EVE Search - Cerberus HAML Solo piracy setup?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Cerberus HAML Solo piracy setup?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Taerenius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.02.07 19:05:00 - [1] Edited by: Taerenius on 07/02/2007 19:06:13 I'm currently training towards a cerberus for strictly pvp purposes. More than likely I will be with 1 or 2 others while pvping most of the time, but sometimes I will be solo. I was thinking of the following set up, what do you guys think? Cerberus Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Empty Slot 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Photon Scattering Field II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Medium Shield Booster II Fleeting Warp Scrambler I Ballistic Control System II Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabilizers I Reactor Control Unit II Ballistic Control System II Rigs : Empty Slot \ Empty Slot \ 2404 shield, 6.01/s, E/T/K/Ex=55/79/69/59 1255 armor, E/T/K/Ex=59/86/62/10 956.25 cap, +8.74/s, -40.64/s 1539.0 m/s No web because unless I'm fighting a t2 frig I probably won't need it to stay within scrambling range long enough to kill something. The only thing I'd like is to have a t2 invuln field on the ship as well but I'd have to remove the cap booster or shield booster to fit it and I think the shield booster is a necessity. I could remove a BCS II for a DCU II, which I think might be a good tradeoff. Just trying to gauge everyone's opinions here, input would be appreciated. Btw to fit the above you need AWU 4, eng 5. Edit: I'm pretty sure quickfit doesn't account the mass reduction of istabs in the max speed equation so it is probably at least 200m/s higher.
Crellion Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.07 19:11:00 - [2] Originally by: Taerenius Edited by: Taerenius on 07/02/2007 19:06:13 I'm currently training towards a cerberus for strictly pvp purposes. More than likely I will be with 1 or 2 others while pvping most of the time, but sometimes I will be solo. I was thinking of the following set up, what do you guys think? Cerberus Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Empty Slot 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Photon Scattering Field II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Medium Shield Booster II Fleeting Warp Scrambler I Ballistic Control System II Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabilizers I Reactor Control Unit II Ballistic Control System II Rigs : Empty Slot \ Empty Slot \ 2404 shield, 6.01/s, E/T/K/Ex=55/79/69/59 1255 armor, E/T/K/Ex=59/86/62/10 956.25 cap, +8.74/s, -40.64/s 1539.0 m/s No web because unless I'm fighting a t2 frig I probably won't need it to stay within scrambling range long enough to kill something. The only thing I'd like is to have a t2 invuln field on the ship as well but I'd have to remove the cap booster or shield booster to fit it and I think the shield booster is a necessity. I could remove a BCS II for a DCU II, which I think might be a good tradeoff. Just trying to gauge everyone's opinions here, input would be appreciated. Btw to fit the above you need AWU 4, eng 5. Edit: I'm pretty sure quickfit doesn't account the mass reduction of istabs in the max speed equation so it is probably at least 200m/s higher. Sad news: In revelations to shake a fast frig of you heavy assault missles (even the tech II type) wont cut master. Nor will heavy precisions. How do you feel about using assault launchers on your Cerberus? Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim.
Taerenius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.02.07 19:13:00 - [3] I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that heavy assault missiles and heavy missiles don't hit frigs at all, even the precision ones? My drake has no problems hitting small ships with precision heavies (at least everything but interceptors anyway).
Harlequinn Caldari Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.02.07 19:45:00 - [4] Edited by: Harlequinn on 07/02/2007 19:46:01 I think what he is trying to say is that interceptors are moving in excess of 6k more often than ever. This means that even heavy T2 precision missiles just won't do enough damage to deter them from tackling you, if it does any damage at all at those kinds of velocities. Switching out for standard assaults will let you kill smaller ships more easily, but your dps will suffer vs larger ships. I like your setup, it's similar to something I've been working on. If I were you I would use a faction scrambler for certain, something with a 28-30km range so you can stay out of nos range when you tackle a BS. Additionally with a cap injector I would try to use a large shield booster instead of a medium, again a faction one really pays off here. (i.e. Gist B-Type Large) Rigs will be very important on this ship, and as it's a HAC you shouldn't spare any expense on it. 2 x EM resist rigs will allow you to run an invuln field for a better tank, but the cerb is so massive and turns so slow that you might want agility/mass reduction rigs and then see if you can't get another BCU II into your low slots for more DPS. The key with rigs is freeing up valuable slots for modules by filling holes that modules would have to cover normally. --Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.--
slothe Caldari Forsaken Empire The Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2007.02.07 19:50:00 - [5] what no nanos? cant be right. *Before complaining about any ship try flying Minmatar*
Harlequinn Caldari Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:00:00 - [6] Originally by: slothe what no nanos? cant be right. Heh... nanosetups are really istab setups anyway. --Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.--
DarkElf Caldari DJ's Exotic Dancers Escorts	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:01:00 - [7] Originally by: slothe what no nanos? cant be right. sad but true. cerb with i-stabs/nanos and mwd solo is rather effective tbh like most ships. DE
Sokratesz Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:01:00 - [8] NanoCerb? 1x overdrive 1x nanofiber 2x i-stab faction MWD..snakes...6k/s Suicide is bad, hmkay? (clickety clickety)
Taerenius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:07:00 - [9] Originally by: Harlequinn Edited by: Harlequinn on 07/02/2007 19:46:01 I think what he is trying to say is that interceptors are moving in excess of 6k more often than ever. This means that even heavy T2 precision missiles just won't do enough damage to deter them from tackling you, if it does any damage at all at those kinds of velocities. Switching out for standard assaults will let you kill smaller ships more easily, but your dps will suffer vs larger ships. I like your setup, it's similar to something I've been working on. If I were you I would use a faction scrambler for certain, something with a 28-30km range so you can stay out of nos range when you tackle a BS. Additionally with a cap injector I would try to use a large shield booster instead of a medium, again a faction one really pays off here. (i.e. Gist B-Type Large) Rigs will be very important on this ship, and as it's a HAC you shouldn't spare any expense on it. 2 x EM resist rigs will allow you to run an invuln field for a better tank, but the cerb is so massive and turns so slow that you might want agility/mass reduction rigs and then see if you can't get another BCU II into your low slots for more DPS. The key with rigs is freeing up valuable slots for modules by filling holes that modules would have to cover normally. I like some of your suggestions. One problem is theres no way to fit HAMLs with a cap injector and a large SB, without fitting 2 more RCU II's or a couple PG rigs, which means no speed rigs. A faction MWD could cut down on cap enough to maybe remove the cap injector, and removing a BCU II for another istab would raise the speed even more. I'm just not sure its worthwhile to set the ship up as a mega nano ship, seems kind of boring to just speed tank everything but I guess it could work... 3 istabs, dom nano, gistii mwd (if theres a 10mn version), rack of HAML II, and then a few things in mids like cap recharger II, photon II, invuln field II, and a shield extender, no booster, and +15% mwd speed x 2 for rigs.
Taerenius Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:11:00 - [10] As an alternative thought, what about heavy missiles (not heavy assaults) which frees up a good 105pg. Not only that but at 6+km/s as a nano-cerb you could start spewing missiles on the trip to the ship you're trying to tackle and you'd probably end up hitting him with 60-70 missiles at once :D

Harlequinn Caldari Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.02.07 20:57:00 - [11] Edited by: Harlequinn on 07/02/2007 20:54:38 My setup that's similar to yours uses Heavy II's. I haven't set it up as a nanoship yet as I need at least a PDS II and a RC II to fit what I want and then 2 BCU II realy help a Cerb's Dps. A nano setup does really lend to a cerb's range though. With a cap injector you could use the T2 heavier ammo since you don't have to worry about cap recharge as much. What would a nano/istab cerb setup look like anyway? Lows? RCU II/istab/nano/BCU II Mids? MWD/Cap Injector/Disruptor/?/? Highs? 5 x Heavy Launcher II (or HAML II) I think I like the Heavy Launchers rather than HAMs. But the last two mids? Tank or EW? --Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.--


Pages: [1] :: 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.