EVE Search - Pilgrim gets nerfed indirectly, now it gets a very small indirect buff

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Pilgrim gets nerfed indirectly, now it gets a very small indirect buff

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.28 22:13:00 - [1] with energy emissions 5, a T2 medium energy neutralizer uses 112.5 cap on sisi. on TQ it uses 135 energy. it still has ALOT of work to do, ie: 65% - 75% reduction to capacitor use of energy neutralizers for its role bonus, instead of a cyno bonus. also, the arbitrator should get: 20% bonus to tracking disruptor strength per level of cruiser recon bonus: 25% bonus to tracking disruptor strength per level of cruiser
omiNATION Gallente Vanguard of the Ouroboros Nation	Posted - 2007.11.28 22:24:00 - [2] wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? Also Pilgrim is the Cyno Recon... that's it's role you want the extra 65% effectiveness, use the curse... actually doesn't the pilgrim already get a cap efficiency bonus? [sig] EVE, basically an MMORPG with prison rules. [/sig]
Awox Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.28 22:25:00 - [3] Nice to know :) -- ADVL CEO. LootTrack Sales KB
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.28 23:10:00 - [4] Edited by: Feng Schui on 28/11/2007 23:15:06 Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? Also Pilgrim is the Cyno Recon... that's it's role you want the extra 65% effectiveness, use the curse... actually doesn't the pilgrim already get a cap efficiency bonus? pilgrim right now gets a 5% bonus to TD. TD's are getting severely nerfed, even when you use scripts. This change will allow the pilgrim / curse to retain its pre-nerf TD effectiveness. edit: "scripted" modules are getting nerfed by 50% for both stats. If you use a script it will increase 1 of these stats (still a nerfed amount though), and lower the other stat to null. by giving the pilgrim / curse 125% bonus, they will not need to use scripts for TD's. the same arguement can be, and should be, said for the arazu and lacheises Also, no the pilgrim does not get a cap efficiency bonus. the Role of the force recons are obsolete, and no one in their right minds uses one for more than cyno'ing cap ships into friendly alliance space, with no reds in the system. but, this isn't the main point of the thread. I wrote a huge synopsis for cloaking ships in the dev forum if you search for it.
Roidpwning101	Posted - 2007.11.28 23:15:00 - [5] Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? Because its a piece of garbage?
Discobird Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.29 00:48:00 - [6] Did the named neuts get a proportionate reduction in cap cost?
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.29 01:10:00 - [7] i didn't check, but i presume so.
ChimeraRouge Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.29 02:17:00 - [8] Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? Also Pilgrim is the Cyno Recon... that's it's role you want the extra 65% effectiveness, use the curse... actually doesn't the pilgrim already get a cap efficiency bonus? This. CYNO RECON duh.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.29 02:52:00 - [9] The cyno capability is the same for every recon. What the pilgrim needs imho is very simple. Change its recon bonus from "20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per level to... 30% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount per level. i.e 150% bonus at level V. Why? The pilgrim isnt much of a gang ship, probably never will be - but where it can excell is sliding out from warp and suffocating its target. To do that it needs either cap, to run a reasonable tank or time. In the current gang environment time is something a pilgrim just doesnt have - so enable it to do its job faster. C. Oh and it looks ace on Trinity Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Naviset	Posted - 2007.11.29 03:02:00 - [10] Edited by: Naviset on 29/11/2007 03:03:29 Umm. I can't believe someone suggested 100-125% TD effectiveness? You could easily make a gang of ships... just not shoot anymore? And then disable their tank with neuts? 75% cap reduction is stupid good. You could drain more cap than an amarrian BS uses with a dual rep tank, per second without ever running out of cap. Without using an injector. Yeah. 100% (Or more) TD effectiveness is stupid too. TDs are really good as is, and 125% bonus = no tracking. Literally. No tracking. Or no range. Whatever way you want to look at it. This wouldn't even be justified without scripts, but if you use scripts its just a ridiculous request.
Phaedruss	Posted - 2007.11.29 03:07:00 - [11] Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? ...actually doesn't the pilgrim already get a cap efficiency bonus? That's the kind of change required to counter the sledghammer nerfs that CPP throw around each patch...and no, there is no 'cap efficiency bonus' on the Pilgrim.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.29 03:19:00 - [12] TD's arent really the issue, they don't add uch to the ship - it needs to be able either suck in more cap, or neut out cap faster and more economically. A 30% bonus would do this. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Discobird Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.29 03:52:00 - [13] Originally by: Phaedruss Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? ...actually doesn't the pilgrim already get a cap efficiency bonus? That's the kind of change required to counter the sledghammer nerfs that CPP throw around each patch...and no, there is no 'cap efficiency bonus' on the Pilgrim. Given the new way in which RSD/TD effectiveness is calculated, a 125% bonus would result in negative tracking/optimal. Much better would be a falloff script IMO. And the Pilgrim does get a cap efficiency bonus on neuts. It just doesn't get a cap reduction bonus like the OP asked for.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.29 04:27:00 - [14] Originally by: Naviset Edited by: Naviset on 29/11/2007 03:03:29 Umm. I can't believe someone suggested 100-125% TD effectiveness? You could easily make a gang of ships... just not shoot anymore? And then disable their tank with neuts? 75% cap reduction is stupid good. You could drain more cap than an amarrian BS uses with a dual rep tank, per second without ever running out of cap. Without using an injector. Yeah. 100% (Or more) TD effectiveness is stupid too. TDs are really good as is, and 125% bonus = no tracking. Literally. No tracking. Or no range. Whatever way you want to look at it. This wouldn't even be justified without scripts, but if you use scripts its just a ridiculous request. Post script nerf, 125% would be equivalent to the 25% we have now. Or are you just blind to the facts?
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.29 04:29:00 - [15] Originally by: Discobird Originally by: Phaedruss Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? ...actually doesn't the pilgrim already get a cap efficiency bonus? That's the kind of change required to counter the sledghammer nerfs that CPP throw around each patch...and no, there is no 'cap efficiency bonus' on the Pilgrim. Given the new way in which RSD/TD effectiveness is calculated, a 125% bonus would result in negative tracking/optimal. Much better would be a falloff script IMO. And the Pilgrim does get a cap efficiency bonus on neuts. It just doesn't get a cap reduction bonus like the OP asked for. it does NOT get an effeciency bonus, it gets an AMOUNT bonus. Originally by: Pilgrim bonuses 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 it can be found Here if you do not believe me Jesus.. do you guys even fly this ship? Or use tracking disruptors? Or even log onto the test server?
Requiescat Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2007.11.29 04:29:00 - [16] How bout, as a Special, similar to the way the Vindicator gets +25% large hybrid damage, Amarr recons are allowed to nos without the new vanilla limitations? CCP has a habit of nerfing stuff that's imbalanced on other races, and having it turn the only decent Amarr ships into wastes of SP and ISK. <-- Sig starts here. Victory - Honor = Loss My face + your chest = pain
Wayward Hooligan Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.29 04:54:00 - [17] Another easy way to fix the Pilgrim without breaking it would be to: 1 - Increase size of capacitor. The ship is specifically designed for cap warfare. Increase the size of the capacitor so it is actually able to leverage its cap warfare ability effectively. 2 - Decrease capacitor recharge time for the reasons already stated. This would allow the Pilgrim to better run its very cap hungry modules. Pilgrim will have ATLEAST: 1xMARII 2xMedium Neut Just running those things alone requires most of the ship to be fit for cap recharge. If the ship had a strong capacitor it could fit for effectiveness first rather than fitting just to make anything run. Not like a really strong capacitor would overpower the ship. It has 2 (TWO) weapon hardpoints and drones. The weapons are unbonused. Not like those two Heavy Pulse II's are going to really put it over the edge. It has 5 slots to tank with iirc. If you dedicate all 5 slots to tank you can have a decent tank but in now way out of line for a ship that HAS to operate in web range. . .. WELP! .. .
