These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Specialized Ships(pilgrim/curse/etc) vs new Battery behavior
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#41 - 2012-09-04 16:55:12 UTC
The truth of the matter is that the majority of players like the change. They like that a rarely used mod now has a 2nd function and there is a potential counter to neut/vamps.

Sorry that your view is in the minority. Sorry that you feel you are being let down. I, for one, still wuss the Naga could mount torpedo launchers. CCP did not agree with either of us. You have to accept that and move on. At least you pilgrim is still exceptionally powerful and only countered by rarely used mods.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#42 - 2012-09-04 17:19:24 UTC
Bullz3y3 wrote:
Posting in a my iWin button doesnt work anymore thread.


Haha look at this guy claiming that CCP's most problematic crippled ship that they've had the most trouble coming up with a buff for is actually an 'i win' button.

Sorry but the pilgrim is pretty much known as the t2 ship in most dire need of help.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#43 - 2012-09-04 17:22:48 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Bullz3y3 wrote:
Posting in a my iWin button doesnt work anymore thread.


Haha look at this guy claiming that CCP's most problematic crippled ship that they've had the most trouble coming up with a buff for is actually an 'i win' button.

Sorry but the pilgrim is pretty much known as the t2 ship in most dire need of help.

No thats the Eagle.
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
#44 - 2012-09-04 17:34:15 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Should we make the Pilgram immune to tracking computers or tracking enhancers also. Or the Arazu immun to Sebos. Your argument is bad.

Sorry for spelling tablet is a pain.



no because those mods do one thing, and that is they enhance tracking, specialized to that task. the battery mod had this attribute tagged on.

anyway i am talking about the recon bonus..

arazu recon bonus is to point range so i don't get your sebos comment.
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
#45 - 2012-09-04 17:35:15 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
should the jammers on a falcon be able to igone the ECCM on the enemy ship?


no because these mods are specialized, focused to the task.
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
#46 - 2012-09-04 17:36:15 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Clearly Rapiers should be immune to MWDs then.


the rapier recon bonus is to range, not web strength. so no.
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-09-04 17:44:24 UTC
Kitanga wrote:
Let a PVP ship do what they are designed to do, without a tech 1 mod disabling it.


A chance for 12% reflected at you if I was fitting a Large cap battery is not what I'd call "disable".

Also, if your intention was to increase cap life in delicate PvP situations or counter nosferatus and neutralizers, it's STILL much better to use cap boosters.

Of which, incidentally, there are pretty nice T1 alternatives.

I don't really see the point of this complaint. Batteries are rare, PvP pilots will still use cap boosters as always, and even if you happen to find a godawful fit with a battery, the chances of it biting you in the ass are slim and definitely not crippling.
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-09-04 17:46:08 UTC
Kitanga wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Clearly Rapiers should be immune to MWDs then.


the rapier recon bonus is to range, not web strength. so no.


What about Serpentis pirate ships? Daredevil, Vigilant, Vindicator? Should they be immune to MWDs?
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
#49 - 2012-09-04 17:53:01 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
Kitanga wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Clearly Rapiers should be immune to MWDs then.


the rapier recon bonus is to range, not web strength. so no.


What about Serpentis pirate ships? Daredevil, Vigilant, Vindicator? Should they be immune to MWDs?



no because a MWD does one thing, specialized to the task it performs. also the bonus on these ships will affect performance of the MWD on the target. the bonus on the pilgrim to neutralize a ship is only reflected back even more due to its bonus(although i have not tested this and i am making an assumption here). my point is this argument is apples and oranges.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#50 - 2012-09-04 19:09:53 UTC
Kitanga wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
should the jammers on a falcon be able to igone the ECCM on the enemy ship?


no because these mods are specialized, focused to the task.


Failing to see your point. There are many examples of a mod having more than one effect, your argument on this point is more than a bit silly.

Just because a ship is specialized for a particular role does not mean that it should be immune to any and all counter measures that might be employed against it.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Doddy
Excidium.
#51 - 2012-09-04 20:01:00 UTC
Kitanga wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Every EWar (well, except target painting, but there are reasons for that) there has a hardware counter that you can fit to your ship. What's wrong with it when applied to neuting, thing that can be met everywhere and is pretty effective in certain environements?



nothing wrong with it if the neut is on a hurricane for example. my point was specialized ships should be immune. because the mod is not specialized like ECCM mods.

but continue with your 'fit a cap injector' responses...


Except it is specialized. No one ever fitted a cap battery on a pvp ship (except possibly an oneiros) that didn't do it to provide some defence against neuting.
Gorn Arming
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-09-04 20:05:17 UTC
This argument is dumb because no one fits cap batteries. If you do run into one, you've found one of those magical idiots who fits their ships by facerolling on a screen of rat loot and you should easily win that fight anyway.
Hiyora Akachi
Blood Alcohol Content
T O P S H E L F
#53 - 2012-09-04 20:52:42 UTC
Posting in a stealth "My I Win Button is broken."
Gorinia Sanford
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2012-09-06 17:13:26 UTC
Kitanga wrote:
recently a change was made to how capacitor batteries behave. see below...

"Provides defense against Energy Leech and Energy Neutralizer effects."

i want to open a discussion about this change and how it affects specialized ships such as the pilgrim/curse, legion, cruor, sentinel (there maybe be a few more)

these ships have a bonus to "energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer amount". and some of these ships take a good amount of training to fly.

i feel that these ships, especially those that take a while to train such as the curse and pilgrim, should be immune to this new battery behavior. much like the way a heavy interdictor is immune to the affect of a warp core stabilizer if the dictor points the ship with this mod fitted (not talking about dropping a bubble).

the fact that a tech 1 battery can effectively cripple a pilgrims behavior of neuting a target just seems unfair. this was my personal experience recently in tackling a target in lowsec. i found myself cap-less very quickly. I found this to be frustrating mainly because i spent the time to train for a pilgrim, and now find it to be somewhat of a crippled ship in that its bonus attribute is strongly hindered by a tech 1 mod that anyone can use.

TLDR; i am proposing that specialized ships be immune to the new battery behavior.

i am hoping that a dev will read this post and provide his/her opinion on the matter.

Thank you
Kitanga


Improvise, adapt, overcome.
Previous page123