| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captator
Universal Securities
   |
Posted - 2008.07.16 21:02:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Pirate Brinkie
Originally by: Lance Fighter
Originally by: Pirate Brinkie
Originally by: Lance Fighter
You dont need to nano every ship in the game, kthxbai.
The pilgrim doesnt need a range bonus, and I personally like my TD bonus.
I know that but give me another setup that works for the pilgrim which can survive long enough in fleet battles? The way to do it is nanoing it you dominate the battle then
The pilgrim is not a fleet ship. The pilgrim is the fear of any lone miner in a lowsec/0.0 belt. Using the pilgrim in a fleet fight is suicide, but hey, if you want to throw away money like that, go ahead.
And if you want a setup that survives fleet battles, i give you this:
Highs:
COCD
3x empty slots.
mids:
5x empty slots.
Lows:
5x empty slots.
I guarantee you that will make it out of every fleet battle alive, unless your an idiot.
Have you ever flown a Curse/Pilgim? They ARE good for Recon fleets or Nanofleets. But the Pilgrim is now very much useless because you have to fight close range
It has always been the case that you have to fight at close range in the pilgrim, if you want to use all of its bonuses. It is not a fleet ship, it is a solo or wolfpack ship, if you want to use it in a fleet, just fit it like a glorified arbitrator - mwd, 4 TDs and a plate tank.
Some of us like (as Lance Fighter said above) the style of the pilgrim - fly a curse if you want to nano the crap out of it 
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 21:04:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Emperor Ryan
I do think that some how TD's optimal should be lower for some ship,s i know it kind of defeats the point, but i'd love my TD's to be at optimal at 10k or... have the falloff lowered to ... next to nothing. something along those lines. since the pilgrim is made for engagements at the range of 12km or less.
Sounds like you are looking at the module stats, and not the effect on the target's guns - most close range guns regardless of ammo, will be put under 10km range with 2 range scripted TDs on them (exceptions are amarr large lasers with scorch). In fact, medium guns are often put down to under 5km optimal+falloff.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 21:56:00 -
[3]
Quote:
To those of you that are sitting there telling me that the Pilgrim, as it stands TODAY, is a useful and good ship... well. I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about.
I agree it isn't very good or useful, but I would rather they restored its former role (give it more grid or cap or another slot), than just turn it into a cloaking curse.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 16:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Malcanis
It's odd that the other Force Recons get a range bonus for it's particular ability (web, scram, ECM) but the Pilgrim doesn't.
Excuse my cap-warfare noobness, but I take it that the amount bonus is required to make the Pilgrim worthwhile?
Yes, that is the problem. Because amarr recons are the only recons that have a sized module as ewar it needs strength bonus just to make up for size. Wich means they end up with one less bonus effectively.
How about a change I proposed in an ideas thread earlier - give the pilgrim 1/2 the range bonus the curse receives, tied up into the neut amount bonus, so it gets sentinel-like nos/neut range? (ie <20km). This way it isn't stepping on the toes of the curse, but has a nice range buffer between operating and web range.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 22:18:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Marcus Druallis
Ok. Fixable. Switch drone bonus for range nuet bonus. Done.
Can't be done, have to keep the t1 hull bonuses.
The other option could be all the other combat recons getting a double bonus in one like the curses amount/range bonus - huginn gets webrange (as now) and web strength (like marauders), lachesis gets point range (as now) and point strength or damp range?, rook gets jam optimal (as now) and sensor strength?
This would put the current pilgrim bonuses into line, and might see rooks and lachesis restored to the field.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 22:41:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Captator on 18/07/2008 22:43:09
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Captator
Originally by: Marcus Druallis
Ok. Fixable. Switch drone bonus for range nuet bonus. Done.
Can't be done, have to keep the t1 hull bonuses.
