EVE Search - Sacrilege improvements

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Sacrilege improvements

» 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)
Almarez	Posted - 2007.01.30 16:03:00 - [1] Okay I don't want rediculous suggestions but I would like to get people's ideas on how to improve a Sacrilege (Sacrilege only). Please, people who have flown them only, or at least know a lot about them. In my opinion, the Sacrilege was a terrible choice for a Khannid ship. Khannid ships, as they are now, are supposed to be shield tankers, but this ship has 4 mid slots and it's cruiser bonus gives 5% resist bonuses to armor. This is just a bad mix match. Also, even though it has seemingly good bonuses to lasers, if just cannot cause enough damage with them. I had 4 pulse on one with a 7.8 damage mod but I could not for the life of me cause any real damage. The Zealot is a much better damage dealer, with the rof and damage bonus. These being the case I would like to see these two changes. Remove a high slot and make it a low slot and make this an armor tanking Khannid ship (even if the description of Khannid ships is that they are shield tankers) or remove a high and low slot and make them two more mid slots and make it a true shield tanker (I don't like this one). As I said, the Zealot is a laser boat, so I would rather waste the cruiser bonus to lasers on the Sacrilege and have missle bonuses with a fourth missle slot. Any thoughts?
Karash Amerius Amarr O.E.C	Posted - 2007.01.30 16:13:00 - [2] "I fly my Sac" quite a bit...but I think its a special purpose ship. You are right that the Zealot does more damage, but both ships are designed for that. The mid slot layout coupled with strong defensive armor resistances (and ample low slots) gives the Sac the role of heavy tackler. I use my Sac to tackle battleships in the middle of a dogfight. AFs and Ceptors can usually be "shoo'ed" away via heavy nos, drones, or even large SB. The Sac has the resiliance to take heavy fire and lock an enemy in place. Personally I like the 3 gun x 3 nos setup that you will find common with all Sac pilots. Merc Blog
Nykolas Amarr 7th Space Cavalry Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.30 16:13:00 - [3] I fly both Sac and Zealot. And indeed Zealot is better in all aspect. Sure the Sac tank a little bit better, but the damage is so bad and slower it ain't worth it. As for me, I'd change the whole Khanid thinking. Keep armor tanking, but bring missiles for Caldari contribution to the ship. Before Sac used to have a missiles bonus, and I find it was better this way, even with the slot layout. In a perfect world they'd change the bonus on the ship to remove all laser one for missiles, but that's dreaming. But I really tank that would help to solve some problem with amarr damage variation. Having choices for missile would help a lot. I still think Caldari should be king of missiles. But just putting back a EM missiles dmg bonus and maybe range or fly time won't hinder Caldari ship I think, and at least make the Sac a viable alternative. But it's just my 2 isk P.S. Sry for typo, aint english To laught a good time
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.30 16:17:00 - [4] The Sacrilege should be an armour tanking missile-spewer. Amarr Cruiser bonuses: -10% laser cap use, 5% armour resistance Heavy Assault Ships bonuses: 5% missile EM damage, 5% missile RoF Change the hard points to 4 launcher / 3 turret. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori It's great being Amarr, ain't it?
Almarez	Posted - 2007.01.30 16:39:00 - [5] Thanks guys, keep them coming. Now that it's been mentioned I do remember the EM missle damage bonus. I totally agree about the armor tanking missle spewer. I think that it would be a viable pvp ship then. The tackling for gang aspect is nice but Amarr have such few solo pvp ships and I think that with these changes the Sacrilege might actually be one.
Dread Phantom Caldari Project-Chaos	Posted - 2007.01.30 17:17:00 - [6] Dont mess with my sac
AlexCA Amarr De Valken BV Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.30 17:20:00 - [7] No reason hybrid ships like khanid innovation need to have their dual weapon systems half/half. Giving it 5 missile and 5 turret hardpoints might actually give it versatility withouth screwing people who want to fit a full rack of a single weapon type. Maybe move the 6th high to a med so it can sport the electronic goodies that other amarr ships can't. Bonuses that fit in with the versatility concept are alot harder to come up with though.
