EVE Search - Pilgrim & Energy Emissions Capacitor Use Bonus

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Pilgrim & Energy Emissions Capacitor Use Bonus

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 06:30:00 - [1] So when is the pilgrim getting a reduction in capacitor use for energy emission systems? Or when is the pilgrim going to get an additional 200-300 m3 cargo space so we can run our energy neutralizers? And when are we going to get an additional 50-150PG? AND an extra mid slot? Or how about range? Any word on this? Seriously, with the amount of training that people have done to get into this ship (and to some extent, the curse), its pretty damn ridiculous that we're no long able to be out in enemy territory for a sustained amount of time harassing their members. But yet, the kid brother to the pilgrim, the Sentinel, gets these bonuses? Seriously, wtf. other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 06:33:00 - [2] I have an idea, since the sentinel is an Electronic Attack frigate, but the Pilgrim is a Force Recon ship, why don't we just do away with the Tracking Disruptor bonus, and give us either energy emissions range, or cap use reduction. other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Pudnucker Boennerup Banden	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:06:00 - [3] Edited by: Pudnucker on 25/10/2007 07:08:47 You don't have to fit Neuts exclusively on a Pilgrim, and Nos still works when you use it correctly. So... Yeah. Also from the relevant EAS dev blog: Bonuses: 5% bonus to effectiveness of Tracking Disruptors per Amarr FF level 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per Amarr FF level 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range per EAS level 5% reduction to capacitor recharge time per EAS level So, I really can't see what the "But yet, the kid brother to the pilgrim, the Sentinel, gets these bonuses? Seriously, wtf." comment is about. Maybe the cap recharge time? Big deal, you get a free cap recharger II on the Sentinel and not on the Pilgrim, work around it. Ninja Edit: In case you're going to say that the Pilgrim doesn't get the range bonus, well yeah, it doesn't. But the Curse does. And the Typhoon doesn't get a bonus to Citadel Launcher ROF, nor does the Imicus get a bonus to MWD velocity, nor does the Raven get a bonus to Small Projectile Damage. Originally by: Copine Callmeknau PROJECTILE WEAPONS ARE CORPSE LAUNCHERS! LASERS ARE SOUL CANNONS!
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:21:00 - [4] The pilgrim is a capacitor warfare ship And I fit 2 neuts, 1 NOS; I hardly every run the 2nd neutralizer due to the capacitor use (what do you mean you have to actually USE an armor repairer, omg!) other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:22:00 - [5] None of the new frigs get a cloaking bonus so it would be better to compare them to the combat recons and not the force recons. Would you really want to switch that drone damage bonus on the curse for a cap recharge one? ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 07:30:00 - [6] Originally by: Hoshi None of the new frigs get a cloaking bonus so it would be better to compare them to the combat recons and not the force recons. Would you really want to switch that drone damage bonus on the curse for a cap recharge one? Your right, that slipped my reading comprehension skills, however, the argument remains the same. And who the ** said anything about the Curse. I could have sworn the topic of this post was about the Pilgrim** other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 09:30:00 - [7] i'm going to bump this until a DEV responds. Going on my 3rd pilgrim loss of the day due to CAP ISSUES. the pilgrim DOES NOT perform. FIX IT gdmit.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.10.25 09:50:00 - [8] Agree that the Pilgrim could use a little help, now.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 09:52:00 - [9] This is getting better by the god damn minute. Now you can probe out cloaked ships on SISI? I may as well fly a ******* arbitrator then.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.10.25 09:53:00 - [10] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 25/10/2007 09:54:12 Originally by: Feng Schui This is getting better by the god damn minute. Now you can probe out cloaked ships on SISI? I may as well fly a ***** arbitrator then. What?!? That's... ******. Added: que? r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d. is on the "bad words" filter?

Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:12:00 - [11] Please show where you read that. If it is just because you saw a thread called "To devs: Cloaks detectable by probes? please confirm" you might want to actually check that thread before going into panic mode and spreading rumors.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:23:00 - [12] Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 10:24:33 Originally by: Mephysto This is correct. Scan probes will now be able to detect cloaked ships. This update will be testable on Singularity when it next gets updated (probably on Tuesday since this is a holiday weekend here). and FYI, this is not the first time that they put this change on SiSi, so it is coming. Rev3? Next patch? whenever. Do the dev's care what happens to the recons? obviously not (case study: PILGRIM)
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:30:00 - [13] Originally by: Feng Schui Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 10:24:33 Originally by: Mephysto This is correct. Scan probes will now be able to detect cloaked ships. This update will be testable on Singularity when it next gets updated (probably on Tuesday since this is a holiday weekend here). and FYI, this is not the first time that they put this change on SiSi, so it is coming. Rev3? Next patch? whenever. Do the dev's care what happens to the recons? obviously not (case study: PILGRIM) That quote is from May, that "first time" you mention... Necroing, it's bad, mmkay? -- Gradient forum
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:34:00 - [14] damn JSB to hell.
Neo Rainhart Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:03:00 - [15] Compared to how much the Curse needs from the "oomph" bat, The need for a swing of that one on the pilgrim is heavier than life These 2 ships seriously have my condolences..R.I.P until some -head DEV decides to necro them a bit ♥♥♥
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 13:59:00 - [16] bump... is this ship working as intended? if it is, please, let the community know at least, so we can start flying something useful.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.25 14:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Feng Schui and FYI, this is not the first time that they put this change on SiSi, so it is coming. Rev3? Next patch? whenever. Do the dev's care what happens to the recons? obviously not (case study: PILGRIM) I see you got that problem with that thread As for the change, yes, it will likely come eventually. But it is not that difficult to make it in such a way so probing cov ops cloaked ship is difficult. Difficult as in "need an exploration probe to gt any useable result". Just need to add a -sig resolution or +sensor strength modifier to the cloak while active.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 14:06:00 - [18] Originally by: Pudnucker Edited by: Pudnucker on 25/10/2007 07:08:47 You don't have to fit Neuts exclusively on a Pilgrim, and Nos still works when you use it correctly. So... Yeah. Also from the relevant EAS dev blog: Bonuses: 5% bonus to effectiveness of Tracking Disruptors per Amarr FF level 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per Amarr FF level 40% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range per EAS level 5% reduction to capacitor recharge time per EAS level So, I really can't see what the "But yet, the kid brother to the pilgrim, the Sentinel, gets these bonuses? Seriously, wtf." comment is about. Maybe the cap recharge time? Big deal, you get a free cap recharger II on the Sentinel and not on the Pilgrim, work around it. Ninja Edit: In case you're going to say that the Pilgrim doesn't get the range bonus, well yeah, it doesn't. But the Curse does. And the Typhoon doesn't get a bonus to Citadel Launcher ROF, nor does the Imicus get a bonus to MWD velocity, nor does the Raven get a bonus to Small Projectile Damage. Eh? Hows that relevant to the Pilgrim?? Nos still 'works correctly'? Do you fly the pilgrim at all? Like ever? Can we have a Dev come and describe there thinking over the pilgrim?? A comment on these suggestions? C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 14:52:00 - [19] Looks like the dev's are starting to post, so we do know they're around....
Andreya Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.10.25 18:09:00 - [20] Originally by: Feng Schui Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 07:27:10 The pilgrim is a capacitor warfare ship And I fit 2 neuts, 1 NOS; I hardly every run the 2nd neutralizer due to the capacitor use (what do you mean you have to actually USE an armor repairer, omg!) Why is it, when the carrier was going to get a subtle nerf, that hundreds of people disagreed with it. But, when the pilgrim was nerfed into, pretty much suckage, there where only 3-4 pilots that disagreed with it? Why? Because the Pilgrim fills a VERY niche role. It is not a gang ship (hell, even CCP acknowledges this), so its role clearly becomes a, "target of opportunity" ship. Ok, I have enough Cap Booster 400's (Yes, 400's, the Pilgrim can only fit 5? 800's in its hold), to last for 1 fight. So if I'm down in MVUO-F, get my fight on, I have to travel 30? 40? jumps to get more cap boosters so I can fight a second target.. People also say that the Force Recons role is not combat, but staying in enemy territory cloaked, providing intel. If that was the case, why can I not ship scan, cargo scan, etc.. while cloaked? the curse is the cap warfare ship.. hence why it has little fitting issues with nos... the pilgrim is a tracking disrupting ship... with a nos bonus, i agree it needs 6 mid slots, and some PG would be nice... and the nos range instead of amount would be great as well.. but just remember, its a TD ship first, capacitor killer second _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.

Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.25 23:15:00 - [21] Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 23:16:59 bump, i wish people that didn't fly amarr recons would stay the hell out of balancing threads about them. oh, wait... does anyone at ccp fly amarr recons? helloooooo edit: and to the person above this, both the curse AND the pilgrim get the tracking disruptor bonus from the arbitrator hull. their additional bonus are bonuses to NOS + cyno'ing. this makes BOTH of them ewar + cap warfare boats. please don't post on issues you know nothing about. thanks.
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.26 05:02:00 - [22] There was an initial outcry when the nos nerf hit the server. People cried about the Pilgrim, others said "Wait and see, you just need to find the right fitting". So I decided to withhold judgment until I had a chance to figure the new Pilgrim out. I've tried to make the Pilgrim work, but it just ain't happening. The Pilgrim was already a niche ship, now it is so niche it is useless. The problem with the Pilgrim right now is that it cannot run ewar and tank at the same time, and it needs to tank because unlike the other recons it must fight in web-range, a fact that is often pointed out because it is so true. I've also used 2 neuts and a nos. You can keep neuts running off cap charges decently, and do a great job of killing a targets cap. If you have to run any other mods aside from nos and tackle however your cap bottoms out in about 2 cycles. You can fit lots of cap mods, but suddenly again you have no tank. Nanoing the ship is out of the question as you'll always be in overheated web range. So now we have a Pilgrim that can't tank, but must fight in range of every ship and it's mother. Down one mid, you now have room for only a single tracking disruptor, as propulsion mod/cap booster/scram/web is almost mandatory. This weakens its tank even more as it will take about twice as much damage from a turretship as before. Now even 1v1 a Pilgrim already had to pick its targets wisely. Drones and missiles could chew through a Pilgrim fairly easily even pre-nerf, provided you weren't being shot by torps, and that your opponent had decent skills and fitted good hardware. You were restricted to ships that had 75m3 dronebay or below and didn't have 4 or more launchers. Oh, they also had to be slow enough to now be able to MWD out of webrange before you could target them after decloaking. Right now a Pilgrim can take a T1 cruiser sometimes, and that's about it. Anything smaller than that will just run away from your fat ass, and anything bigger will outgank and outtank you even with TDed weapons and a 0 cap tank. And now to add insult to hullshot tracking disruptors are also being made useless on the Pilgrim. If you thought Pilgrim prices were low now...woah! If the Pilgrim is to be limited to neuts now its cargo needs to be at least doubled. In addition it needs its cap recharge rate to the point that it can permarun 2 neuts, tackle gear and 2 TDs. It also needs another mid, take it from a high for all I care, the nos is worthless anyhow, I'd do 3 neuts now if I could actually run them all with a medium cap booster. Further CCP should seriously consider either giving it a flat role bonus to neut cap use (say 50%) or work in a 10%/lvl bonus somewhere. Further the Pilgrims bonus to tracking disruptors needs to be adjusted for the nerf that TDs are receiving. Until this happens the Pilgrim is useless at killing anything fit for PvP, solo or in gang and can only kill the stupidest of those not fit for PvP. I've been planning on starting a topic like this, but hadn't had the time to type one up. Probly best that Feng did it first, mine would have been a wall of text for sure. I also vow to keep this topic bumped until something is done. --
Andreya Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.10.26 05:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Feng Schui Edited by: Feng Schui on 25/10/2007 23:16:59 bump, i wish people that didn't fly amarr recons would stay the hell out of balancing threads about them. oh, wait... does anyone at ccp fly amarr recons? helloooooo edit: and to the person above this, both the curse AND the pilgrim get the tracking disruptor bonus from the arbitrator hull. their additional bonus are bonuses to NOS + cyno'ing. this makes BOTH of them ewar + cap warfare boats. please don't post on issues you know nothing about. thanks. umm actually i trained an alt from character creation directly for the pilgrim curse, i still have 500 SP in gunnery, so take your head out of your a$$. 'thanks' _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
