude of proof and my point in the test.
What bothers me, that none from CCP officially acknowleges it is broken. Yet again it seems that at least one poster in this thread was from CCP or CCP-affiliated. Looking at results (nothing that is) I am more than just disappointed.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.30 01:35:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Bacci Galu
@ op.... U smokin some serious drugs brother..
Keep it civil. I sometimes fail there too, still I try and also dont fail at dropping an excuse where it needs to be.
Originally by: Bacci Galu
As iam someone who has played a hell of a lot longer than you i will explain the following;
Uhmmm, you played EvE before the Beta?????
Originally by: Bacci Galu
Recons are not meant to be solo pwn mobiles
That is exactly what I outlined the posts before. Not only that, the Pilgrim is not even a solo ship. That said: if someone says its viable, it must be a gang ship or?
Originally by: Bacci Galu
The are meant to compliment roaming gangs/fleets with vast amounts of electronic warefare. they are meant to take away the ememies ability to fight effectively
Well good point. Now show me, how the Pilgrim can do that :) I esspecially liked your statement of "vast amounts of electronic warfare". I am completly with you there...
Originally by: Bacci Galu
My raven would and has kicked many pilgrims a_ss's...it would kick your pilgrims a_ss.... your pilgrim is not meant to be able to solo a bs, no pilgrim is, just as no force recon is.
Good point. So yet again it must be a gang ship, like you told. Just show us how it is :)
Originally by: Bacci Galu
sure, the nos nerf was a lil harsh, i can sympothise with that...but as for making your precious pilgrim a solo bs killer...grow up.
Your post somehow lacks arguments. I also fail in seeing alternate suggestions from your *cough* vast experience. Also on how you suggest that a Pilgrim effectively deploys its *cough* "vast amounts of electronic warfare", which sure makes it a unique assett to any roaming gang, is still a miracle to me.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.30 02:15:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 30/12/2007 02:15:20
Black OPs
Those got a definite role. But when you are really into those you will realize 3 things:
1. Black OPs rely on teamwork with other Cloakers.
2. Even though BOs got no target delay, they must use at least Improved Cloak types, with the best offering still -22% scan resolution. So basically BO lock times suck big time.
3. Due to 1. and 2. BOs need tackler support.
Now let us have a close look at point 3. Which ships are able to supply the tackle support? Suggested there is a scenario, where you need BO firepower,... is there any cloak ship to tackle, which is able to survive until the BO jumped in?
In short: no there is not. Getting your BO in first spoils the point of fielding BOs, since local shows that somethign is wrong. Which leaves us to the following ship types as tacklers...
A. Stealth Bombers
B. Covert Ops
C. Force Recons
Well of all those, type C. can tackle, but are unable to survive... Also: does a covert cyno gen enable movement of the ship issuing it...(not sure here)? Well,... you see my point. Also the targeting delay on force recons with Cloaking at lvl 5 still spoils the lock time due to target delay.
However you put it: Cloaked gangs with BO support severly lack tacklers.
Since this is a Pilgrim thread and a lot of ppl seem to agree that Pilgrim could/should be a gang ship: a heavy tank to enable it to tackle, now that would be kinda kewl... Add in the ability to insta-covert-cyno-gen, allowing it to move still...
You get the point.
What is needed?
- increase Pilgrim base resist to a decent level, eg like on Zealot or at least Curse
- increase cargo bay (for cyno and cap boosters)
- add the ability to move after covert cyno gen
Voilß? Whatcha think?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.31 12:26:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Grytok
Dropping a Cyno and keep moving is not going to happen, but...
... getting rid of the targeting-delay after decloaking has to be removed, and voila.
You get the Pilgrim in and tackle the target (Scram and Dual-WEB) and then you drop the Cyno directly besides him, while keeping him in place.
That would work somehow I believe.
Force Recons fit T2-Cloaks ffs, there should'nt be a targeting-delay!
Imho it is kinda stupid on how some ships get rid of some drawbacks of non-Cov Ops cloaks. Also my old point still stands: it makes no sense to use cov ops cloak and still be visible in local. I do understand it on every other ship, but a scout/recon, which is cloaked all the time, can move cloaked, but everyone knows its there... beats the whole purpose of being sneaky.
That said: BO gangs lack tacklers. Force Recons are well suited to fill that niche, but lack survivability as it stands now.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.12.31 13:04:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Diomidis
Originally by: Hydrogen
Originally by: Grytok
Dropping a Cyno and keep moving is not going to happen, but...
... getting rid of the targeting-delay after decloaking has to be removed, and voila.
You get the Pilgrim in and tackle the target (Scram and Dual-WEB) and then you drop the Cyno directly besides him, while keeping him in place.
That would work somehow I believe.
Force Recons fit T2-Cloaks ffs, there should'nt be a targeting-delay!
Imho it is kinda stupid on how some ships get rid of some drawbacks of non-Cov Ops cloaks. Also my old point still stands: it makes no sense to use cov ops cloak and still be visible in local. I do understand it on every other ship, but a scout/recon, which is cloaked all the time, can move cloaked, but everyone knows its there... beats the whole purpose of being sneaky.
That said: BO gangs lack tacklers. Force Recons are well suited to fill that niche, but lack survivability as it stands now.
The only ships that are bonuced against targeting delay are SBs, and these lack any kind of tank, while cannot fit cov-ops cloaks and jump while cloaked. It's a fair "balancing" trade-off.
Black OPs:
- Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and covert jump portal generators. No targeting delay after decloaking. (from description)
- have a scan resolution bonus compared to T1 counterparts
- can field average to really sick tanks (esspecially Redeemer can be tanked to hell)
- can field average to good damage output
Or in short: your whole point is just that - pointless.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.01 18:30:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 01/01/2008 18:31:34
Originally by: Grytok
I've never claimed the ability of targeting after decloaking without a delay as "Pilgrim-Only-Bonus".
I've made a post in which I stated, how I would like to see every Force Recon changed, including removal of the Targeting Delay.
It plain makes no sense, that other ships with subpar cloaks even receive a no targetting delay after decloak, when Cov Ops and Force Recons are meant to be the cloaker ships using the best and most advanced cloak available. Also with those new changes the skill system regarding cloaks is plain obsolete. Obsolete since the devs/balancing team plain ignored their existance even.
It is just that as it is now: poor game design.
My suggestion:
- BOs can use cov ops cloak
- SBs can use cov ops cloak
- if a no target delay is needed then add an advanced cloaking skill: -25% to cloaking delay with cloaking V as prerequisite
That would be a straightforward cloaking skill design.
And once again - showing cloaked ships at least with cov ops cloak in local is also poor game design, here is why:
1. Recons and Cov Ops are meant to be sneaky. By design those ships offer a paper-thin to non existant tank.
2. It is difficult to maintain a coherent group position, when all are cloaked in a cloaked gang - sometimes even impossible.
