Cross-Chassis - Aurora LN to Hornet Upgrade

[Renaissance Yann]

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Cross-Chassis-Upgrades/Aurora-LN-To-Hornet-Upgrade

 

60 Euros / 75 Dollars

 

Does anyone think it is worth it?

 

How long do you think one would have to play for to be able to buy an F7-C?

 

Assumption and supposition permitted ;-)

[Payens]

I would say it is worth the extra money just because you support the game that we all love. Plus I enjoy every new ship in my hangar.

BUT if you can't afford it or don't want to pledge anymore (like many other backers too) stick to your old ship.

No one knows how long it'll take to earn a hornet ingame, my assumption is up to 3 weeks.

[Juntau]

I agree with @Payens, if you have the money to spend, SC is a worthy cause.

 

As far as the upgrade though, it really depends on you. Are you amped to play AC in a hornet (it's fun). Can you make money in the PU in a hornet? (probably not as much as an Aurora) Can you see yourself buying another ship before the launch of the PU?

 

You will need a "money maker" when the game launches, but AC is more fun in a Hornet or 325A (opinion). One of the tough choices in life.

[Reavern]

I would recommend to anyone and everyone interested in combat to upgrade from an Aurora to a Hornet.

 

It's difficult to estimate how long it would take playing in the PU with an Aurora LN to earn enough credits to buy a F7C, because we don't know the average payout for missions. What we do know is that CIG has discounted all ships in the Pledge Store by approx. 1/3rd their value in the PU. This is relative to the cost of buying UECs in Pledge Store; the exchange rate is $1 per 1,000 UECs. Currently in the Pledge Store, a F7C costs $110, which is the equivalent of 110,000 UECs. In the PU, the F7C will supposedly cost 300,000 UECs.

 

Purely guestimating, with a Aurora LN as a Starter Ship, I'd say it would take at least 20 hours of gameplay to earn 300,000 UECs. It could be less; but it'll probably take more time, because the player will need to refuel, repair, and probably rearm their ship, pay docking fees, insurance and possibly ship upgrades, supplies, and other equipment, etc. There are a lot of factors and even more unknowns at this point, but my guess is that it'll take most players about a month before they can upgrade their Aurora starter ship to a Hornet.

 

 

I admit that I haven't flown the Aurora LN in Arena Commander -- I used to own a Legionnaire, but it wasn't flyable until AC1.0, and CIG released the Mustang and variants at the same time, so I converted my LN to the Mustang Delta (like I planned to do) before I had a chance to test fly the Legionnaire.

 

However, I did test fly the Aurora MR Trainer prior to AC1.0, and I didn't like it. The Aurora is slow and under-powered; it can't keep its cannon charged for more than 5 seconds of continuous fire, and it takes a long time to recharge them to full power. IME it took several minutes of firing-&-recharging to grind down a single Vanduul Scav.  Not fun! The LN does have a more powerful OverDrive power plant, which should keep its cannons firing longer. However, the LN also has two more cannon mounts, and if you equip cannons in them the power suck will be even worse!

 

The cannon's are also fixed-forward, and the Aurora is sluggish to maneuver, making it difficult to aim -- so you'll miss more often, compounding the problem with the Aurora's weapon recharge rate.

 

 

Rather than continue harping on the Aurora, I'd much rather hype the F7C Hornet, because it's a far superior combat ship and it's much more enjoyable to fly and fight in Arena Commander. The Hornet might not be as fast or agile as a 300 series or M50, but it's a great all-round ship to fly. It's also the toughest ship in AC; its shields can take a lot of punishment -- a shielded Hornet can shrug off a Vanduul missile hit without suffering hull damage! -- and even after the shields collapse, the Hornet's hull can withstand numerous hits. IME the player will rarely "die" in a Hornet, because the Hornet rarely blows up like other ships. Instead, the Hornet will get shot to pieces -- losing its wings, tail, and main fuselage -- but its forward fuselage will remain intact, enabling the player to eject and survive after the Hornet is basically dead. The high survivability of the Hornet will be extremely important in the PU.