Mastin Dragonfly Amarr	Posted - 2007.01.30 17:29:00 - [8] Edited by: Mastin Dragonfly on 30/01/2007 17:26:32 Originally by: Almarez Khannid ships, as they are now, are supposed to be shield tankers What makes you think that? Curse is the only ship on which it's feasible far as I know. Turn Khanid ships into armor tanking missiles boats, not shield tanking laser boats.
diabolic clone Amarr	Posted - 2007.01.30 17:43:00 - [9] most ships that got stuck with the cap reduction bonus could use drone bonuses; sacrilege has missiles drones and guns but only a bonus for the guns, can't complain about that cause the only interesting amarr ships are the t2 versions and some workable t1.
BlackHorizon Caldari Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.30 17:46:00 - [10] Edited by: BlackHorizon on 30/01/2007 17:42:43 Personally, I'd rather have them be shield tanking laser boats. Remove 1 high from the sac, add a 5th turret, add a fifth mid, increase CPU, remove the 5% armor resist bonus and give it a cap or shield boost bonus.

Deathbarrage	Posted - 2007.01.30 17:51:00 - [11] Originally by: BlackHorizon Edited by: BlackHorizon on 30/01/2007 17:45:13 Personally, I'd rather have them be shield tanking laser boats. Goes well with the Khanid philosophy of having advanced Caldari shield generators. Remove 1 high from the sac and add a 5th med slot. Add a 5th turret hardpoint, increase CPU, remove the 5% armor resist bonus and give it a cap, shield boost, or shield resist bonus (Caldari technology). armor tanking missile boats ftw.. shield tanking turret boat will be ****ty
Mastin Dragonfly Amarr	Posted - 2007.01.30 18:03:00 - [12] Originally by: BlackHorizon Edited by: BlackHorizon on 30/01/2007 17:45:13 Personally, I'd rather have them be shield tanking laser boats. Goes well with the Khanid philosophy of having advanced Caldari shield generators. Amarr are cap-dependent enough I think.
Emperor D'Hoffryn No Quarter. C0VEN	Posted - 2007.01.30 18:13:00 - [13] sac should be armor tanking missle boat. less damage then a cerb with missles of coures, but with enough drones to make up that missing missle dps, with the sac coming out just below the cerb still. would be unique and fun to fly. Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
Norris Packard Wings of Redemption	Posted - 2007.01.30 18:46:00 - [14] I dont fly the sac but have flown mallers alot, always thought that the sac should have its 5th turret slot, but also think it should get a bonus to EM missle damage and cruiser size launcher ROF with 5 missle slots too. I do like its slot layout as is. My first cruiser in eve was a maller and I always wanted to fly the sac but it never seemed to be that great.
Lakotnik	Posted - 2007.01.30 18:56:00 - [15] Wont a sac kill zealot? Tank him and nos till it runs out of cap, then kill. Anyway, i got sac but havent used it yet. BTW i think it can also outdamage zealot with gank setup (4 hvy pulse, 2 hvy assault missiles, 3 t2 small drones). Smile, tomorrow will be worse.
Almarez	Posted - 2007.01.30 19:47:00 - [16] Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly Edited by: Mastin Dragonfly on 30/01/2007 17:26:32 Originally by: Almarez Khannid ships, as they are now, are supposed to be shield tankers What makes you think that? Curse is the only ship on which it's feasible far as I know. Turn Khanid ships into armor tanking missiles boats, not shield tanking laser boats. Just from the description of Khannid ships. "The Khanid Kingdom ships possess the most advanced shield generators available outside Caldari space, as well as fairly robust electronics systems. Their armor and hull, however, are rather weak and hard to modify."
Almarez	Posted - 2007.01.30 19:50:00 - [17] Originally by: Lakotnik Edited by: Lakotnik on 30/01/2007 18:55:07 Wont a sac kill zealot? Tank him and nos till it runs out of cap, then kill. Anyway, i got sac but havent used it yet. BTW i think it can also outdamage zealot with gank setup (4 hvy pulse, 2 hvy assault missiles, 3 t2 small drones). Yes, it also has different roles. Imo there is no need to change it. You may be able to play the outlast role but Zealots are much better damage dealers bar none and the tank really isn't that much off. The advantage the Sac has is two more high slots for NOS but I think a skilled Zealot pilot can overcome that since most use a cap booster.