3. Upon decloak a cloaked gang is just that - a normal ship gang with no cloak advantage at all.
4. Showing a cloaked gang in local informs any possible targets of: size of gang, preferred race and maybe even (looking at kb) of possible ship types. In general: opponents know quite likely what they face when seeing someone or some people in local. This heavily contradicts being sneaky in the first place.
5. Risk vs reward: in general for scouting purposes the risk vs reward equation is in favor of the scout when using a newbie alt in a pod (which most ppl do anyways). For simple scouting the risk of loosing 10 mill - 250 mill (for cov ops to some force recons) is totally out of line compared with the newbie alt option.
6. Someone soloing alone or ratting or mining,... in lowsec or 0.0 deserves to be posed to the permanent risk of being obliterated. As it is now: ratting/mining in a quiet lowsec/0.0 system requires a warp to safe spot and cloak or logout. A 100% foolproof tactic. The risk vs reward for solo players is totally out of line in this case.
Originally by: Grytok
And there is another thing, why this is ridiculous of not beeing able to target without a delay... it's that you yourself are targettable right after you decloaked. So you actually have a huge disadvantage here.
Good point - weak tank on your Recon/Cov Ops and upon decloak you are actually at a disadvantage.
I call it: CPBS - Carebear Protection Balancing System.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 14:39:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Gods Coldblood
I personally think all amarr pilots seem to want all their ships redone.. Each race has weaknessÆs, amarr likes to moan about theirs the most... I know some really good amarr pilots, even after some nerfs they have used their knowledge of the game and still made an effective setup whether its solo pvp or gang warfare..
I do not think any recons should have a hac tank either and i still donÆt think there supposed to be solo wtf own ships
There are enough Amarr whine threads. It is not even hard to find those. As long as you do not have any constructive addition based on facts, or arguments,... for that long please just refrain from posting here.
This is - if you had the time to read - an Amarr Recon thread. Any construcitve addition or critic welcome - Trolls please post elsewhere.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 12:53:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 23/01/2008 12:55:09
Edit: I was too direct in my first version for my taste ;)
Originally by: Gods Coldblood
Originally by: Hydrogen
Originally by: Gods Coldblood
I personally think all amarr pilots seem to want all their ships redone.. Each race has weaknessÆs, amarr likes to moan about theirs the most... I know some really good amarr pilots, even after some nerfs they have used their knowledge of the game and still made an effective setup whether its solo pvp or gang warfare..
I do not think any recons should have a hac tank either and i still donÆt think there supposed to be solo wtf own ships
There are enough Amarr whine threads. It is not even hard to find those. As long as you do not have any constructive addition based on facts, or arguments,... for that long please just refrain from posting here.
This is - if you had the time to read - an Amarr Recon thread. Any construcitve addition or critic welcome - Trolls please post elsewhere.
haha sorry if i upset u but im not trolling, u are if u ask me!! The tank on ANY recon is their bonus to ewar, yes, EWAR.. If u fail to realise this then lol. So if i am right in thinking u want the curse to have a tank like a full tanked hac plus the use of ewar at the same time???..
U fail to understand what i was saying it was a constructive criticism, ur just hurt because u cant solo pvp in it with a 99% probability of wining aginst a good pvper....
In a small gang warfare the curse or pilgrim are still very very effective..
1. EWAR - the issue of EWAR have been completly outlined in this thread. Simply put there is a huge difference between Amarr Recon EWAR and other races EWAR.
2. On why and what I want or suggest it would for sure help you to actually read this thread.
Constructive criticism is a form of communication in which a person tries to correct the behavior of another in a non-authoritarian way, and is generally a diplomatic approach about what another person is socially doing incorrectly. It is 'constructive' as opposed to a command or an insult and is meant as a peaceful and benevolent approach. Participatory learning in pedagogy is based on these principles of constructive criticism.
Criticism can also be a tool of antisocial behavior, such as a passive-aggressive attack.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 17:46:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 23/01/2008 17:48:25
Edited by: Hydrogen on 23/01/2008 17:47:27
Originally by: Gods Coldblood
well guys i think maybe i overracted abit .... I am annoyed with seeing amarr are broke threads all the time when i know amarr are actually really good race to be.. I think the film http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=688507 here really proves it..
The biggest probelm, that maybe the pilgim needs a boost but if all everyone does as a whole is wine about the race as a whole i wish u good luck with getting a boost..
I have one question tho; If the pilgrim can use a covert ops cloak do u think its fair to let it have a tank of a curse?
Im not a recon pilot really but i always thought the combat recons had a better tank/range or speed instead of the cloaking option...
Like I wrote before, this thread is not meant as an Amarr whine thread at all, but I do feel your overall pain...
Regarding the tank on a Pilgrim - first of all the opinion on this one is diverse - the least said. On a second glance there are imho valid reasons to consider such an option:
+ The Pilgrim is a close combat ship. Range heavily limits its usability to close quarter combat.
+ The Pilgrim has limited speed, thus is unable to "escape" on its own.
+ Considering the first two points, the amount of targets a Pilgrim can handle is heavily limited.
+ Considering the points so far, the Pilgrim can - even in a group/gang environment - be considered a close combat solo ship. Or at least it has similar requirements.
In group/gang environments the Pilgrim is a sitting duck - vulnerable to all ships, unable to defend at all versus non-turret weapons (drones and missiles) except for its tank. Even the secondary weapons of some ships can break a Pilgrims tank - easily with good skills. Since a lot of ships of Cruiser+ size offer such a secondary weapon set (missile slots, drones,...), the usage of a Pilgrim becomes pointless. Pointless since the risk vs. reward relation is totally out of whack.
Leaving those considerations aside, concentrating on primary turret based weapons, one might think: now it is ok. Unfortunately this does not apply. Simply since the Pilgrim operates in web range, thus enabling opponents to position themselves physically in space versus a Pilgrim, therefore negating all or almost all Tracking Disruptor effects.
All this was neglectable, when NOS could fuel a Pilgrim's tank. This does not apply anymore. As a result a drastically increased tank would help the Pilgrim in combat.
In this "food for thought" the covert ops cloak imho does not count. Simply since the reduction in range is the trade off for equipping the cloak.
Close combat ships need a mean tank (be it EWAR, resist/rep or a mix of both).
Without a mean tank, close combat ships are bound to die easily.
Ships, which die easily when they do what they are meant to do are failed designs.
Failed designs are broken ships.
...
The Pilgrim is a broken ship.
A mean tank would change that. Thats why it is imho a valid suggestion.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 02:13:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Kadoes Khan
This thread isn't about the Armageddon it's about the Pilgrim and to a lesser extent the curse.