 

The Hornet's weapons are decent, although the F7C has been nerfed in comparison to the F7A Hornet Trainer that players were accustomed to prior to AC1.0. The Hornet's Gallenson ballistic gatling guns have been replaced with middling Behring M4A laser cannons, the ball turret and its laser repeaters have been replaced by a cargo box, and the two Class-1 hardpoints in the nose and the second Class-3 missile rack have been removed entirely. So the F7C base model isn't the offensive powerhouse that the F7A Trainer was, but it still can be with weapon upgrades. The Super Hornet is better than F7A Trainer IMO, because it includes a canard turret, instead of the fixed-forward Neutron nose guns.

 

After AC1.0 was released, I couldn't stand the Hornet's Behring M4A laser cannons, so I bought the Gallenson gatlings in the Voyager Direct Store immediately. I wouldn't say they're worth $32 for the pair (which is nearly the same price as an Aurora LN), but I wanted them, so I bought them. If players don't want to spend that kind of money on weapons then they can just wait for the PU and buy the weapons in-game using UECs. Even with the F7C's basic weapons, the Hornet greatly outclasses the Aurora LN.

 

IMHO I think the Hornet is absolutely worth the extra money to upgrade to from an Aurora LN. To some backers I realize it might seem like a lot of money (the equivalent of a full-priced retail game), but what you're paying for is a superior ship to start the PU with than an Aurora or Mustang starter ship. If money is an issue, you could set aside $10 per month and by the Summer you'd have enough for the LN to F7C CCU -- there's plenty of time until the PU Beta is released.

[Chimaera]

You could also CCU to a Mustang Delta before that goes away if you want a dogfighter-type that's something of a glass cannon. Another option to look at would be upgrading to a 325A if you want a "fighter" with a great target system and not really want to pay the price for a F7C. However, to echo what everyone else has been saying, if you want a combat-capable ship, the Hornet is gonna be one of the best dogfighters for you.

[Leeford]

Here is the rub. The F7C Hornet currently has the nose cannon removed (these most likely will be returned once fixed but they didnt say for sure, only that they were removed in the patch notes). It doesnt come with either the ball turret or the canard turret, and neither is available as a addon in the Voyager Direct Store. So you are left with only your wing mount for guns.   With all that said, you still might like it over the Aurora.  (note-with the wing mounts on the aurora bugged you could spend $8 on a pair of longswords for the wing)

 

The big question is if you plan on spending some money in the Voyager Direct Store. If the answer is YES. I would spend $36 bucks and get a pair of CF227 Panther Repeaters over the Mantis Gatlings. I have both and prefer the Panthers over the Mantis, at least for now until the armor system is fleshed out (Then I speculate the Mantis will be king)

 

Another thing you might consider is upgrading to the 3XX series.  I have a 315p that I added missles to ($12 for racks and $15 for missiles) and replace the tractor beam with a gun (another $10-$18 if you dont have spares from other ships)  Fr me this is a PU keeper. I will have basically a explorer 315p with it jump scanner and jump engine but loaded out like a 325a

 

Edited to add: Like Chimaera said, the Mustang Delta is an option too. Its a fun ship but a bit fragile.  Glass cannon for sure.  

[Tiogan]

@Reavern

 

I upgraded to a Mustang Beta...and I wanted to go till Delta...but no such option yet lol

[Chimaera]

Beta--->Gamma---->Delta. It isn't in the CCU but in the Upgrades section.

[Renaissance Yann]

Thank you all for the great feedback. Great to see the Imperium big boys mixing with us lowly recruits, Camaraderie definitely goes a long way for me Can't wait to enforce the 'Pax Imperium' in the PU with all of you guys and gals

 

I'd considered the Mustang Delta, but I agree with the glass cannon label. Hornet seems the better option, though I now wish I hadn't spunked my 24K UEC on upgrading my LN with two 11-series Broadswords

 

I'll probably save as Reavern suggested and go for the F7-C as I do need a money-maker (thanks Juntau). I suppose it also means I'll be able to contribute more to Imperium rather than just being Aurora Cannon fodder Considering the Hornet has the same cargo capacity as the LN, it seems the ideal choice money-aside...let me know if you agree

 

If anyone has a squadron with space I'd definitely be interested in joining, any suggestions for a 'soon-to-be Hornet owner' group wise?

[Tiogan]

@​Chimera

Thanks bro

Had to CL - Gamma - Delta

Hehe

[Leeford]

@Renaissance Yann Dont sweat the broadsword purchases. Weapons you buy in the VD store you get to keep for the PU and when they make the Canard Turret available (no word yet but a certainty in the PU) you will be able to mount them on the canard for some armor piercing ability. I say canard only because I think the max size for that particular turret is size 2 which matches the broadswords.

[Reavern]

@Renaissance Yann Dont sweat the broadsword purchases. Weapons you buy in the VD store you get to keep for the PU and when they make the Canard Turret available (no word yet but a certainty in the PU) you will be able to mount them on the canard for some armor piercing ability. I say canard only because I think the max size for that particular turret is size 2 which matches the broadswords.

 

Actually, Broadsword ballistic cannons are Size 3 (same as the Gallenson gatling gun, somehow), and the canard turret can only mount Size 1-2 weapons. The ball turret can mount Size 1-4 weapons, which means it can mount any cannon available in the VDS.

 

 

BTW, for anyone looking for a Size 2 ballistic cannon for the Hornet's canard turret, the Sawbuck is actually Size 2 in the Hangar, even though it says Size 1 in the VDS. The Sawbuck fires a triple-shot burst of 40mm bullets, which is extremely deadly. A pair of Sawbucks can kill a Vanduul Scav in one burst if most of the shots impact the Scythe's fuselage. I've been using dual Sawbucks on my Delta's turret, and they're the most effective cannons I've ever used!

[Chareon]

the second Class-3 missile rack have been removed entirely.

 

FYI - My understanding is that this is a bug and that the second missile rack will be added back in eventually.

[Reavern]

FYI - My understanding is that this is a bug and that the second missile rack will be added back in eventually.

 

Yes, I'm certain that will happen, eventually. My guess is that CIG removed the Hornet's second missile rack because they didn't want the Hornet to have such a major advantage in missile capacity now that the improved missiles have been added in AC1.0 -- especially since now you can queue up multiple missiles on a single target and fire them simultaneously. A Hornet with 8 missiles could spam enemy ships with 2-4 missiles at a time and have a better chance of defeating their countermeasures.

 

Although, that shouldn't be necessary because the Hornet is limited to Size 1 missiles, whereas most of the other ships (Aurora, 300 series, Avenger, Cutlass) can equip Size 2 or 3 missiles, which are more powerful. CIG obviously designed the ships' missile specs for proper balance, so it seems strange they abandoned that and nerfed the Hornet's missile capacity. They probably wanted to be over-cautious, which is why they made all ships have 4 missiles capacity.

 

 

BTW, I've bought 4 different types of missiles from the VDS and have been testing them. Honestly, there's no clear cut winner. The Marksman I FaF IR guided missiles equipped on the M50 and Avenger aren't any better or worse than the Dominator FF missiles equipped on the Hornet; the only difference is you don't have to wait for a target lock with the Hornet's default missiles. I've also tried to the Taskforce I TL EM guided missile with the Hornet; other than requiring target lock, I don't think it's appreciably better than the Dominator.

 

Perhaps the differences in the missiles will become evident in multiplayer, because in Vanduul Swarm, Scavs and Hunters are easy targets, whereas Alphas and Aces actually use countermeasures and are very good at evading missiles. Perhaps in multiplayer the different missile guidance systems will matter; for example, Flares are the default countermeasure and will fool Vanduul and Dominator heat-seeking missiles. However, the Taskforce is EM (electromagnetic) guided, which should mean that the target ship emits a stronger EM signature than it should increase the odds that the EM missile will hit it. So a Super Hornet should be easier to hit with a Taskforce missile than a Ghost. It's my understanding that neither flares nor chaff should make any difference in fooling an EM guided missile. The only thing that the player could do is cease firing any energy projection weapons (lasers and neutron guns) to reduce their EM output. Killing ship's engines doesn't seem to affect the ship's EM signature -- perhaps dialing down or shutting off the ship's power plant would work.

 

I haven't had much luck with multiplayer matchmaking, but once CIG returns from vacation and updates AC, I'm hoping I'll be good to go. I plan on testing the different missiles in MP.