Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:35:00 -
[31]
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 - |
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:43:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 09:45:40
ran through 21 cap booster 400's, with just my MAR going, the 2x Balmer TD's, warp disruptor, and 1 nos. but of course, the PROPHECY i was fighting, was able to shoot throughout the fight, and repair, and web, and scramble.
seriously, what the **** it this ****? I may as well be flying a god damn arbitrator again.
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:53:00 -
[33]
I support this thread. Good suggestions. ---
|
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:01:00 -
[34]
I would suggest a cap regen improvement to both ships. This will make neuts easier to use and not have to rely on a cap injector. ============================================
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:01:00 -
[35]
In general:
Your changes are way way (way way way) to big. Think small & steady. There is no need for sledgehammer modifications. It is better to create a still-slightly-underpowered-mobile than a OMGWTFBBQ-mobile.
Underpowered things can still be boosted. Overpowered things will create a publlic outcry and are more likely to get a sledehammer nerf back to their old performance.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:02:00 -
[36]
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.
I can fit 4 nos/neuts, MWD, cap injector and a LSE2 with one PDU2 in my lows, that is rather reasonable. Only got room for 2 damps now which sucks a bit, but I could fit 3 if I would loose the LSE2. It's a tradeoff.
As solo ship the curse is still pretty decent. With a 2 damp setup you can still get unboosted BS below 20k and with a 2 Nos - 2 Neut combo kill their cap and pulse your MWD when needed. The cap booster is only needed to get your own cap up again after you killed your targets cap. In gang combat it can leech cap from different targets whole neuting another one. The cap booster is nothing you need to permarun there either.
In short: all the curse really lost is a bit of EW power. And it got a bit more tricky to use correctly, but that is IMO a good thing. It is still by far the best solo recon.
Pilgrim
Now that one is really dead. The core principle of the pilgrim was that it worked essentially like a mini nosdomi, but with less of pretty much everything.
Half the dps, half the tank, half the range. Only the nos amount was about the same. These limitations made IMO the pilgrim pretty balanced under conditions where the nosdomi was rather overpowered. And, while the nos changes balanced out the domi they kill the pilgrim as effective combat ship.
Now, a constant argument here is "recons should be no solopownmobiles!". Great. However the pilgrim is compared to the other force recons rather pointless in gangs. Getting into webrange vs multiple opponents is nothing short of stupid with it, so it is limited to use TDs (least effective EW) with its 5 med slots (least amount of meds of force recons). Any other force recon does a good deal better.
So, either you need to buff its solo power or you need to buff its group power. Because solo right now it is compared to the other force recons only around average now and for groups very sub-average.
So...?
Firstly, one thing about new bonuses:
If you add a bonus you need to remove/replace another bonus. It won't get more than 4 bonuses. And, no, CCP will not change its role bonus to something else. Forget that. Stay realistic. What we should look at is not adding bonuses to the current ones, but finding a better new combination of bonuses.
We can assume 2 of the 4 bonuses as given. The 50% drone damage/hp one is IMO needed and the cov ops cloak one is there to stay. This leaves the tracking disruptor and nos/neut one. One option would be to change the nos/neut bonus slightly. Instead +20% amount change it to 15% amount and 10% range. This would reduce the pilgrims nos power slightly, but give it a much needed range increase to 18k. Which is enough to operate outside web range, but not enough to do realistic speedtank setups.
Add to this a cap amount boost of 25% to make it a more viable neut plattform.
Tracking Disruptors
Are meh. Boosting them could also solve issues with the EW efficiency with the pilgrim and curse. The new scripts could be a good way for that.
Scripts are basically "ammo" (which does not run out) for some modules which modifiefs what they do somewhat. You could for example add a script which removes the tracking reduction of TDs but adds a falloff reduction. So amarr recons could actually use TDs to be out of effective turret range in the sub 30k area. And a script which removes the range reduction but is boosting the tracking reduction for closerange work. There is also the option to add one to remove the tracking reduction but add range. Although that might be a bit too powerfull vs snipers.
In either case, there are lots of possibilities there.