Aight...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 10:40:00 -
[147]
Originally by: UGLYUGLY
Honestly if anyone touches or changes the curse I see ***** slappings in their future . I personally think it is an awesome solo, small gang boat and some what fleet boat. And as it is dose not need to be changed. I never flew it before the nos nerf, so I have no idea how much more awesome it use to be. But As it is, it is by far one of my favorite amarr ships to solo in.
As said it's cap killing powers are not really "Ewar" but it is by far the most powerful asset of the ship (in my opinion). Able to cripple ships that relay on cap.
That said I do think the pilgrim needs some love. If i had to change it, i would place the range bonus in place of the Drone DPS. Giving it less DPS but I think it will definatly make it a better/more useful boat.
These are just my opinions
In regards to Curse it is imho not so much of "adding oooomph". The Curse was versatile before the NOS nerf. It no longer is versatile - by far not as versatile as possible. A whole line of playstyles are eliminated. This esspecially applies to NOS fueled shield tanks. Also the Curse is plain short on app. 80 grid :)
I disagree on the "awesome solo part" of the Curse (see thread).
I fully agree tot he statement "small gang boat".
I 100% disagree to "fleet boat". Survivability in a real fleet ~ 0% for a Curse.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 12:31:00 -
[148]
Originally by: haq aan
I almost read the whole forum within 3 months or so.
Some of them should ve been mentioned before, but i wanted to post a few constructive ideas.
1- Negate Nos/capacitor formula applies on a pilgrim. (built in fix)
2- Let Pilgrim can keep draining even she is at %50 cap (built in fix)
3- %10 bonus to capacitor capacity per level (arguable)
Giving a better tank? Well Pilgrim started to need a better tank, when they remove her ability to fuel herself.
First or second one is my favorite. Ship was fine before Nos nerf, so it would be wise trying to fix Pilgrim, in the direction of new Nosferatus.
Imo, she is a Nosferatu specialist. Pilgrim deserves to use them different than others.
There are a lot of claims on how overpowered the Pilgrim once was. Actually I never got to the point, where I considered it to be true (totally different for pre nerf curse). Thus applying 1st would be an easy solution.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:18:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Zakarazor
Edited by: Zakarazor on 29/01/2008 16:07:11
curse
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level.
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per level
Role bonus: The special capacitor systems on the amarr recons enable them to use nosferatu modules at a much higher level than normal ships.
so how about that? we give the amarr recons back the pre-nerf nos. that way they will still work and its a simple fix. no more nos domis but the amarr get some of their great ships back...
I see outraged players, when players see the prenerf NOS Nano-Curse return...
For the Pilgrim I am fine with your suggested change to make it a pre-NOS-nerf Pilgrim. Where I love it on the Curse, there would be ****loads of Nano-Curses back in action....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 09:09:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Grytok
As I've stated before a couple of times, we cannot give them Amarr Recons an additional bonus, as this would create imbalance, even if it actually make them more balanced compared to the other races.
I'd still say, that the Pilgrim needs the range more, then the strength to make it a viable choice as a support ship.
With 40% range instead of 20% amount, the Pilgrim could be very useful in gangs, staying out of range like the other Recons using both NOS/Neut and Tracking Disruptors.
Even without the bonus to amount, 3 longranged Medium NOS/Neut could demolish an active tank on a BC or even BS.
This would be the simpliest way to overhaul the Pilgrim without introducing new stuff.
Ir becomes more and more obvious, that CCP cant decide at all, which role the Pilgrim should fill. As they apparently cant decide, they simply do: nothing. Only problem: doing nothing is a decision too - the worst possible if I may add...
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 09:43:00 -
[151]
Just switched from "Quote" to "Reply to thread".
Somehow I am not in a flamemood today (gawd sometimes I do believe am not too bad in it). Not seein a serious Pilgrim change plain makes me sad....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 14:44:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Grytok
I'm testing some setups since yesterday and ECM is working best on the Pilgrim so far, even if they're unbonussed.
I've brought my skills up to LvL 4/5 and my Multispecs have a strength of around 3 now.
I killed some Zealots and Deimos in 1vs1 situations and are to believe that pretty much every non-nano-Cruiser and BC is defeatable with the setup I'm using.
I get the target jammed 1/3 of the time with 2x Multispecs, which gives plenty of room to breath and to dry the targets cap.
So here we're back in the ECM-age
 Ouch you frighten me. There is a reason why I did not raise ECM skills (can you spell Black Ops). I am all in to head into this direction, but see a nerf already inc....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 17:09:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Feng Schui
hey, look at that, once again I lost the battle in cap warfare, against a non-cap warfare specialized ship. Isn't that just amazing? I mean, seriously. He was using neuts, and repping, and using ewar, while I was using a NOS + boosters, and couldn't maintain enough cap to run my warp disruptor, let alone anything else.
This (except your posted km as a test looks "arguable")
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 09:06:00 -
[154]
Funny stuff: we had so much talk about EWAR and Tracking Disruptors. Also we had so many "wannabee" experts knowing it better than us about "EWAR tanking".
It comes to no suprise, that our well-thought out statements are true:
"Finally we have added a falloff modifier to the Tracking Disruptors. The Optimal Range Disruption ARM script has been change to modify both optimal range and falloff. The reason for this change is the Tracking Disruptors are largely ineffective against blasters and auto cannons which have a high tracking speeds and large falloffs. Disrupting the optimal range does not affect them in any significant way and tracking disruption is not very effective either because of the large falloff. By allowing the Optimal Range Disruption script to affect falloff as well, Tracking Disruptors can be used effectively to reduce the range of blasters and auto cannons. Skills and bonuses that affect the effectiveness of Tracking Disruptors have been changed to also affect the falloff. "
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 12:10:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Feng Schui
Test it on sisi before you get too happy about it.
I am not happy about the "boost" at all. When you look at my quote, you will see, that I quoted the statement of the shortcommings of Tracking Disruptors.
First of all: it is important, that the problems are acknowledged. The proposed changes infact once again proove a lack of understanding in game balance...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 08:36:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Grytok
Still does not help against Missiles, as well as your cap-warfare leaves Missiles unimpressed, as they don't need cap to fire.
During the reboot yesterday I tested on with my ECM-setup and had a good 1vs1 with a Myrmidon, which I lost. But it was very very close call there. 1 more jam-cyccle and I would've won
Ganked another Zealot and a Hurricane, which died without me getting to deep into trouble there.
I prefer 2 Jammers + 5x EC-600 (Drones to get out, when things go wrong), and if I'm lucky enough, then I get the target jammed 1/2 of the time, which leaves plenty of room to breath.
So I don't really see, how Tracking Disruptors would work better then ECM tbh.