Discobird Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.29 05:05:00 - [18] Originally by: Feng Schui it does NOT get an effeciency bonus, it gets an AMOUNT bonus. Efficiency is benefit over cost. An amount bonus (more benefit for the same cost) is also an efficiency bonus. Each unit of cap is doing more work on a neut fitted to a Pilgrim than on a neut fitted to some other ship (besides the Curse). For the same reason, repair amount bonuses improve the efficiency of armor reps even though they don't reduce the cap cost.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises Alternative Realities	Posted - 2007.11.29 05:08:00 - [19] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 29/11/2007 05:09:40 Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Discobird And the Pilgrim does get a cap efficiency bonus on neuts. It just doesn't get a cap reduction bonus like the OP asked for. it does NOT get an effeciency bonus, it gets an AMOUNT bonus. I don't know how you define efficiency, but in my book if you have A/B, and you want as much A as possible per B, both raising A and lowering B increases efficiency. I'd be interested in your definition. In other words.. it doesn't matter whether you neutralize twice as much or need half the energy. The former does the job in half the time, the latter consumes half the energy in the same time. To neutralize a set amount of cap it comes down to the same amount of energy you have to utilize. It really isn't that hard. But maybe if you're on a crusade, it's not abnormal to become a little blind. edit: darn! beat me to it. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Discobird Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.29 05:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Feng Schui Post script nerf, 125% would be equivalent to the 25% we have now. Or are you just blind to the facts? Post-script nerf, a 125% bonus would result in an optimal or tracking mod of > -1 when using optimal or tracking scripts. That's broken (what does negative tracking or optimal even mean?) The 25% bonus does not have that drastic an effect.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.29 05:25:00 - [21]
Steakkbone Helios Incorporated Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.29 07:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Roidpwning101 Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? Because its a piece of garbage?
Discobird Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.29 07:50:00 - [23] Medium unstable neuts still have 150 activation cost on Sisi, same as on TQ. =/ Didn't check the other named neuts.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.29 07:55:00 - [24] There are only three cases when a pilgrim faces a gun boat. Either he's under web range, just outside web range, or far away. If he's under web range (read gets webbed), the only aspect of TD's which can help is the gun's optimal range decrease provided it's not a minnie gun (which is more dependent on falloff than optimal), hence this mainly concerns gallente & amarr guns). If he's just outside web range (read can orbit its target), then it's screwing gun tracking speed which can help it lower the damage received. If he's far away, it's again gun optimal range decrease which could help. Now with the current nerf, there's not a single case where the pilgrim can track disrupt efficiently without devoting 4 mids to TD's. And it's not only a nerf in EW, it's also a direct nerf in cap consumption for a ship which on top has to find a way to tank & neut simultaneously... BTW, checking on SiSi, it's only the default cap drain of the med neut T2 which has been decreased from 180 to 150, bringing their efficiency similar to med unstables (which aren't updated, at least atm).
omiNATION Gallente Vanguard of the Ouroboros Nation	Posted - 2007.11.29 08:09:00 - [25] Originally by: Steakkbone Originally by: Roidpwning101 Originally by: omiNATION wtf, how do you justify a 25% -> 125% increase in EWAR effectiveness? Because its a piece of garbage? Your Sig. Ironic. [sig] EVE, basically an MMORPG with prison rules. [/sig]
Naviset	Posted - 2007.11.29 08:31:00 - [26] Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Naviset Edited by: Naviset on 29/11/2007 03:03:29 Umm. I can't believe someone suggested 100-125% TD effectiveness? You could easily make a gang of ships... just not shoot anymore? And then disable their tank with neuts? 75% cap reduction is stupid good. You could drain more cap than an amarrian BS uses with a dual rep tank, per second without ever running out of cap. Without using an injector. Yeah. 100% (Or more) TD effectiveness is stupid too. TDs are really good as is, and 125% bonus = no tracking. Literally. No tracking. Or no range. Whatever way you want to look at it. This wouldn't even be justified without scripts, but if you use scripts its just a ridiculous request. Post script nerf, 125% would be equivalent to the 25% we have now. Or are you just blind to the facts? Umm. Without scripts. Yes. With scripts, your proposed bonus is stupid? You apparently fail to see the purpose in scripts. As another, restated point, TDs AREN'T Bad right now. Maybe not as go-to as damps are, but they certainly work nicely is a vast majority of situations.