Andreya Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.10.26 05:09:00 - [24] giving the pilgrim a range bonus on the nos/neuts instead of the cap damage bonus would make pretty much everyone happy. as its not too powerful, or fast, and at least can stay out of web range... that and it really does need the 6th mid, drop a low slot, it shouldn't be getting shot in the first place being a recon _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.26 09:01:00 - [25] Only thing a range bonus would really do is make the thing nanoable, which IMO should be discouraged. I want the Pilgrim to similar to how it used to, having to use neuts is fine even if they only drain as much cap as nos used to and cost you some cap to run. I just don't want to lose an effective mid over it and be forced to use an injector that doesn't have any cargobay to keep its reloads in. At the least we need more cargo and an extra mid. --
Nihilo Deus Amarr Russian SOBR Red Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.26 12:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Nihilo Deus on 26/10/2007 12:13:31 Edited by: Nihilo Deus on 26/10/2007 12:13:07 So when is the pilgrim getting a reduction in capacitor use for energy emission systems? IMO this is the good way to make Pilgrim more effective and will not make him an "uber ship"( btw is it was so earler?) Sry for my poor english.
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.26 15:35:00 - [27] I cannot believe that there are so few people that fly the Pilgrim, surely we can get some more input from hardcore Pilly pilots. If only DE was still with us, he'd have some good points. --
Phaedruss	Posted - 2007.10.26 16:07:00 - [28] Originally by: Corwain I cannot believe that there are so few people that fly the Pilgrim, surely we can get some more input from hardcore Pilly pilots. If only DE was still with us, he'd have some good points. The Pilgrim is still a good solo / small gang ship after the NOS nerf, but it now requires some good cap management and reconfiguration of low slots/rigs. You think Pilgrim pilots have it bad now? Wait for the sensor damp nerf...
Einar Lightfingers Domini Umbrus VENOM Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.26 17:28:00 - [29] I agree with all points made here. A range bonus would be useful, possibly more so than any of the other suggested changes. Sure, it would give people the incentive to nano it, but I think that would pass over pretty damn quick when you consider that when you nano, you lose more cargohold space, therefore losing space for boosters. And you'd HAVE to use a cap booster to keep it running. I would stick to the old armor-tanking method, tbh. The statement about it being a non-gang ship couldn't be more on the money. Granted, the ability to decloak right next to a target and getting the "WTF? Oh S***!" reaction is nice . But, it contradicts itself: it's a solo ship that can only really operate effectively with a GANG behind it. I love the pilgrim, and I love the curse. I don't really fly anything else in pvp, but thankfully my buddies don't complain. I adapted my curse setup to fit the nos change, and it works decently. There's very little going for the pilgrim though. _______________________ CEO of Domini Umbrus
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.26 19:05:00 - [30] Originally by: Phaedruss Originally by: Corwain I cannot believe that there are so few people that fly the Pilgrim, surely we can get some more input from hardcore Pilly pilots. If only DE was still with us, he'd have some good points. The Pilgrim is still a good solo / small gang ship after the NOS nerf, but it now requires some good cap management and reconfiguration of low slots/rigs. You think Pilgrim pilots have it bad now? Wait for the sensor damp nerf... I'm guessing you're suggesting I fit Cap booster, scram, web ECM burst+2 damps on the Pilgrim and a 1600mm plate+hardeners and maybe a small rep It works until you get some ****ed off heavy drones auto aggroed to you or you miss a jam (which happens much more often than you'd think) You're rolling the dice with that deal, not to mention with the increased cap needs you're gonna be chewing through even more cap with that ECM burst, meaning your tiny cargo most likely won't last even 1 fight with cap booster charges. It's just not an option. As for the Pilgrim being a good gang ship--I seriously want what you're smoking. Your average gang could make the Pilgrim a tertiary target and you'd die before the primary (not to metion stop EWarring to run your tank). A Pilgrim in gangs has Scorpion syndrome nowadays. --



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.