Next thing I wanna try, if I find some pilots on SiSi, are Ratting-Ravens 
Back by today, so I got some time to do a few runs myself...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:54:00 -
[157]
CCP doesnt seem to be interested and obviously the "balancing team" really does suck. You call it flaming? Oooook here we go with facts about the "balancing team":
1. Pilgrim - well this thread covers it nicely.
2. Black Ops - those didnt come prenerfed, but "hell-"nerfed, anyway... (limited DPs, poor resist increase, limited Jump Fuel cargo, limited cap booster cargo - where cap boosters are needed, scan res reduction due to cloak,...)
3. Omen still has similar dmg potential to zealot
4. Apoc with projectiles wins vs Apoc with lasers
5. ...
Well balancing in EvE right now sucks?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:46:00 -
[158]
Dear reader,
dear fellow Pilgrim/Amarr Recon pilot,
I actually gave the whole thread - once more - a long thought depending on the answers so far. Considering the recent changes my suggestion on Amarr Recons is by now as follows:
1. General change
The change to tracking disruptors was a move in the right direction. Still there are shortcomings. Basically EWAR should be as follows: the more ships/targets are affected, the less effective the EWAR in general should be and vice versa. That said, tracking disruption is never 100% effective (more like one of the least effective ones) and thus should/must affect all ship/target types. This esspecially includes drone and missile ships.
General change: apply tracking disruptor bonus for all missiles by applying the TD bonus to missile and drone damage, thus drastically reducing drone and missile damage.
Consequence: TDs are then a viable alternative to other EWAR on Amarr Recons.
2. Curse change
The tournament suggests, that Curse is perfectly fine, which is not entirely true. I repeat my former Curse suggestion:
- incorporate the above mentioned TD change
- add app. 100 grid and
- increase cargo by 250 m¦
3. Pilgrim change
Preserve the Pilgrim's original style, but allow it to survive without castrating its own cap and without loosing its own defense.
- incorporate the above mentioned TD change
- remove Cyno role bonus
- add a new role bonus: 15% reduction of cap usage of Energy Neutralizers per Amarr Recon level and 95% reduction of large Energy Neutralizer CPU and Grid fitting requirements.
A lot of things are achieved by that:
1. Amarr Recons are unique
2. Fitting becomes "flexible" again - there are fitting alternatives, esspecially for the Curse, without overpwoering it.
3. EWAR offers a tank the way it was always meant to be.
4. Pilgrim unique fighting style is preserved AND its weaknesses receive a trade-off in sorts of effectiveness. Remember: it is still close combat.
5. Pilgrim is less affected by the need for a cap booster - resp. wont need one in most cases.
A lot more to mention...
Comments?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:47:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 19/03/2008 15:46:52
Originally by: Depp Knight
Recon level and 95% reduction of large Energy Neutralizer CPU and Grid fitting requirements is a bit high.
I actually dont have a fitting problem with the pilgrim. Infact since the 100pg increase, I dont have a fitting problem at all, unless I want to fit a cap booster, which is just stupid as It only has 5 mid slots.
<snip>
Hi Depp Knight,
in fact the 100pg increase is mentioned for the Curse, not the Pilgrim. This simply since the Curse has fitting issues esspecially in a non-nano setup.
On the fitting of large Neutralizers please consider the following:
1. maybe fitting req bonus needs to be "adjusted" - might be a lil bit too easy to fit.
2. The trade off for a Pilgrim's lack of range would be the immense power of Large Neutralizers with the Pilgrim bonus. Most importantly: it would be close to impossible to "outneut" a Pilgrim, which is a definite requirement for its risk to be a close-quarter-combat only ship with a weak tank.
3. Range vs. power: from my previous posts it becomes obvious, that I am not that much a fan of a Pilgrim with range. Simply since the playstyle would be too close to the Curse. Whereas the close quarter combat assassin type would be really unique. That said - considering current Pilgrim design - the "suckage" of medium NOS and Neuts with only 3 high slots with cap issues is simply too low. My suggested change eliminates severe issues: (i) the need for cap booster to fuel the offensive weapon, (ii) the need for cargo for cap boosters, (iii) the subpar "suckage" and (iv) the massive high risk for engaging close combat vs. any ship.
In the end: please take the time and figure scenarios for this Pilgrim design. A Drake will easily trash it anytime, similar for blasterthrons and NOS/Neut ships with enough dps and smart maneuvering. Simply since the Pilgrim retains its vulnerability to enemy NOS and Neutralizers and its weak tank, thus needing to still perform tight energy managements. Since the Cap booster is obsolete, a Pilgrim is able to perform its role by using: AB/MWD, Disruptor/Scrambler, Webber and 2xTD. Dump the AB/MWD for a cap recharger or for a third TD. Tank in low and Neut + Cloak in high. To be effective, high skills are still needed, also pilot's mistakes still hurt, but way less than before where a mistake or a "well rounded" opponents setup normally results in insta-death.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:19:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Diomidis
Removing the Cyno Role Bonus is not applicable, cause its key on the CCP's idea around Force Recons the first place...
<snip>
An idea which is basically obsolete since the Cap pilots I know prefer to use frigates or similar to do the job. In cases where a cov ops cloak is needed, ppl are smart enough to choose Covert Ops ships. Covert Ops ships simply since those are cheaper, more practical (due to scanning bonus) and more "sneaky", meaning: it is close to impossible to stop a Covert Ops to pass gate camps safely. This as long as the pilot knows what he does and no technical issues (CTD or similar) or bad luck (eg spawning atop a container after jumping) stop him. After all: opening a cyno results in a dead cyno-maker ship if enemys are close or dead enemy if the support (which jumps in) can help accordingly - no matter if it is a Force Recon with 50% duration reduction or not.
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 09:33:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Stientolical
1) Amarr recons are already unique in using TD and nos
Unique with the Curse being viable in one configuration and the Pilgrim plain broken. This is unique, since I fail to find a lot more ships being broken as much.
Originally by: Stientolical
2) "If you feel like it you can now fit a pilgrim like a mini neut BS with a bonus to tracking distruptors too!"
Really? It is not that you listed some breaking news - being able to fit a Pilgrim with Neuts and TDs
Originally by: Stientolical
3) fit an ECM burst if you want EWAR tank @ pilgrim nos range...
Dont assume - I didnt include some range increase comparable to Curse. Also the Pilgrim fields only 3 high slots to fit NOS/Neut since the Cov Ops cloak needs a high slot. The viable Curse setup - Nano-Curse that is - comes with five high slots AND with range. That infact is a drastic difference.
Additionally it has been stated by CCP that EWAR actually is a Recon's defense. Esspecially in the case of the Pilgrim the choice for tracking disruption fails:
- weak tank
- close quarter combat only (atm max 12-15 km)
- limited targets where TDs are effective
- limited targets which offer the weapons where TDs are fully effective (target with guns and drones or targets with guns and missile launchers or or or...)
- lack of "suckage" aka Neut/NOS power
The combination of reduced TD efficiency, weak tank, lack of applicable targets for TDs and lack of "suckage" (keeping the lack of viable group/gang features in mind) is what makes the Pilgrim broken.
Burst ECM is due to lack of strength and cap usage no alternative (in some weird form of arrogance you act as if no Pilgrim pilot ever tried and tested that).
Originally by: Stientolical
4) how is 25km short range (for large neut)- curse only reaches just over 10km more with a bonus to it....
Please refrain from using numbers you got no clue of:
1. Curse Neutralizer range is up to 42 km
2. Curse NOS range is up to 58.5 km
Both are actually mid range.
In fact I do consider 25km and less short range (but no longer close quarter combat).
Originally by: Stientolical
Conclusion
These changes will make a mini neut BS which will pwn anything's capacitor including probably a carrier within minutes
Correct - a ship being able to pwn any capacitor within minutes. That was the exact goal of my suggestion. Close to no BS nor any orther ship would be able to out-Neut or out-NOS a Pilgrim except Bhaalgorn. Something which is fine since the line: EAF => Recon => Bhaalgorn for suckage or Black Ops also fits very well.
Originally by: Stientolical
Stop saying pilgrims need help when its BOTH gallente recons that need atleast a 10% bonus to damps, or damps to be un-nerfed cos they suck big time
I actually couldnt care less. If you read the start fo the thread you would have noticed the remark about other races. This thread is solely about the viability of Amarr recons - their strengths and shortcommings. If you dont like it, dont post here or make your own thread for different stuff.
Originally by: Stientolical
P.S. Pilgrim can fit a cap sustainable fitting with 2 neuts and a nos plus tons of armor HP and 4 EW mods...(while doing 238 dps to a tank with no abiltiy to rep or turn hardeners on...)
This statement plain shows your lack of comprehension and knowledge on Amarr Recons. That said:
1. you apparently dont know anythign about viable fittings
2. you apparently got no clue about what neutralizers and NOS do to an enemy in which timeframe
3. you got apparently no clue about cap jigsaw
4. you are apparently able to click Recon and Pilgrim in EFT
bottom line: clueless
Why do you post at all here?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 11:21:00 -
[162]
Very good points on the past few pages again. Thank you all and it would be cool if you could keep the suggestions coming.
Thank you to everyone who added.
Yours
Hydrogen
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:48:00 -
[163]
Considering the current discussion:
What are your five most favored proposed changes in descending priority?
Mine are:
1. Increase effectiveness of TDs, increase Curse PG by app. 95, increase Neut/NOS efficiency for Pilgrim (without Curse range)
2. Revert NOS nerf and increase TD efficiency
3. Heavily increase Pilgrim armor tank, "tune" Pilgrim and Curse capacitor usage
4. Increase Pilgrim and Curse cargo bay, increase Pilgrim and Curse grid, give both a better tank (mroe tank for Pilgrim and maybe take "nanobility" of Curse), add a mid slot to both Curse and Pilgrim,...
5. Increase Pilgrim NOS/Neut range (I really really dotn like that option at all)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:43:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
<snip>
I think TDs are fine now after the boost (in fact, they may be almost too good). But I'd sign the other points there: more grid, more nos/neut efficiency.
<snip>
There is imho still a distinct problem with TDs: lack of suitable targets, efficiency and design. TDs are plain not able to offer an EWAR tank combined with the weak Pilgrim tank. The reasons yet again:
1. secondary weaponry not influenced by TDs, namely missiles, drones, but also EWAR including NOS/Neut, jammers,...
2. TDs still do not completly disable a turret ships ability to inflicht damage. It can decrease damage inflicted (and by now in almost all cases does) but still: TDs are not a tank. Also keep the - in comparison to other Cruiser types - huge signature radius of Pilgrim in mind.
3. I still favor my statement: the more viable EWAR targets, the less effective EWAR should be. As it stands now, TDs are still the second least effective or even least effective EWAR with the most narrow target range WHILE not being 100% effective.
Considering 1.-3., there is still somethign really wrong with TDs - that is why I mention TD changes.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 12:31:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 26/03/2008 12:31:26
Originally by: Depp Knight
Instead of amount bonus to range bonus, make it, neut cap reduction cost 20% per lvl. Making it 0 cap at lvl 5, and increase the pilgrims total cap/cap recharge rate.
Originally by: Hydrogen
What are your five most favored proposed changes in descending priority?
@Depp: THIS ^^
Which are yours?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 08:33:00 -
[166]
Anyone else with his top5 of possible changes?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 09:56:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Vadimik
P.S. Hey-hey, post # 777, maybe we won a pilgrim boost at last ? Please, CCP...
I doubt it - the perception of the Pilgrim as being broken is apparently different.
For example it seems we got consensus about Pilgrim being a broken ship in this thread (except the obligatory troll, who has no experience, cant read or both). Yet again people compare Pilgrim with Curse (tournament, PvP, camps,...) and have the impression it is "the same ship" or at least similar.
It seems, that this is the exact same perception of the CCP balancing team too. It needs exeperience and in depth knowledge, which simple requires time. Time which the CCP balancing team apparently is not willing to devote to the Pilgrim since the perception shows a "fine ship" - more or less broken like any other Recon.
This is a plain bad joke by CCP and also a proof on apparent lack of knowledge and/or time to get the job done. As always I guess it is both....
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.10 08:19:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Vadimik
I really pinned my hopes on "boost patch", but now, as I see a number of old bugs beening resurrected... or, rather, reanimated after 1.1, I have reasons to believe that the next 2 months would not have much of content patches (And that's not a bad thing, most annoying bugs do need to die before we move on).
Well tbh the first to happen for Pilgrim would be CCP to acknowledge they are on the Pilgrim. Except a Dev convo on SiSi a long time ago, I received nothing else indicating CCP-awareness.
Let us put it this way: they plain got another view on the issue. I just dont have a clue which...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 11:41:00 -
[169]
Just someone suggest on why CCP does not acknowledge (dev blog) or post in here for clarification?
Alternatives:
1. They know its bad but are not willing to do it since they believe it would have a huge impact on other stuff too.
2. Someone in CCP has a "Super-Uber" grand plan, which will solve it automatically thus they dont do anything. Only that grand plan got delayed by more than a year... Well go figure...
3. They did some testing and cant see a problem.
4. One CCP member posted on an alt in here for clarification but got flamed away due to his lack of knowledge (I suspect several posters in here).
5. They got no clue.
1,2,3,4 or 5 - what is it?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 13:04:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Kingwood
Have the devs even acknowledged this thread exists? All I know is CCP Zulu mentioning that "the curse is fine, the Pilgrim might need some love".