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:24:00 -
[37]
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 - |
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:32:00 -
[38]
Quote: If you add a bonus you need to remove/replace another bonus. It won't get more than 4 bonuses. And, no, CCP will not change its role bonus to something else. Forget that. Stay realistic. What we should look at is not adding bonuses to the current ones, but finding a better new combination of bonuses.
I disagree. Since the Pilgrim is a solo ship, and using frigates to launch cyno fields are so much better cost wise, why does it need cyno bonuses? Lets just pretend the people that are already in the system don't go directly to the cyno and kill you, what are you going to do in the fleet battle? die? rofl.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:43:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 10:48:09
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..for example, Khanid ships had for ages "the best shield systems outside caldari space" as text - when gallente and minmatar shields were superior).
But anyway, as said...the text is: 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.
This text is identical for all combat recons. Are the lachesis, huginn and rook "HACs with EWAR"? Not really. They are more effective EW ships with slightly better defence and a bit more dps. Just like HACs their primary function got boosted and their survivability got increased. That is what "class counterpart" means. They do not fill the HAC role, they fill a role "next to it". The EW/disabeling role.
Quote: Even in your suggested setup it is nothing like that at all.
How exactly?
Quote: Also the Pilgrim was meant to be the solo-mobile (heavy scout), heavily limited by range.
Chicken-egg. The pilgrim is limited by range because that was balancing him before. However the advantage why this balance factor was needed is non existant now. Balancing it out again by adding range to it is a rather valid option - especially since its main problems now are casued by its low range. Which is also atypcial compared to all force recons.
Originally by: Feng Schui I disagree. Since the Pilgrim is a solo ship, and using frigates to launch cyno fields are so much better cost wise, why does it need cyno bonuses? Lets just pretend the people that are already in the system don't go directly to the cyno and kill you, what are you going to do in the fleet battle? die? rofl.
Why do the other recons need cynos?
They don't. That they do not really need that bonus is the whole point. And is the reason it is a role bonus which does not really cost the ships anything. It is a minor additional option for all force recons and has a rather low value. Replacing it with an high value bonus has no justification.
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:56:00 -
[40]
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 - |
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:11:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 11:13:43 Recons are not their single t1 EW bonus. You ignore the cap warfare abilities of the curse which are despite what you claim virtually unchanged (edited in a bit more in my previous reply).
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.
Like I said in my original post: You could for example add a script which removes the tracking reduction of TDs but adds a falloff reduction. So amarr recons could actually use TDs to be out of effective turret range in the sub 30k area.
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:26:00 -
[42]
Quote: Why do the other recons need cynos?
They don't. That they do not really need that bonus is the whole point. And is the reason it is a role bonus which does not really cost the ships anything. It is a minor additional option for all force recons and has a rather low value. Replacing it with an high value bonus has no justification.
You're right, personally, none of the Force Recons should have this bonus. Hell, give it to the Covert-Battleships, at least they have some tankage ability + firepower to survive a minor assault.
But, as Hydrogen said, this thread is about the Amarr Recons.
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:27:00 -
[43]
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 - |
Neo Rainhart
Caldari Leela's Lamas
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:38:00 -
[44]
I support.
The amarr recons are dying out more and more by every patch, i.e the upcoming RSD nerf, versatility is a legend.
I would love to pick up on my recon training where i left off when this ship got a kick in the nuts. Good points Hydrogen ♥♥♥
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:44:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 11:44:35
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.
And lacking that, a jamming ship alone will not kill you since they have none or very low dps. You need another ship to do something against you, they need another ship to do something to you. Where is the problem?
Quote: You need modules and/or help from another ship to reduce the effect of dampeners.
With the new patch you will not be able to reduce targeting range and speed at the same time.
So all you need to do is get close enough. FoF missiles also work (yes, they atatck outside your targeting range in case you think this particular piece of misinformation is correct). A bit more limited compared to TDs, but still applies for most targets. Launchers which cannot use FoFs are now really closerange and ships with them should be fast and are able to use the first get close option.
Quote: There is no real counter to target painters.
They have also no real effect vs most ships.
Quote: 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...
A td with a falloff instead tracking modifier would work pretty much just like damps will. Missile vulnerabilities are not much different due to FoFs.