Gamae	Posted - 2007.01.30 19:58:00 - [18] Well, first off, I don't know of anyone who shield tanks a khanid ship. So I would go with the Armor tanking missile version of events, for the future of Khanid. Or some other role that is different from normal amarr's, something unique, yarr. --this sig is having technical difficulties.
Almarez	Posted - 2007.01.30 20:02:00 - [19] Originally by: Gamae Well, first off, I don't know of anyone who shield tanks a khanid ship. So I would go with the Armor tanking missile version of events, for the future of Khanid. Or some other role that is different from normal amarr's, something unique, yarr. This is what my suggestion was and what most people seem to like. I think this is especially true because it seems like shield tanking is somewhat cap intensive and so running it with cap intensive lasers would just plain suck.
Lakotnik	Posted - 2007.01.30 20:58:00 - [20] Only difference between zealot and sac bonuses is 5% rof for zealot vs 5% resists for sac. Do not mix old sac damage here (without dmg bonus and missile one instead). Zealot has more lowslots and making a gank setup is easier while still tanking. But still, can you tell me if my suggested setup would outdamage zealot? 33% more dps on lasers vs 2 hvy assault missiles and 3 small t2 drones. Cap is a problem in zealot/sacri "relationship" as well. 3 mids on zealot mean web, injector and scram. Sacri has 4 and doesnt really need injector cause of good cap and 2 slots empty (if you dont put missiles) for nos. So setups can be much more different, tank even more mean and is able to support gangmates better. Smile, tomorrow will be worse.

Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.01.30 21:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Rodj Blake The Sacrilege should be an armour tanking missile-spewer. Amarr Cruiser bonuses: -10% laser cap use, 5% armour resistance Heavy Assault Ships bonuses: 5% missile EM damage, 5% missile RoF Change the hard points to 4 launcher / 3 turret. Close. 4/4 launcher/turrets. Same cruiser bonuses, but ditch the laser optimal for missile ROF instead. Keep laser damage. Less damage than your zealot but way more flexible in damage types you can do. Damnation could use the same treatment, missile ROF instead of optimal range and +1 missile hardpoint. Raptor and Ares Fix
Angus McLean Gallente Divinity Trials	Posted - 2007.01.30 22:20:00 - [22] Originally by: Rodj Blake The Sacrilege should be an armour tanking missile-spewer. Amarr Cruiser bonuses: -10% laser cap use, 5% armour resistance Heavy Assault Ships bonuses: 5% missile EM damage, 5% missile RoF Change the hard points to 4 launcher / 3 turret. Drop the cap laser use. If im going to use missiles on my Sac I want to do it with 100% missiles and not waste a bonus on crappty lasers. Other than that its all good.
Scordite	Posted - 2007.01.30 23:54:00 - [23] Change I'd like to see the most is laser cap use OR optimal being switched to +5 or +10 m3 dronebay (10 might be over the top heh). If it was laser cap use, you'd probably need to give it +1 launcher slot. In fact, you might want to do that if it was optimal that was switched as well, since people would then have a choice of guns or missiles, making the ship less predictable (predictability being a common complaint from amarr pilots). Maybe too similar to curse then? No room for ew though, less dps, less drainage. And curse has nano setup as a viable option as well. Only thing sac would have going for it in the comparison is the tank. But it'd still be fun to fly, methinks ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Angus McLean Gallente Divinity Trials	Posted - 2007.01.31 00:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Scordite Change I'd like to see the most is laser cap use OR optimal being switched to +5 or +10 m3 dronebay (10 might be over the top heh). If it was laser cap use, you'd probably need to give it +1 launcher slot. In fact, you might want to do that if it was optimal that was switched as well, since people would then have a choice of guns or missiles, making the ship less predictable (predictability being a common complaint from amarr pilots). Maybe too similar to curse then? No room for ew though, less dps, less drainage. And curse has nano setup as a viable option as well. Only thing sac would have going for it in the comparison is the tank. But it'd still be fun to fly, methinks Arbitrator > Sacrilege > Curse I like it!
Scordite	Posted - 2007.01.31 00:29:00 - [25] Well, another option is something similar to what Sarmaul suggested in the Khanid mk2 thread. Tux likes that idea appearently. I'm still not sure which I like better, that, or my idea. Of course, there's a lot more to khanid mk2 than just the sac. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Kldraina	Posted - 2007.01.31 00:56:00 - [26] Personally, I still think the Sac should aim for flexibility and unpredictability. I'd keep the cruiser bonuses, and change the HAC skill bonuses to 5% shield resists per level, and 5% improved missile rof per level. Then give it an extra mid slot, and better base stats (I'd make it second best for both base shield HP and base armor HP, as well as giving it plenty of PG and CPU). Basically, I'd give it a mix of Caldari bonuses and Amarr bonuses, and provide really good base stats to make up for the fact that half the bonuses will always be wasted.
Vulcyrik Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.01.31 01:07:00 - [27] Reikoku Makes Its Own Luck - BoB may have rigged the T2 lottery? Several Devs in BoB? - Check the-blog-that-can't-be named or the thread on Scrap-Heap Challenge for non-censored information
Wheya Amarr Bruderschaft des Wahrhaftigen	Posted - 2007.01.31 01:59:00 - [28] The old Sacrilege had cruiser bonus from Maller: 10% less energy for lasers and 5% armor resistance HAC bonus: 10% range for lasers (more range is a typical HAC trademake) and 5% ROF for launchers the new Sacrilege has the second HAC bonus replaced 5% laser damage instead of 5% ROF for launchers It never had an em missile damage bonus and hopefully never gets such a crap bonus. Then there were other changes as well. - less shield for more armor - more power grid and more cpu - and of course the generell HP increase I liked the first version the most even if it had serious cpu problems fitting launchers and a decent setup in low and med slots. The 10% range bonus for lasers was completely useless if you fitted launchers. Fitting lasers without dmg/RoF was even more a bad idea. I prefered the Sac over the Zealot for PvP even if most people preferred the Zealot. Replacing the laser range bonus with a missile range bonus (missile speed or flight time) would be the most logical choice from my point of view if we are talking about the first version. This plus a 4th missile launcher would have made the Sacrilege a much better ship even if the raw damage on paper still would not look great. Never underestimate the option to be able to choose your damage type and no need for energy for your weapons. Yes, I vote for the missile spamming armor tank. The problem is that amarr pilots don't have missile skills and typical Caldari pilots don't have skills to armor tank while everybody has drone skills. More dronebay would be the easiest solution for a boost.
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union	Posted - 2007.01.31 03:16:00 - [29] I like what was said about the 5/5 missile/turret layout with utility high going to mid. Couple that with 10% laser cap use, 5% armor resistances, 5% laser damage and 5% missile launcher RoF (naturally only applied to heavies, assaults, and heavy assaults) and congratulations, you have the first versatile/unpredictable Amarr ship. RAWR --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.01.31 03:30:00 - [30] Edited by: Goumindong on 31/01/2007 03:33:38 Originally by: Deathbarrage Originally by: BlackHorizon Edited by: BlackHorizon on 30/01/2007 17:45:13 Personally, I'd rather have them be shield tanking laser boats. Goes well with the Khanid philosophy of having advanced Caldari shield generators. Remove 1 high from the sac and add a 5th med slot. Add a 5th turret hardpoint, increase CPU, remove the 5% armor resist bonus and give it a cap, shield boost, or shield resist bonus (Caldari technology). armor tanking missile boats ftw.. shield tanking turret boat will be ****ty Actualy shield tanking laser boats would be pretty darn awesome if they had the cap and mid slots to sustain it. 25% shield resistances, laser damage x 2, big big capacitors, 6 mid slots, 4 low slots, optimal bonus. Better on the battleship level[imagine a 7/8/4 geddon that was able to fit a full rack of lasers and shield tank? it would be disgusting], but still it would be strong. Probably too strong. ed: that being said, the armor tanking missile boats are a much better option[we have enough laser boats] ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"



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.