<snip>
Curse is Khanid and as such should be an armor tanker too. Yet again the Nano-Curse is considered the only viable setup.
Or what do you think, when suddenly (a few month ago) a CCP employee stepped up and told us that Curse is fine?
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 13:13:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 15/04/2008 13:14:06
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
I like this new sig Hydro.
Standard to most A-WAR members and as such not my idea but Timaios's.
Since CCP prohibits the excessive use of blood and gore, we had to do something completly different to deliver the message ...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 16:19:00 -
[172]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 15/04/2008 16:20:25
Originally by: Kingwood
I don't agree with Zulu's assessment of the Curse, maybe you misunderstood me. Especially with the incoming nano nerf, you gotta wonder how much the price of the Curse will drop.
Scrolling back in thread I realize that I already hinted at an incoming Nano-Curse nerf. Apart from that this shows that a previous point is a major drawback for Amarr Recons: lack of versatility.
There are simply no alternate setups. Thus the NOS-nerf did a horrible thing, which the Devs were not aware of and which most did not realize. A full range of different playstyles has been eliminated (or should I say obliterated?). Mark me: viable and balanced playstyles those were.
In the end it leaves us with a bitter taste: Amarr Recons slowly nerfed to hell. Zulu's remark about "taking something away from players afterwards is no option" or "fun in the game" does indeed sound like mockery in this context geared towards the Amarr Recon community.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:00:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 17/04/2008 09:04:06
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
I think anyone with half a brain would draw a more reasonable conclusion from a post that doesn't even contain the word "skill". Let me rephrase for the sake of those who don't:
The Curse is a demanding ship to fit and fly in terms of player skill, since it relies entirely on manipulating something you cannot monitor. Once you get it right, however, 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. Most people seem to be living in the past and insisting on a NOS-oriented fit, and it's a ridiculously bad idea. The Curse remains powerful.
Here's a little something to get you started - fit at least two Neutralizers, no Nosferatu and certainly no capacitor booster.
Just dont take EFT warriors serious.
Caelum Dominus is a well experienced character and of course he does for sure take advantage of player skill, since he needs it (he does have average to good Amarr Recon skills, but faaaar from perfect):
http://ineve.net/skills/character.php?charID=ODkwNzM0Mjky
Now one daresay: Hydrogen! Caelum is jsut an alt and there is a great PvPer hidden inside. Yes, I am aware so I started to learn from a properly fitted Curse:
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Caelum+Dominus&id=2294621&page=1&filter=losses#mail
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Caelum+Dominus&id=2294621&page=1&filter=losses#fitting
Thus it becomes obvious, that Caelum Dominus is the Pro and - at least - myself is the n00b. Considering this, I am happy and feel comfortable with that, since I heavily refrain from taking Caelum serious or even consider him on a similar level (Yeah I know I know, he is waaaaayy above).
EDIT: lots of edits, since I had so many typos while laughing so hard.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:14:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Opertone
people under estimate the curses power with tracking disruptors
tracking disruptors shut down the best of the best turrets
nowadays the tracking disruptors affect the falloff... with 3 tracking disruptors on a non specialized ship i could effectively stop enemy turret fire... by limiting their range to 10 km
curse can limit enemie's range on turrets to 8 kms, shut down small ships with neutralizers and feed on large ship's capacitor with vampires...
missile boats are shield tanked, shield tank is fragile and cap intensive, normally missile boats do not have room or power grid for cap booster, so it is easy to shut down a smaller missile boat
the only ship which curse will have problems with is the sacrilege - non shield tanked, cap injected missile boat and drake - massively tanked missile boat, tank of which can not be broken by cap warfare
what concerns a curse versus a raven - the curse can break the ravens active tank with ease, but it can not withstand incoming fire, some possible way is feeding on the ravens tank and tanking the curse as a response
curse can solo all frigates, all turret ships and majority of industrials
curse only can't take - Ravens, sacrileges, drakes
curse role is not so bad, what do you think?
You are invited to run with a blasterthron. Then again I do invite you to make a load of solo experience in a Curse first and verify your statements.
/emote shakes head |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:14:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Brother Welcome
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
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 |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:18:00 -
[176]
@Dominus Caelum
In all due respect I do not have anything against you personally. But (here it comes - the big BUT) there are a lot of players with semi to non-existant experience in this thread who claim to know something. Somehow trying to brag and gloat to...
After all this attitude somehow spoils the goal of this thread, the work of all involved, leaves a bad taste and makes you look like an @$$. Read this thread, learn, improve and make your own experience and if you really try hard, you might become competent with Amarr Recons. |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 11:04:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Opertone
check the tracking distruptors again, use the range disruption again
curse MWDs faster than a MEGA
curse can bring MEGA's range to 12 km, it can stay 30 km away...
it is simple
Actually - when thinkign about it - I shouldnt have mentioned any ship. Simply because it is a moot point - since a smart mega pilot either is prepared or with a gang. You wont kill any mega in 100% of the cases in any setup. That easy. The same goes for most other ships also.
After all I plain dislike your attitude and also got the impression you lack experience. Example:
- Which Curse pilot cares orbiting a mega at 30 km anyways, except someone who can pin it down with webs and scrambler/disruptor aka another gang? It wont score you a kill.
- About MWD speed - read above posts and you will realize that we are about to see a nano-nerf, where you can most likely shove the speed of the Nano-Curse to where the sun never shines.
- ... so much more
Think twice. Either you are the typical type of troll (weeeep - they try for a Amarr Recon boost - **** them) or you are a EFT warrior out to troll and gloat or... so much more.
Its not only abotu what you say, but also the constructive attitude - the latter you totally lack.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 11:08:00 -
[178]
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.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 17:06:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
While I do appreciate your enthusiasm to attempt to turn this into a more personal flame war, I'm afraid I'm not willing to return the favour.
Dont just assume - show your kills with your setup. Actually I am happy if you proove me wrong and you add valuable input. I did not find a single kill by you on any killboard so far with a Curse.
What I found was Malediction, Maller, Zealot,... all in a group, but not a single kill with you in a Curse. |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 17:17:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
I purchased this character some months ago, so I'm sure the thread still exists in the Character Bazaar if it interests you to dig it up for confirmation.
To be exact: you sold a character called Xiang Zao and there is no sell/buy thread of Caelum Dominus to be found on Character bazaar. And I still do not see any of your "Uber" kills with a Curse. So where are the facts?
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 08:25:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 18/04/2008 08:26:53
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
He is making stuff up like the majority of the anti amarr squad.
Right.
The lack of research you've put into the Curse before you commenced your whining crusade is blatantly obvious.
It isn't as straightforward to fly as the Sacrilege. I guess that makes it hard on some people.
I'm done here, this isn't going anywhere.