They are alltogether not as effective as damps even then, but not much less effective. And in exchange the cap warfare abilities balance this out very well. Did I mention that you can still use cap warfare without permarunning a booster very will with the curse? Oh yes, I did. Twice.
|
Krist Valentine
Amarr Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:48:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Krist Valentine on 25/10/2007 11:55:54 Agreed. I f**king miss these ships. It's what I got into EVE for, really, after seeing Ginaz' movie.
Quote: Or hell, just make a new module, 10,000 tf, 10,000 pg when not fitted on a Force Recon ship, that does 1/2 of the energy killing of the neutralizer, but gives the same amount of energy back of a nosferatu.
Quite like this idea :] Though, why not just make it Amarr Recons, as opposed to Combat Recons? Curse would need it too...
|
Sheamis Kast
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:10:00 -
[47]
Really good work here. Was a bit long but I can handle a few pages of well written text. While I don't agree with any of the of the proposed fixes I do think that these ships could use a boost, just not as large of one in the case of the Curse. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be as many Amarr pilots as there are people who love carriers, so I doubt CCP will pay us any heed...
I have read dozens of "Fix Amarr" threads it would be nice if some one form CCP would at least acknowledge us.
|
Krist Valentine
Amarr Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:16:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Sheamis Kast Really good work here. Was a bit long but I can handle a few pages of well written text. While I don't agree with any of the of the proposed fixes I do think that these ships could use a boost, just not as large of one in the case of the Curse. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be as many Amarr pilots as there are people who love carriers, so I doubt CCP will pay us any heed...
I have read dozens of "Fix Amarr" threads it would be nice if some one form CCP would at least acknowledge us.
Stick it in your sig and they'll have to :p
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:47:00 -
[49]
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 - |
Madla Mafia
The Dead Man's Hand
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 13:59:00 -
[50]
Nice first post(s). Good research. I hope CCP will realize soon that they utterly destroyed the Amarr recons. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The A in Amarr seems to stands for Adapt... |
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:28:00 -
[51]
I just suspect they didnt see the issues, which their changes implied. __
- click here - |
Kruel
Blunt Force Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:14:00 -
[52]
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.
|
Krist Valentine
Amarr Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:39:00 -
[53]
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.
Why not just return it to what it was? I don't see the point in having two recons which both need to be flown pretty much the exact same.
Click Me Pl0x
|
Kruel
Blunt Force Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:51:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Krist Valentine
Why not just return it to what it was? I don't see the point in having two recons which both need to be flown pretty much the exact same.
Because what it was before had to do with nos. The only way to change it back would be to make nos work like it used to on the Pilgrim.
Besides, the other recons are all flown pretty much the same. People nano huginns, rapiers, lachs, and arazus all the time... while the Caldari recons both sit at 100k and jam.
|
Natalie Jax
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:05:00 -
[55]
The Curse is currently at least somewhat viable in its role. It needs a bit of love, but at least itĘs not ōlolwhy?ö
The Pilgrim, on the other hand, is currently a massive disappointment. My perspective is that of a Force Recon pilot, a ship class that I see having a very specific role: survivability. ItĘs a ship class that is meant to go behind enemy lines, be able to make trouble, pick its battles and GTFO of things arenĘt going to plan. That doesnĘt mean theyĘre supposed to be solo-ownmobiles. Each of the other recons has situations where it shines, and situations where the only reasonable course of action is to stay cloaked. The bonuses and modules that they use let them enter battle when they want to, but more importantly it lets them leave it as well.
The Arazu engages at long range where it can scramble the target and use RSD to keep itself from being targeted/locked. Its DPS is moderate, itĘs not particularly fast. Its biggest advantage is relative invulnerability at range. If the situation is not optimal it can warp off long before its target can get to/lock it. For the most part it has no tank.
The Rapier engages at medium range (15-24) where it can scramble the target and use its Webs to completely stop its target in its tracks. Its DPS is good, it can be very fast, and can take a few hits. If the battle doesnĘt go well it will be out of scram range and away in a matter of seconds, as it will invariably be much faster than its webbed down foes.
