EVE Search - Cerberus VS. Drake: Breakdown... Maybe the cerb needs some love?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Cerberus VS. Drake: Breakdown... Maybe the cerb needs some love?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shaitis Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.07 09:59:00 - [31] Edited by: Shaitis on 07/07/2008 09:59:09 Originally by: Celeritas 5k The Bottom Line: The drake can do everything the cerb can do, while tanking MUCH harder, and costing a third as much. (And it gets full insurance too!!) Is this working as intended? Try to travel 20 jumps in 0.0 and see which ship will get first. Try to lock other HAC, cerb will be always higher on KM that Drake cause before drake locks, cerb already shoot two volleys. And moar, before Drake warp on hostile target cerb will be already there pounding hits on it. "What is funnier ? 20 Matari slaves pinned to one tree or 1 Matari slave p
Celeritas 5k Caldari Initrode The Core Collective	Posted - 2008.07.07 10:11:00 - [32] If HACs are supposed to have a niche, what is the vaga's niche? What's the ishtar's niche? (I don't know much about the sacrelige, sorry) The Minnie and Gallente HACs are very versatile boats! Why should the caldari pilot be limited to dying while he hopes a nano pilot will screw up and let his speed get below 2km/s? Oh, and lol @ the guy that said a cerb only "really" costs 18 mil. - Always be Happy, Never be satisfied.
Gabriel Virtus	Posted - 2008.07.07 10:22:00 - [33] Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Gabriel Virtus Wait a second, a battlecruiser tanks better than a cruiser class?! OMG! Someone please do something! This sort of thinking is ridiculous. Apply it to any other ship when you jump class and surprise, it is the same thing. If anything, they need to nerf them both. Show me the amarr BC which tanks better than the Sacri? Uh, the prophecy. I think it is pretty obvious that most Battlecruisers tank better than most HACS. Most of them have bonuses to tank. This is the only point I am making. HACS are specialized, battlecruisers are larger ships. HACS are t2, Battlecruisers are not. HACS should be more expensive, Battlecruisers should have better tanks. This is the way the game is specifically set-up to be like as made obvious by the fact that is works across every race with BCs and HACS. Learn to read before turniing the flame on. -Gabriel
Saietor Blackgreen The First Foundation Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2008.07.07 11:13:00 - [34] Originally by: Celeritas 5k If HACs are supposed to have a niche, what is the vaga's niche? What's the ishtar's niche? (I don't know much about the sacrelige, sorry) The Minnie and Gallente HACs are very versatile boats! Why should the caldari pilot be limited to dying while he hopes a nano pilot will screw up and let his speed get below 2km/s? Vaga has a niche of fast hit-and-run cruiser, where it perfectly fits. Whats versatile about Vaga?! Practically, it has ONE working fit and only works in one narrow tactic. Ishtar has a niche of a mobile droneboat, that has to survive while it's drones do the job. I dont think it was intended to be speedtanked, but it can be. It may be an imbalance issue, but its definitely not a reason to change Cerberus. And Cerberus is not limited to dying while whaiting for nanoHAC to stop. Cerberus should work in gangs, blowing horror into ceptors, blackbirds an other not-so-big stuff. Just forget about 1v1 comparissons for chrissakes! SHIPS DONT HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WORK IN SOLO! --- Redesign local/scanner feature - make the place huge, dark and scary again!
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.07 12:02:00 - [35] Originally by: Achura Model Cerberus doesn't need to be a prize bolid to fly in nanogangs. Something between 2-2.5 km/s is enough. It just needs a good agility to decrease an align time. Cerber is great for annoying jammers, supporting co-gangers from a long distance, killing webbed nanoships or hitting orbiting ones, and much more. Neither Sacra, not Drake are able to do it... /signed The Cerb is faster and has more range than a Drake. That's pretty much it. All Tier II BCs practically out-damage, out-tank or both their similarly bonuses HASes. It's just that most of them are out-ranged and/or out-runned by HASes. The Cerb has quite some versatility: it can gank well, I can "nano" pretty effectively - tho not speed tank like a Zealot or an Ishtar. It does tho hit pretty hard, with faster than "Ogre" weapons, it can snipe falcons out to 200+ km (few ships can do that with that Dps) or go for a dmg fit with HAMs and spawn them out to 45km...that's further than a Zealot reaches, and effective dps is VERY good for it's size using both HML and HAM. Surely using HAM leaves few PG left, but EHPs are not that lower compared to a Zealot for example - unless you leave out your point for an LSE in it...still HAMs fit and work further than HP IIs. And AML fitted Cerbs fit perfectly in Nano-gangs killing anything fast enough to catch up... Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game!
Yaro	Posted - 2008.07.07 14:59:00 - [36] Originally by: Celeritas 5k If HACs are supposed to have a niche, what is the vaga's niche? What's the ishtar's niche? (I don't know much about the sacrelige, sorry) The Minnie and Gallente HACs are very versatile boats! Why should the caldari pilot be limited to dying while he hopes a nano pilot will screw up and let his speed get below 2km/s? Oh, and lol @ the guy that said a cerb only "really" costs 18 mil. Well I guess you dont have many clues about EVE, thats why you state such things ! First of all, you ask stupitd questions, then you are laughing at someone. P.S. The hacs were designed to cost around 18 millions. So technicaly this ship is cheaper then a BC. But the reason they cost so much, because of the stupid t2 BPO system.
Bad Borris 20th Legion Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.07.07 15:15:00 - [37] Edited by: Bad Borris on 07/07/2008 15:16:21 Cerb is a great ship IF you fit it how I think ccp intended. i.e. with an afterburner Anyway, you can fit an absolutely epic buffer tank and fire from a base lock range of about 90k. 5 heavy II's LSE II, Regolith LSE(fittings i think), Invul II, Invul II (or photon), AB II BCU BCU BCU RCU Epic fun missile spammage with hefty tank. Fitting an ab does suck but you do get tank and gank, albeit with no tackle. Having said that, the comparison between the sac and the cerb doesnt look pretty. Oh and fit field extender rigs for over 10k shields and really great resists.
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.07 16:06:00 - [38] Originally by: Yaro P.S. The hacs were designed to cost around 18 millions. So technicaly this ship is cheaper then a BC. But the reason they cost so much, because of the stupid t2 BPO system. They cost a lot because they were designed to, which you also pointed out. Don't quote insurance prices pretending like it's meaningful data. My favorite part was the skill remark. That made my day
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.07 16:46:00 - [39] Originally by: Yaro Originally by: Celeritas 5k If HACs are supposed to have a niche, what is the vaga's niche? What's the ishtar's niche? (I don't know much about the sacrelige, sorry) The Minnie and Gallente HACs are very versatile boats! Why should the caldari pilot be limited to dying while he hopes a nano pilot will screw up and let his speed get below 2km/s? Oh, and lol @ the guy that said a cerb only "really" costs 18 mil. Well I guess you dont have many clues about EVE, thats why you state such things ! First of all, you ask stupitd questions, then you are laughing at someone. P.S. The hacs were designed to cost around 18 millions. So technicaly this ship is cheaper then a BC. But the reason they cost so much, because of the stupid t2 BPO system. Durrr.... Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Originally by: Yaro P.S. The hacs were designed to cost around 18 millions. So technicaly this ship is cheaper then a BC. But the reason they cost so much, because of the stupid t2 BPO system. They cost a lot because they were designed to, which you also pointed out. Don't quote insurance prices pretending like it's meaningful data. This.
brinelan Caldari Victory Not Vengeance Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.07.07 17:27:00 - [40] Show me how the cerb costs 18m to make using jita prices for components. Dont forget cost of invention. I am pretty sure invent cost for the bpc alone is near 18 - 20 m (not looked at this one specifically, but other similar ships are in that range). A purcahsed Cerb BPO would take years to break even on... -------------------------- Some days you're the bug, some days you're the windshield

Yaro	Posted - 2008.07.07 18:23:00 - [41] Edited by: Yaro on 07/07/2008 18:23:56 Originally by: brinelan Show me how the cerb costs 18m to make using jita prices for components. Dont forget cost of invention. I am pretty sure invent cost for the bpc alone is near 18 - 20 m (not looked at this one specifically, but other similar ships are in that range). A purcahsed Cerb BPO would take years to break even on... this ship was designed to cost less then a BC. If you need explanation, I can explain it to. All t2 BPO were given to the players by CCP using lottery, this drove the cost of those BPO to the insane prices, and cerberus started to cost around 250 millions. Then CCP came up with the idea of invention, which still rises the price of the ship. But if you could buy t2 BPO at market prices (not contract and not player economy driven prices) then the cost of T2 ships would be much lower. So by saying this in my previous posts, the only thing that I want to say or explain to ppl, that it is incorrect to compare that 30+ millions drakes is better then 70 millions cerberus (in terms that it is better, because it cost less). You need to compare the ability of those ships. And in current nano age I think cerberus outperforms drake. if you dont understand what I wrote here, I am happy to explain this again, just ask !
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.07.07 20:28:00 - [42] Originally by: Yaro Edited by: Yaro on 07/07/2008 18:23:56 Originally by: brinelan Show me how the cerb costs 18m to make using jita prices for components. Dont forget cost of invention. I am pretty sure invent cost for the bpc alone is near 18 - 20 m (not looked at this one specifically, but other similar ships are in that range). A purcahsed Cerb BPO would take years to break even on... this ship was designed to cost less then a BC. If you need explanation, I can explain it to. All t2 BPO were given to the players by CCP using lottery, this drove the cost of those BPO to the insane prices, and cerberus started to cost around 250 millions. Then CCP came up with the idea of invention, which still rises the price of the ship. But if you could buy t2 BPO at market prices (not contract and not player economy driven prices) then the cost of T2 ships would be much lower. So by saying this in my previous posts, the only thing that I want to say or explain to ppl, that it is incorrect to compare that 30+ millions drakes is better then 70 millions cerberus (in terms that it is better, because it cost less). You need to compare the ability of those ships. And in current nano age I think cerberus outperforms drake. if you dont understand what I wrote here, I am happy to explain this again, just ask ! Ther cerberus indeed performs a better role in the nano age, but it's in the form of nano interdiction. One can generate 200 or so DPS from an Assault Missile Cerb - the only missile launcher that has any hope of doing more than giving a nano boat a light show. The cerb is smaller and more agile and has a longer range from any missile system compared to the Drake. The Drake is superior to the Cerb in more traditional PVP games of tank and spank because it quite honestly generates quite a bit more of both at a lower price point. But let's not pretend that price isn't a factor here - the staggering 15 million ISK price tag on Assault Ships is what continues to ensure they are poorly regarded. No one can argue with any merit that the assault ship isn't supeior to it's T1 counterpart - it just isn't 60x superior. HAC's may not be 30x superior to their counterparts but they sure as hell are unquestionably more effective than their low tech cousins and generally sport substantially improved survivability (I've lost a single HAC in my time playing, I've lost at least a dozen drakes and battleships in PVP. . . But I like exploding and I chose a name with a D as a starting character which means I get primaried early)
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.07.07 20:30:00 - [43] Originally by: Damned Force Edited by: Damned Force on 07/07/2008 08:43:33 Originally by: dojocan81 if ccp replace the 6th high slot to mid, the cerb will be fine Or to Low Or fix AF's aor give PG to NH, or fix citadel torps or fix pilgrim, fix precision heavys, fix hams or or or Pity never would happend because they want just more new players, and dont work on important things, just on new shiny shit! I don't know where I'd like that 6th slot to go. In my anti-nano fit I have room for SOMETHING but a medium smartbomb is pretty much as big of a waste as an empty slot. I could always use a mid for another hardner/lse (or maybe some tackle gear) or an extra low could boost my pitiful 1400 m/s MWD speed (thanks to the terrible precision missile penalty) just a wee bit more.
Caldari cheese	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:00:00 - [44] Blueprints are not the only things that drive up the price. Rare moon materials in only a few hands do the same. For some reason CCP's menthality is racist. We'll give this race one type of bonus and not the other. Why should half of my ships be ECM oriented if I'm Caldari ? or why should I be without cap all of the time if i'm Ammarr.. etc.. Why not mix and match ? my 5 cents
Celeritas 5k Caldari Initrode The Core Collective	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:05:00 - [45] Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen Vaga has a niche of fast hit-and-run cruiser, where it perfectly fits. Whats versatile about Vaga?! Practically, it has ONE working fit and only works in one narrow tactic. Ishtar has a niche of a mobile droneboat, that has to survive while it's drones do the job. I dont think it was intended to be speedtanked, but it can be. It may be an imbalance issue, but its definitely not a reason to change Cerberus. And Cerberus is not limited to dying while whaiting for nanoHAC to stop. Cerberus should work in gangs, blowing horror into ceptors, blackbirds an other not-so-big stuff. Just forget about 1v1 comparissons for chrissakes! SHIPS DONT HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WORK IN SOLO! These are methods, not Niches. The vaga being a fast hit and run cruiser gives it the ability to engage most any subcapital ship and have a shot at coming out on top, while making itself very difficult to shoot and even more difficult to lock down. The ishtar works roughly the same way; except that it has the bonus of being able to field its full dps regarldess of what range and speed it chooses to orbit at. (I've never seen an ishtar that wasn't nanoed.) The cerb is currently a missile spewing boat that can give any frig, destro, or cruiser that's going below 2km/s a bad day. When was the last time you saw one of those hulls going that slow in a fight? also consider that the cerb can't pull off the invinci-nano tank that the vaga and ishtar can, and that it doesn't have a very good traditional tank to compensate. These are disadvantages in any situation, solo or not. Maybe a boost to PG... Give me room to put a neut in that last high slot, and some better tanking mods without having to use fitting mods in the lows... - Always be Happy, Never be satisfied.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:06:00 - [46] Originally by: Caldari cheese Blueprints are not the only things that drive up the price. Rare moon materials in only a few hands do the same. For some reason CCP's menthality is racist. We'll give this race one type of bonus and not the other. Why should half of my ships be ECM oriented if I'm Caldari ? or why should I be without cap all of the time if i'm Ammarr.. etc.. Why not mix and match ? my 5 cents They do it to give the races a personality other than their background information and graphics. It's like when you see a Matar BS, you wouldn't expect it to be firing lasers ... * looks at Astro*... ok, bad example. Trojanman's brought up the idea of mixing and matching, and I think it'd be pretty cool myself, but it's probably a bit late in the game development to completely redesign how every race's ships work.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:21:00 - [47] Originally by: Caldari cheese For some reason CCP's menthality is racist. We'll give this race one type of bonus and not the other. Why should half of my ships be ECM oriented if I'm Caldari ? or why should I be without cap all of the time if i'm Ammarr.. etc.. Why not mix and match ? my 5 cents Homoginization may perhaps be the quickest route to game balance but's its the surest route to the death of an MMO. ANY MMO ever designed has a single purpose - to keep you paying month after month. Imagine if WOW suddenly redesigned every class so that they essentially were magic rogues - once you play one character you've played all the characters. People keep playing Eve because of the choices it presents. The game doesn't ever force you to do anything and you're mostly free to do as you wish so long as you can get away with it. PVP is a prime example - there are many flavors and ideas and methods but it is the very heart of this game. By homoginizing the various factions so that they were all fairly similar you would achieve balance - but you remove choice. Afterall, a choice between 4 things that are essentily the same is no choice at all.
Bad Borris 20th Legion Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:21:00 - [48] Edited by: Bad Borris on 07/07/2008 21:21:12 Originally by: Derek Sigres HAC's may not be 30x superior to their counterparts but they sure as hell are unquestionably more effective than their low tech cousins and generally sport substantially improved survivability Hacs are good if everyone in the gang is using them. If you have a whole gang of hacs/tech II ships and meet a gang of mixed hacs and tech I shite then you dont really see their potential. <3 tri.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:33:00 - [49] Originally by: Bad Borris Edited by: Bad Borris on 07/07/2008 21:21:12 Originally by: Derek Sigres HAC's may not be 30x superior to their counterparts but they sure as hell are unquestionably more effective than their low tech cousins and generally sport substantially improved survivability Hacs are good if everyone in the gang is using them. If you have a whole gang of hacs/tech II ships and meet a gang of mixed hacs and tech I shite then you dont really see their potential. <3 tri. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE my Cerberus in spite of it's glaring flaws (most of which are due to my inability to deliver DPS to other HAC's with medium class missiles). Flying a HAC is a different game than flying in a BC or BS - it's much more of a "seat of the pants make it up as you go" style of game. Battlecruisers give me the time to consider options while pumping out damage, but stopping to think in a HAC gets you killed incredibly fast (especially given my Cerb is usually a nano-interdiction boat and I'm trying like hell to keep the bulk of the enemies and drones away from my 1.3k/s active tanked wreck waiting to happen). My Cerb was a milestone for me - it took me almost two years to finally get enough SP to justify climbing into one but it's the first one of those ships I saw in my opening days that I really wanted to fly.
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.07 21:55:00 - [50] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 07/07/2008 21:56:42 Originally by: Yaro this ship was designed to cost less then a BC. If you need explanation, I can explain it to. All t2 BPO were given to the players by CCP using lottery, this drove the cost of those BPO to the insane prices, and cerberus started to cost around 250 millions. Then CCP came up with the idea of invention, which still rises the price of the ship. But if you could buy t2 BPO at market prices (not contract and not player economy driven prices) then the cost of T2 ships would be much lower. Uh? Invention, rare BPOs, and moon mining are all set in place to make the ships cost isk to make. Even if I had a free BPO, it would still cost much more than 18m to produce. (Edit: I was trying to point out that CCP specifically made it so it would cost more than a BC by making them difficult to make: therefor, not indented to be cheaper than a BC. Something tells me you would have missed this point entirely.) How can invention raise the price of a ship when the price fell rapidly when invention was released? My favorite part was the skill remark. That made my day

Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.07 22:05:00 - [51] Quote: How can invention raise the price of a ship when the price fell rapidly when invention was released? I was with ya til the end. Invention lowered the price because it introduced competition into the market. It's still cheaper for BPO makers to produce the ship than it is for someone to invent the ship. However, the market price is now in the invention pricing range (although it sometimes drops below because some inventors fail at math ), and the BPO holders just make extra profit on their produced items.
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2008.07.07 22:19:00 - [52] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 07/07/2008 22:19:58 Originally by: Boz Well Quote: How can invention raise the price of a ship when the price fell rapidly when invention was released? I was with ya til the end. Invention lowered the price because it introduced competition into the market. It's still cheaper for BPO makers to produce the ship than it is for someone to invent the ship. However, the market price is now in the invention pricing range (although it sometimes drops below because some inventors fail at math ), and the BPO holders just make extra profit on their produced items. I understand, but if invention was never released, hacs would be much more expensive than now simply due to a lack of competition, as you pointed out. That was kind of my point, hence my face at the end My favorite part was the skill remark. That made my day
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra Shinra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.07 22:43:00 - [53] I really think Cerberus should get 5% Damage for all Heavy Missiles per level.. like the Sacrilege gets 5% for all Heavy Assault Missiles.. I also think the flight time bonus on the Cerberus is kinda crap.. I don't know what to really swap it out with but that bonus just sucks. ------ I'll make a sig later.
Haradgrim Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.07.07 23:02:00 - [54] Edited by: Haradgrim on 07/07/2008 23:03:31 I'll put it this way: NANO DRAKE FTW!! /thread edit: my forum-fu was weak -- Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
Caffeine Junkie 2 Guys In Motherships	Posted - 2008.07.08 01:44:00 - [55] It would be very nice to see the Cerb fill a specific role, particular if it involves a serious bonus to both missile and explosion velocity and therefore making it as much of a threat to a nano-ship as a Rapier / Huginn. Nothing special, not big or clever, just 20 fighters and one hell of a tank....