Just a Troll from the anti-Amarr-squad.
You Sir will hear from me in future. Cyas ingame.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 08:37:00 -
[182]
There is somethign, which I just dont get and which happened several times in this thread: someone has average Amarr Recon skills, maybe even has a blast in blobbing/ganking stuff with several of his mates vs a single target, comes over here and gloats, trying to explain how much others suck.
Caelum Dominus is a nice example. Imho the setup he posted is not bad, but not brand new either - not at all. Suggested he really is into Amarr Recons (and not member of the anti-amarr Troll squad) by then his "fun" will most likely be over, when a Nano-nerf hits the road.
I dont understand the attitude behind it, nor do I understand what keeps those chaps going.
Back to facts:
- Curse still offers a viable setting (Caelum Dominus example being the last example of several) but is threatened to be broken upon a nano-nerf
- Pilgrim is plain broken - failboat.
Ohhh well back to business I guess :(
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 09:04:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 18/04/2008 08:54:31
I prefer solo PvP, and you of all people should know that I am not a member of your so-called "anti-amarr squad" (presumably anyone who dares to disagree with you and invoke the flamewar that always seems to ensue) since you actually took the trouble to dig up my inEVE profile and should know I fly exclusively Amarr...
If you got the time - then read the thread to its fullest. You will realize, how much "made up", incompetent, "trolling",.... comments and "flamewars" ensued. Only to realize in the end someone without a clue, from a gang setting,... posted his experience.
Mark me: everyone got a different perception and a different way of anjoying a ship or being with mates. Thus it is natural, that something, which one considers "a blast" is a no-go for another.
What remains? Apparently the playstyle you enjoy so much is a viable playstyle - it is not mine, but you got my full support to continue with it. Except: when a possible nano-nerf htis the road, by then it is likely your playstyle is history too. I would hate to see the last possible playstyle of one of the two Amarr recons go. It cant happen to me, since I consider nano-ship users as nano-fagg.... but thats only me - nano is not my world ;).
Want to keep your playstyle?
Want the option of the second ship, the Pilgrim being a viable ship?
Want fair/even odds when soloing?
You are invited to join in, keep this thread going, voice your opinion and keep this thread troll-free :)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 09:34:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 18/04/2008 09:34:37
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Sorry, but you can't have your I WIN-button back. NOS was nerfed for a reason.
That is the Troll-like comment I refered to before. NOS on Curse or Pilgrim never was unbalanced. In fact prenerf-NOS enabled NOS-fueled shield tanks, dual-armor repped Curse's and so much more. Alot of different playstyles, which added variety and excitement to the game and of course for the pod-pilot. The combination of unnerfed ECM, unnerfed Dampeners paired with NOS in case of the Curse ticked it off to an unbalanced ship.
In case of NOS, the NOS-Domi was unablanced as well as any BS with several heavy NOS - enabling them to kill any ship below BS/BC size with ease. That imho was the main reason for the NOS nerf and it was needed. Whereas the ECM-nerf, scripting, drone bandwidth nerf and NOS nerf together nerfed the Pilgrim to nothing and the Curse down to one possible setup, which is fragiel and got its drawbacks.
In all due respect: you got a viable setup, but that's about it. It is not "uber", it is not unbalanced, but aimed at a single type of targets. And furthermore: please keep your "I-WIN" button claims to somewhere, where the sun... go figure.
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
I'm sorry, I thought you regarded me as a member of the "anti-amarr squad" for having opinions that differ from your own?
It is not about differing opinions - that is ok. It is about statements, which are not thought through to the end or statements, where the user apparently lacks experience, but acts "as-if". That is the exact point, where I put my heavy flamer to use, since nothign else seems to work (and I do train to raise my flaming to flaming specialization soon )
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 09:09:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 19/04/2008 09:09:51
Actually I do not like the attitude of CCP balance team:
1. things are changed inconsistently (esspecially in case of cloaks)
2. to patch a major problem, they apparently do not consider the impact on small groups, eg. NOS to Amarr Recons
3. apparent mistakes result in silence by CCP if only the group of people voicing the fact is small enough
4. patches rush in fast, fixes to patches take loooooong, up to 1-2 years, eg. lower EM resist on ships after Laser nerf - how long did they take for the fix?? 3 years? Or was it 4?
5. ...
The attitude by CCP towards the affected players really bothers me.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 12:51:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Red Thunder
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Red Thunder
btw, the nano nerf wont effect this ship too much as it only has 2 of each speed mod. it will have the biggest effect on things like nano phoons that rely on 3 or 4 OD and 3 polys etc
I think you misunderstand the nerf. If you put in 2xpolycarb + 1xspeedmod, that is going to be it. More then that will too harsh penalty on.
so is this the death of all nano ships? i know every nano hac (except vaga) will be broken and useless ccp please dont do this nerf :S
Now you see, why we are so ... bothered ;)
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 07:31:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Red Thunder
Edited by: Red Thunder on 24/04/2008 19:47:08
the point is we dont win, but we arent forced to fight.
Il try and put this simply for you. If you and your 5 corpmates want to have some fun, but stand a chance at staying alive, they must take nano ships. If they take anything slow then they will die. So if we dont have nano ships, we are forced to join big alliances to be able to move through hostile space safely by out blobbing the blob. Isnt that fun 
/edit
looking at your kb your corp doesnt really know what a real nanogang is and how much skill they need to fly very effectively...
We get your point, but it is not really that simple. Eg. using a forward scout with sufficient bookmarks allows you to travel 0.0 quite safely. Actually you can easily annoy huge alliances and PvP successfully, since they mostly give up after some time of huntign you with a big gang.
It jsut requires a really really smart scout.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 12:06:00 -
[188]
What is your stand on MWD for Pilgrim?
My personal view:
1. It hurts your setup, thus you should not use it.
2. I drasically increases survivability when passing gate camps.
3. It is ideal when seeing an opponent, thus decloak and MWD to target and have it locked, right when you are in NEUT/NOS range.
4. If opponent is fast eg due to MWD and on border of web range, it can in some cases leave range - making a Pilgrim a sitting duck.
In the end I consider MWD a requirement. What do you think for Pilgrim?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 11:57:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Kingwood
Now, I don't know what others think of my setup, but it is the best one I could come up with considering the current state of the ships and game mechanics.
Final thoughts?
My five cents:
1. Id faction the armor repairers up: dual True Sansha Medium Armor Repairer. Imho ISK vs benefit is worth it
2. Use 1xMedium Diminishing NOS and 2 Medium Unstable Neut
3. I would reconfigure lowslots to: 2xTrue Sansha (or similar) EANM, 2x True Sansha MAR, 1xDCU II
4. Rig it up with 1 Medium Auxiliary Nanao Pump and 1x Nanobot Acc.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 11:48:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 10/05/2008 11:54:07
Just a heads up for those, who are somehow even "frustrated" for CCP not answering in this thread:
1. As long as this thread is alive with increasing insightful posts, it at least shows how pathetic CCPs attitude is towards the Pilgrim.