The Falcon IĘm not quite as familiar with, but from what I understand it has its perks. Solo it has to engage at medium range in order to scram (15-24). Its DPS is rather unfortunate, itĘs not particularly fast, it doesnĘt tank particularly well but that doesnĘt matter because it really can permajam damn near any ship. If the engagement isnĘt in your favor odds are they donĘt have a lock on you so you can cloak and warp away. Wow, hadnĘt really looked at how much this one sucks for dps ą damn, be a rough time killing anything.
The Pilgrim also has to engage at medium range in order to scram its target, and be dangerously close to web range in order to use its NOS/Neuts (10-13). It can actually put out the most DPS even restricted to medium drones, itĘs pretty slow and the tank just sucks. However, one of the biggest problems is that it has no way to (reliably) flee the battle if things arenĘt going well. If you are lucky you can bottom out their cap enough that they miss a cycle of their disruptor allowing you to warp off ą IĘd rather rely on the chance based FalconĘs ECM than that any day.
This was longer than intended. The Pilgrim just doesnĘt function as intended in any way, shape or form. Just to be at least a tad constructive in this post, IĘd say that improving tracking disruptors or giving its NOS/Neuts a bit more of an edge would go a long way to fixing the Pilgrim, and as a side effect, the Curse.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:59:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 17:00:50
Originally by: Hydrogen 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.
Precision cruises have with GMP4 *alreay* an explosion radius of 160m. Even a frigging *vagabond* has more than that. The only cruisers where a painter would make a noticeable damage boost are the logistics. For everything else it does not make any real difference.
Quote: 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.
*Sigh*
Which...is....why....TDs....need...a....change.
What is so difficult to understand here? You are just mantralike repeating what was already said while utterly ignoring what I am trying to tell you.
For the at-the-very-least-3rd-time, AGAIN: If we have a TD script which is replacing the tracking reduction with a falloff reduction then 2 TD on the amarr recons are an reduction of optimal an falloff to 12%.
What does this mean? A minnie BS with 800mm ACs, barrage, max skills and 3 falloff rigs will have as result a lovely 0.7k optimal and 4.8k falloff. Its chance to hit a target at 20k is a lovely 0.001% Or, in other words: one out of 78390 shots will hit on average. Will be a wrecking one though.
And this is the worst case scenario. Any other shortrange turrets will be even worse off.
For all intents and purposes its turrets will be useless and there would be *no* (none. zero. zip. zilch.) effective difference to damps in regards to the disabeling of its turret dps. Vs damps from a damp specced ship, mind you, vs 2 damps on the curse the TDs would beat them hands down. It does nothing vs missiles, but as explained already damps do not really help much vs these as well.
The main problem with TDs would be enemy EW, where damps (and ECM) can do something against. But the curse has other means to defnd against that. Its high sensorstrength and targeting range makes it relatively resistant vs both and it can with its capwarfare disable enemy gallente and caldari recons pretty well.
Quote: 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.
Yes, because less than 25% of all ships use turrets, right?
The main problem of TDs is that they are not really the turret killer as advertised. If that is fixed - and they are deadly against *all* turrets of *all* sizes then their niche will get rather large.
|
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:50:00 -
[57]
hey,
good post, read it all.
I like the idea of doubling the nos/neut drain amount. So make it 40% per level instead of 20%, close range should come with an advantage, since you either die or win at that range.
R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:47:00 -
[58]
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 -
[59]
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 - |
mallina
Caldari Core Contingency
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:09:00 -
[60]
Edited by: mallina on 25/10/2007 20:10:17
Originally by: Feng Schui
Quote: Why do the other recons need cynos?
They don't. That they do not really need that bonus is the whole point. And is the reason it is a role bonus which does not really cost the ships anything. It is a minor additional option for all force recons and has a rather low value. Replacing it with an high value bonus has no justification.
You're right, personally, none of the Force Recons should have this bonus. Hell, give it to the Covert-Battleships, at least they have some tankage ability + firepower to survive a minor assault.
But, as Hydrogen said, this thread is about the Amarr Recons.
I agree, Cyno bonus simply isn't worth it in it's current form. 50% of forever is still a long time, perhaps if it were 5-10% (roughly 45 seconds) it would be more viable in that role.
On the whole, Good thread though. I think the Curse isn't too bad as it is, but Pilgrim definately needs some love ---
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |