Ships & Modules

You are correct. When I was making the comparative statements about align times, I was speaking about the particular fits I was using. Hull tanks will, all things being equal, have better align times than buffer armor tanks and similar align times to shield tanks. But, in my case, all things weren't equal as I was using a polycarb rig on my shield tanks, which is why I spelled it out as such.

Also...a hull tanked Moros? I can see how it would work...but frack me the repair bill!


I don't fit polycarbs on my hull tanked ships. I flew them on my shield tanked ships. To date, my hull tanked ships have been, as you say, all-or-nothing in terms of tank*. All three rig slots as transverse bulkheads (T2 once I realized how relatively inexpensive they were), DC (obviously), and as many low slots dedicated to reinforced bulkheads as reasonable. I think I spelled this out pretty clearly in the fits I posted later, and I apologize if my message came across otherwise. In fact, my VNI, who's winning streak just ended, was fully T2-rigged. A reasonable expense considering now inexpensive the hull was compared to HACs.


I admittedly haven't played around much with hull tanking ships smaller than cruisers, but I do very clearly indicate the penalty to cargo space as a motivation for me fitting them in the first place. Who needs cargo on a combat ship, amirite?


Here I'm going to part ways with you as a matter of personal preference. If your goal was maximum EHP above all else, yes, I could see that working. Armor resists on ships with naturally high armor amounts plus a ridiculous amount of structure would make an impressive tank. For a bait ship in particular, where the allure of hitting structure keeps targets engaged, that would be great. But to me, flying solo and not just as bait, one of the joys of a hull tank is that it frees up slots for damage mods. I prefer to fly a balanced gank/tank ship. But, again, this is personal preference and what role you're flying, not gospel.

Thanks for the input.

Also, one last thing, and I hate to do this, but I'd appreciate it if you refrain from referring to hull tanking as "man tanking", at least in my thread. It doesn't make you more of a man, and women can do it too. No need to foster notions of sexism or inferiority here. Thanks.


*One exception to this is a Celestis fit I've been playing with. It uses one rig slot for a damp strength rig, but it makes up for it by using multiple reinforced bulkheads in the lows. It still gets an impressive buffer with good mobility, and it's got strong damps.

I fly hull tanked frigates ALOT (Tristans, Comets, Atrons and Enyos) and these ships spend most of their lives in deep hull and so far I've never had a situation where I burned out a module because of hull damage. This is quite something since I overheat alot in frigate fights (most fights end in all active modules with like >50% heat damage).

So my conclusion is that it is possible but it's not a huge problem. However this be different for larger hulls since I've only flown a hull tank Brutix once and I got straight ganked so I couldn't test to see if the module damage in structure poses a big problem in larger hulls.

I know it's not new, but it's "new to me" and I think that enough people think that it's not a thing at all that it deserved a thread about it.


I just noticed those. I wonder where the price on them will settle? I imagine the ORE ones being popular on Orcas and Bowheads in particular (no surprise there).

I don't see the T2 bulkheads listed, so I'm guessing that means they'll be staying the same? Interesting that CCP is playing around some with the cargo cargo in inertia penalties. I like it.