2. The lack of dev response in alternatively patching or this thread offers anyone insight into CCPs attitude towards balance and their playerbase (those players who specialize).
3. Neglecting to tune the Pilgrim to a viable ship prooves the current balancing team's attitude towards PvP. Basically a stealth assassin (the Pilgrim) is the top of the food chain solo. Going for raw firepower and some weird new game tactics instead (eg BOs jumping behind enemy lines - enemy lines which do not exist in this form) gives proof of the current balancing team's attitude which apparently aims for Carebearism.
4. A viable Pilgrim with hidden local would be the perfect anti-farmer/macro machine in EvE. Pilgrim pilots rejoice and farmers are out of business within like 2 days. Instead they put all the effort into support and new code to fight farmers.
So basically not acknowledging this issue gives proof of a poor attitude by CCP, which contradicts former statements regarding PvP in special. So in the end this thread is of no meaning to CCP due to the lack of players, but... the attitude shown has and will have a huge impact. Other companies learned it the hard way, CCP will learn it too (examples are: Origin/EA, AO, DAOC, Shadowbane,... - those who were there experienced it; all of those payed for this attitude in one or the other way).
__
- click here - |
|
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 11:58:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Diomidis
Originally by: Depp Knight
Nothing more can be said that hasnt been said before. It now just the waiting game. Its been over 6 months. I have gotten over it tbh. I have just learnt to not fly the thing or fly it like a gimp.
Perhaps CCP ppl have a secret load-out for these ships they consider that "obvious" that it would underestimate our intelligence to share
Sometimes I feel like this:
- someone from the balancing team maximized his skills for a test on live server
- this dev so went into a belt with his shiny CNR, knowing nothing can stop him in is Officer-only fitted CNR
- a Pilgrim pops in and beats the crap out of the CNR, which ofc can not load any precision Cruise missiles
- dev decides Pilgrim is overpowered and nerfs it into oblivion
Then again, that dev in question could also be a carebear, who does all he can to avoid cloaked killers.
Go figure...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 06:28:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Andreask14
So your targets are basically only ratting geddons.
Do not underestimate a Geddon's drone bay and its tank as in the time buffer until his mates arrive...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 15:19:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Depp Knight
Does anyone actually fly this ship for combat purposes anymore?
Well I even got one Corp mate, who flies those more often and who tells me that I got no clue about em. Yet again the kills do not pour in either so...
Pilgrim is flown for combat purposes but with unreasonable results - on the negative side that is.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:15:00 -
[194]
Mark me: it is better to give than to take. That said: CCP took alot of the Pilgrim ...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 11:00:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Vito Parabellum
I rely on gangmates to come in and remote rep me before I blow up ;)
This.
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:54:00 -
[196]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 06/06/2008 09:55:30
Quote:
Ships
Heron: capacity increased to 320m3 to match the other astrometrics frigates. Volume increased to 18,900m3, maximum targeting range decreased to 37,500m and gravimetric strength decreased to 10.
The Imicus has had its mass decreased to 1,350,000kg and volume decreased to 21500m3.
The Probe has had its ladar strength increased to 7.
The Anathema has had its model changed. It will now use the Magnate hull instead of the Crucifer hull
The Helios has had its model changed. It will now use the Imicus hull instead of the Maulus hull.
The Cheetah has had its model changed. It will now use the Probe hull instead of the Vigil Hull.
Caracal Navy Issue: Increased CPU output to 415tf, decreased power output to 690mw, added a launcher hard point, decreased shield recharge time to 1650s and tweaked the sensor system to make it in line with the other tier 2 faction cruisers
Apocalypse Navy Issue: The Apocalypse recent modifications have been mirrored to the Navy version. Changed the capacitor capacity bonus to a bonus to large energy turret optimal range bonus, increased capacitor capacity to 7500.0, increased CPU output to 505tf and increased power output to 20500mw
Stabber Fleet Issue: Velocity bonus changed to 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed per level, moved a slot from high to low, added a turret hard point, increased max velocity, decreased the CPU output to 312tf, increased the drone bay and bandwidth to 40, increased power output to 950mw, increased armor HP and decreased shield HP
Just: Which part of "Pilgrim is broken" is so hard to understand?
Look at the other changes too: it was needed to change ship models make probe become a cheetah model and so on... It was important that guns return to their default position (think about the disturbance of all involved for turrets poninting in the wrong direction).
Now one could say: all those are different departments. Yes? Ok lets look at "our department". Omen Navy issue, Auguror,... erm... WTF? The most important ships which most ppl fly all the time and which will be fotm - Omen Navy and Auguror,... yes Sirrr that was important and will offer a major game impact.
All this was more important than having a look at Pilgrim?
Anyone understands that I just had some uncontrollable laughter-attack at... idiocy and stubborness?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:06:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
what does that mean to play us out
Awww you got it too and were first :)
I read the patch notes and couldnt believe it - it is so far below by CCP that I simply lack words...
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 13:03:00 -
[198]
There is no need to make everythign the same. I still advocate for the stealth assassin, which CCP apparently wants to eliminate.
Why do I advocate for it?
Because it is a unique playstyle. Unique playstyles add fun, depths and so much more to a game. Why eliminate them?
__
- click here - |
Hydrogen
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 12:15:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Onionico
Perhaps i missed it in all the pages... but can someone please tell me why the pilgrim doesn't have the same range bonus of all the other ships from the various races of its class? It certainly wouldn't make it overpowered.
The devs have STILL not acknowledge the pilgrim being worthless is a problem. What gives?
Falcon is awesome.
Rapier is awesome.
Gallente Recons not so much, by they're still are flyable.
The Pilgrim is rubbish. Utter and complete rubbish.
(unless you want to covertly haul of course.)
I'll repeat myself for easy quoting. Someone please respond to this: Perhaps i missed it in all the pages... but can someone please tell me why the pilgrim doesn't have the same range bonus of all the other ships from the various races of its class? It certainly wouldn't make it overpowered.
Because... well, because... actually because of... well screw that. There is no reason for keeping the Pilgrim in its current state, neither is there a reason why no dev responds to a valid request. There is even no reason for a dev to not respond if we made a mistake.
Looking at the pattern it appears as if CCP balancing has a general problem with cloaked ships being effective in killing something:
1. Cloak below cov ops cloak: target delay + scan res penalty
2. BOs
3. Pilgrim
It is for sure a general concept and there *might* be sane reasoning behind it, but... why CCP, why dont tell us in this thread?
__
- click here - |
|
|
| |
|