| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nomad Storm
Ad Astra Vexillum
Hydra Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.07.18 16:53:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Nomad Storm on 18/07/2008 16:53:32
The pilgrim is not THAT bad. Imo another mid slot or an large increase in recharge rate so that a booster isnt needed would make it fine. It owns any non nanoed t2 cruiser but ishtars (granted there arnt many of those in the nano days  ). It can tank ravens and dodge the turret fire of ratting battleships.
I dont know why you think limited targets is such a problem or how you can make it seem that the other recons can run around and pwn anything. Tanking the damage of solo recons is not difficult. They all do crap dps but the pilgrim can shut down their tank - anyone that thinks swaping amount for range is an idiot unless they are flying with a blob in which case the nuets dont matter anyway.
Certainly some boosting could be done but I dont believe it is necessary to alter the nature of the ship as a whole. If the pilgrim was to recieve a range bonus I could accept it only if it was limited compared to the curse, <20km. Trading the td bonus for this range also seems stupid to me. Fighting a turret ship without tds would be even worse than going in web range while using them.
|
Nomad Storm
Ad Astra Vexillum
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 17:27:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Captator
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.
Why should amarr be the only race penaltylized for an inherent design fail of the recon class ships? ALL other force recons basically obsolete their combat recon variants. Why the heck should the amarr one be any different? If the other races arent caring about that design fail why should we and by that get a weaker bonus?
Either you give pilgrim same range bonus as curse or you start slapping the nerfbat on ALL other force recons.
You fail to take into account that all the force recons are less powerful than their combat varients. The arazu and rapier pay for this with DPS, the pilgrim pays for it with range. Removing drone bonus and adding range would NOT make sense as it is the bonus of its t1 equivilent so dont try it.
|
Nomad Storm
Ad Astra Vexillum
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 18:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 18/07/2008 18:23:09
Originally by: Nomad Storm
You fail to take into account that all the force recons are less powerful than their combat varients. The arazu and rapier pay for this with DPS, the pilgrim pays for it with range. Removing drone bonus and adding range would NOT make sense as it is the bonus of its t1 equivilent so dont try it.
Are you serious? Are you kidding me? Are we really playing the same game? That dps loss is laughable at best. All force recons gain huge advantages by being able to cloak and warp cloaked AND being able to use their ewar at same range as their combat recon variant. Sorry you have no valid point.
What pilgrim needs is neut str and range built into the ONE bonus.
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.
|
Nomad Storm
Ad Astra Vexillum
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 01:21:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kingwood
Do something, but don't ever take away the drone bonus. I'd like to fly the ship again as soon as it gets a reasonable fix, but not without the drone bonus.
This. "Fix" it if you must but do not alter the fundamental nature of the ship.
|
Nomad Storm
Ad Astra Vexillum
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 02:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Captator
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).
1. That is like asking: How do you prevent rapiers becoming cloaking nano huginns.
2. CCP needs to totally redesign pg/cpu for curse and pilgrim if you want viable non nano fits.
3. Everything else nano's. You wanna solve that problem, cut it at the root: Nerf nano.
Except that a huginn is a better nanoship than the rapier 
Pilgrim has the grid and cpu to fit a tank, curse not so much.
I would not mind the range bonus if it came with a nano nerf.
|
Nomad Storm
Ad Astra Vexillum
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 16:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mozohl
Originally by: Pirate Brinkie
Ok i don't know if there is another topic about this but i think that the Pilgrim is the only Force Recon which is not good in PvP, thats because of it's bonuses:
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: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
My idea was that the Pilgrim should get a 20% Bonus to the Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer range and instead of the Tracking Disruptor bonus 5% bonus to the Energy Vampire and energy Neutralizer transfer amount.
The Arazu and the Rapier both get a bonus to there range of web/scram this is way more usefull then tracking disruptor's they are almost never used. The pilgrim is now not powerfull enough.
This would make the Pilgrim so much better to use because now you need to get into webrange of a target and you are unable to hold a good tank for that. People Discuss!!
Thanks Superbrinkie
Die, and leave my Pilgrim alone.
Im not sure what hes even talking about when he mentions the td and amount bonus  .
But I agree with you. No change would be better than some of the crap people want. 
|
| |
|