Caffeine Junkie 2 Guys In Motherships	Posted - 2008.07.08 01:46:00 - [56] Originally by: Haradgrim Edited by: Haradgrim on 07/07/2008 23:03:31 I'll put it this way: NANO DRAKE FTW!! /thread edit: my forum-fu was weak Don't knock it until you've tried it, i've lost count of the number of vagabonds i've killed because they've come in close to what they assume is a passive drake to find out its nano-fitted with dual webs. As if that wasn't sweet enough the drake gets a bonus to ..... Kinetic damage and the vagabond is weakest to....wait for it.....Kinetic Damage! Nothing special, not big or clever, just 20 fighters and one hell of a tank....
BiggestT Caldari Fun Inc	Posted - 2008.07.08 05:38:00 - [57] /signed the cerbs "sniper" niche is easily outdone by the eagle, which hits instantly and can hit way further out then cerb. The cerbs "ham" niche is a joke, ham fitts are fail. It cant mwd well, its beaten by the sac in any short range engagement. The drake can get better dps when in range, and tank much nicer. So why fly a cerb? simply because its a hac and its not excactly bad, its just outdone in every way possible by other ships, plus most ppl are cal pilots giving a bias towards cal ships. boost the damn thing poudly annoying fc's since 2007
Jim Raynor Caldari Shinra Shinra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.08 09:49:00 - [58] Edited by: Jim Raynor on 08/07/2008 09:49:27 Originally by: BiggestT /signed the cerbs "sniper" niche is easily outdone by the eagle, which hits instantly and can hit way further out then cerb. The cerbs "ham" niche is a joke, ham fitts are fail. It cant mwd well, its beaten by the sac in any short range engagement. The drake can get better dps when in range, and tank much nicer. So why fly a cerb? simply because its a hac and its not excactly bad, its just outdone in every way possible by other ships, plus most ppl are cal pilots giving a bias towards cal ships. boost the damn thing I still fail to understand why HAM were suddenly transformed into a Sacrilege-Only weapon, did the Khanid Kingdom ivent them or something? They appear to only fit on Amarr ships, the Nighthawk and Cerberus can't join the HAM club too? I really really wanted a HAM launcher I really felt like it would make the Cerberus a much more well rounded HAC since it's always been lacking at the short range engagement and before HAMs had no real way to fit for short range.. so finally CCP listened and gave us a short range cruiser launcher..... only the irony is Caldari ships don't have enough powergrid to use them and a MWD, jokes on us! ------ I'll make a sig later.
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.07.08 10:09:00 - [59] The comparison between Cerberus and Eagle is kinda interesting. Consider the following fits: 5x 250 II MWD, 2x sensor booster II, 2x TC II (optimal) RCU II, 3x MFS II Locus rig, ACR (or a 3% grid implant) Locks to 213 km, does 135 DPS with CN Iron at 194 km optimal. 5x HML II MWD, 2x sensor booster II, 2x something DC, 3x BCS II 2x missile speed rigs Locks to 243 km, does 394 DPS with CN Scourge at 246 km with 22.5 second flight time. Now, obviously the instant damage of the Eagle is a great advantage, and the missiles are rubbish at damaging small fast stuff. But if you're both shooting a large, slow target at 190 km, then the Cerberus is outdamaging the Eagle just 26 seconds after you both open fire, taking missile flight time into account. And the Cerb has more range to play with. This suggests that the Eagle's best role is killing interceptors, whereas the Cerberus is a more generic small-gang DPS-support ship. But I think we all knew this already.
Giovann FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.08 10:40:00 - [60] The best ham fit i can come up with, is this, though i havent tried it. With max skills, 3x BCU2 1x RCU2 1x LSE2 1x 10m MWD 2 1x Warp Disruptor 2 1x Invulnerability field 2 its 0.5 cpu short of another t2 invun field here, could fit a t1 one here/named 5x HAM2 2x Anti-Em rigs (very cheap) This gives you 30k effective hp, Resistances 60/89/83/72 With caldari navy ammo, 494 dps, at 45.6 range. Its not amazing, but it is possible to fit hams on a cerb.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.