The other option could be all the other combat recons getting a double bonus in one like the curses amount/range bonus - huginn gets webrange (as now) and web strength (like marauders), lachesis gets point range (as now) and point strength or damp range?, rook gets jam optimal (as now) and sensor strength?
This would put the current pilgrim bonuses into line, and might see rooks and lachesis restored to the field.
Rook can plx haz extra lock range not strengths plx kthx?
It already has 187.5km with long range targetting 5  , how much more do you want? One unscripted sensor booster t2 takes that to 243.75km
edit: rationale behind it, is if it has say 10% sensor strength per level, it is very hard to counter jam. Of course this does leave the scorpion somewhat trailing in the dust...
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 23:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Nomad Storm
This would make the curse useless. CCP wont make the pilgrim replace the curse. Find a way to fix it that does not invalidate other ships.
Welcome to the world of broken ship classes: Recons. Falcon OBSOLETES rook. Arazu OBSOLETES lachesis. Either you fix that first or you dont give a damn about fixing that and fix pilgrim the way I said. Right now it is just a lame excuse to not give pilgrim range.
Or as I stated, give the combat recons on the other races an extra bonus like the curse has over the pilgrim - bringing all back into line in the opposite way to that which you desire.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 23:32:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Captator
Or as I stated, give the combat recons on the other races an extra bonus like the curse has over the pilgrim - bringing all back into line in the opposite way to that which you desire.
But the thing is that the other races recons already are 1 bonus ahead. Why? Because they use unsized ewar. Amarr use neuts. This means you waste 1 bonus to make it worth using because its medium sized only and you waste 1 dmg bonus because your high slots are filled with ewar.
This is where ccp totally messed it up. They gave Amarr recons drone dmg bonus because amarr recons use their highs for ewar. So to make up for the loss of mounted weapons they added drone damage. Problem is that combat recons should have 1 damage bonus extra over its force recons version. This is fail nr one, because curse and pilgrim have same dps approx eventhough curse should have one extra.
Fail number two is that neut amount bonus is a fake bonus and should be inherent. Its not, so it wastes a bonus.
How to fix and how it should be?
Range AND amount should be in ONE bonus.
Curse should get an additional damage bonus. (remember the drone damage bonus it has is only there to compensate for not being able to use its high slots to its full potential)
Changes added to all combat recons should be higher dmg % level on their bonuses so there is a bigger difference.
This would semi fix all recons and it would fix pilgrim. Fixed.
This sounds good, and is a better resolution that just switching bonuses around, and also solves the continuity problem with t1 hull bonuses (minor I know). Assuming then that this is the current optimum solution, how do you prevent it becoming a cloaking nanocurse, because that is what will happen (hell some people are trying to do it already).
On the other side of the arguement: the curse can technically out damage the pilgrim (missile launchers) while still having 3 cap warfare mods in highs like pilgrim (equate to say a huginn/rapier which both fit 2 webs).
The rook would not be any better with your fix (who in their right mind fits a rook for dps?), the lach would be slightly better, the only ships that really benefit are the huginn and curse.
They didn't 'add drone damage' the t1 hulls were around long before the t2 ones, and if you check the arbitrators description.....
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 13:54:00 -
[9]
Originally by: MirrorGod
if the curse has to tank and work within 10KM for it's cloak
Shouldn't the rapier have to shield tank without a web range bonus?
Or the arazu have to armor tank without a disruptor range bonus?
And do we even want to -think- about the falcon?
Than why should the pilgrim have to suffer within 10K?
I'm not going to whine, I'll just fly the curse, but fact is it's the -only- recon without a range bonus.
Could then argue that rapier/arazu should lose their range bonuses on ecm (falcon doesn't get a range bonus either).
I do agree that there is no really effective way of fitting the curse or the ishtar without nanoing though - fitting is far too tight, and I agree that a return to a situation where it is normal not to nano a HAC/recon would be nice, though if that was achieved by a blanket nerf, they would become useless (being already trod on in non nano roles by tier 2 BCs).
|
| |
|