Dristra Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.29 09:00:00 - [27] Originally by: Naviset Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Naviset Edited by: Naviset on 29/11/2007 03:03:29 Umm. I can't believe someone suggested 100-125% TD effectiveness? You could easily make a gang of ships... just not shoot anymore? And then disable their tank with neuts? 75% cap reduction is stupid good. You could drain more cap than an amarrian BS uses with a dual rep tank, per second without ever running out of cap. Without using an injector. Yeah. 100% (Or more) TD effectiveness is stupid too. TDs are really good as is, and 125% bonus = no tracking. Literally. No tracking. Or no range. Whatever way you want to look at it. This wouldn't even be justified without scripts, but if you use scripts its just a ridiculous request. Post script nerf, 125% would be equivalent to the 25% we have now. Or are you just blind to the facts? Umm. Without scripts. Yes. With scripts, your proposed bonus is stupid? You apparently fail to see the purpose in scripts. As another, restated point, TDs AREN'T Bad right now. Maybe not as go-to as damps are, but they certainly work nicely is a vast majority of situations. With the new nerf, damps will be very limited power-wise compared to before, Tally ho! guess what, tracking distrupters will be nerfed just as bad! And even following your logic, this means that damps will still be superior to a tracking distrupter. It's great being Amarr isn't it. Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
Naviset	Posted - 2007.11.29 10:05:00 - [28] Edited by: Naviset on 29/11/2007 10:12:42 Originally by: Dristra Originally by: Naviset Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Naviset Edited by: Naviset on 29/11/2007 03:03:29 Umm. I can't believe someone suggested 100-125% TD effectiveness? You could easily make a gang of ships... just not shoot anymore? And then disable their tank with neuts? 75% cap reduction is stupid good. You could drain more cap than an amarrian BS uses with a dual rep tank, per second without ever running out of cap. Without using an injector. Yeah. 100% (Or more) TD effectiveness is stupid too. TDs are really good as is, and 125% bonus = no tracking. Literally. No tracking. Or no range. Whatever way you want to look at it. This wouldn't even be justified without scripts, but if you use scripts its just a ridiculous request. Post script nerf, 125% would be equivalent to the 25% we have now. Or are you just blind to the facts? Umm. Without scripts. Yes. With scripts, your proposed bonus is stupid? You apparently fail to see the purpose in scripts. As another, restated point, TDs AREN'T Bad right now. Maybe not as go-to as damps are, but they certainly work nicely is a vast majority of situations. With the new nerf, damps will be very limited power-wise compared to before, Tally ho! guess what, tracking distrupters will be nerfed just as bad! And even following your logic, this means that damps will still be superior to a tracking distrupter. Actually, in my opinion damps will be far less useful now since it'll be very difficult to lock someone down to the point of usefulness. However with TDs it will still be relatively easy. Quick question: Do you seriously think it'd be balanced for a single TD on a t1 cruiser to TOTALLY disable a turret ship of any size? wtf are you smoking. I'm sorry that I don't support your "OMG LETS MAKE THE PILGRIM IMBA" suggestions. I really do support making it better but most of these forum suggestions are ridiculous.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.29 10:22:00 - [29] Originally by: Naviset Stuff on tds You should actually try to "lock down" a turret ship with tds in their current state. If you did some tests you'd know it just doesn't happen unless we are talking about laser ships. And even then... If you are webbed and have cruiser sig bs weapons will hit you well enough to kill you quite fast with 2 x bonused tds on them. You won't get hit if you do a super close orbit and have an ab. However you have to get that close first which isnt easy due to webs and then he can always try to keep distance with mwd bursts and start hitting you again. If you can keep out of webrange (which in a pilgrim you won't) then its a whole other issue, however of the close range guns its only the lasers who have a significant optimal to start with. Falloff of blasters and acs isn't affected and so its basically really an anti-scorch ewar. In fleet ranges they're useless because of their low optimal/falloff. Also under no circumstances will a single td influence small or med turrets in a noticable way. Even several bonused tds won't keep a gun bc/cs from doing severe damage in shortrange. What are you smoking btw?
arbalesttom Caldari Glauxian Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.29 11:38:00 - [30] Amarr recon + ecm burst = win * * Nice hamster! - Mindstar Sorry, that hamster ate your sig.. - Random Guy123 Phear this sig! - Cortes

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.