# \[ARC\] Vigilant Tyrannos cruiser identified, Observatories further damaged **URL:** \ **Category:** Intergalactic Summit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2018, 8:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679 "2018-03-20T20:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Umbre\_Fallenstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/umbre_fallenstar/32/260859_2.png) [@Umbre\_Fallenstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Umbre_Fallenstar)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 11:09am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/21 "2018-03-21T11:09:37Z")
has it been confirmed that they attacked a capsuleer that NEVER shot a drifter? maybe it is not “unprovoked” as for capsuleers, maybe they just have a good memory for who attacked them… ---
**Author:** ![Corraidhin\_Farsaidh](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/corraidhin_farsaidh/32/10994_2.png) [@Corraidhin\_Farsaidh](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Corraidhin_Farsaidh)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 11:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/22 "2018-03-21T11:14:49Z")
Aren’t there Drifter standings? ---
**Author:** ![Octavia\_Daya](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/octavia_daya/32/68353_2.png) [@Octavia\_Daya](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Octavia_Daya)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 11:16am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/23 "2018-03-21T11:16:58Z")
You were faster, just wanted to ask if the Drifter maybe reacted on a negative standing towards the attacked Capsuleer. ---
**Author:** ![Umbre\_Fallenstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/umbre_fallenstar/32/260859_2.png) [@Umbre\_Fallenstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Umbre_Fallenstar)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 11:19am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/24 "2018-03-21T11:19:58Z")
that’s exactly my point. Maybe only those with a negative standing were attacked. ---
**Author:** ![Mizhara\_Del\_thul](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mizhara_del_thul/32/486150_2.png) [@Mizhara\_Del\_thul](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mizhara_Del_thul)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 11:21am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/25 "2018-03-21T11:21:53Z")
It’s indeed rather premature to claim ‘randomness’ simply because the pattern is currently not clear. There’s far too much impatience in play here. ---
**Author:** ![Umbre\_Fallenstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/umbre_fallenstar/32/260859_2.png) [@Umbre\_Fallenstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Umbre_Fallenstar)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 11:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/26 "2018-03-21T11:27:34Z")
It would be interesting actually, maybe the agressive behaviour of capsuleers may have influenced drifter’s one from a “NRDS” to a “NBS” policy toward capsuleers. Halas, we may never know… ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 1:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/27 "2018-03-21T13:03:44Z")
> [@Aradina\_Varren](#): > > their doomsday both does less damage and has the same tracking Again: do we have hard numbers on this? Did they _hit_ someone with it? > [@Umbre\_Fallenstar](#): > > a “NBS” policy toward capsuleers. Can we call this ‘NDSI’? ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 1:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/28 "2018-03-21T13:12:09Z")
> [@Julianus\_Soter](#): > > With incredibly enhanced maneuverability, far beyond that of similar capsuleer ships? Since I don’t see this in any of the reports we’ve got here: on what are you basing your claims of this ship’s maneuverability? It is, after all, a cruiser. We’ve got some pretty darn nimble ones, ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Kalaratiri](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kalaratiri/32/477189_2.png) [@Kalaratiri](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kalaratiri)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 1:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/29 "2018-03-21T13:16:35Z")
It’s fast, I’ll give him that, but not that fast. Cynabals, Phantasms, Lokis and Legions, even Stabbers can all match or even outpace it with fairly normal fits. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 1:21pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/30 "2018-03-21T13:21:14Z")
Based on the battleship, that’s about what I expected. Hell, I’m looking at a _Stabber_ fit right now that’ll do 6k, but has an align time under 3s once you kill the prop. ---
**Author:** ![Jandice\_Ymladris](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jandice_ymladris/32/225261_2.png) [@Jandice\_Ymladris](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jandice_Ymladris)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 2:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/31 "2018-03-21T14:48:07Z")
Regarding standings, my standings with the Drifters are positive (even with the Concord correction removed). They still fired at me. ---
**Author:** ![Aria\_Jenneth](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aria_jenneth/32/469792_2.png) [@Aria\_Jenneth](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aria_Jenneth)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 3:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/32 "2018-03-21T15:05:48Z")
I wonder if they might be more aggessive because they’re more expendable? Also, do they call for help the way the Lancers do? The ones we encountered near the Observatory last night engaged on the spot, without waiting for us to move closer; if I’m not mistaken the Drifter battleships, Cassandras, and Lancers all engaged at the same time. Did they always mind observers so much? They didn’t, did they-- it was just people who approached, right? ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 3:08pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/33 "2018-03-21T15:08:04Z")
My assumption is that we’d already appeared on their threat register last night. As to the rest, testing and doctrine development is on-going. ---
**Author:** ![Valerie\_Valate](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/valerie_valate/32/386231_2.png) [@Valerie\_Valate](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Valerie_Valate)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/34 "2018-03-21T15:23:53Z")
Doomed, Doomed, thrice doomed. _thrice._ There, someone had to say that new Eden is dooooooomed. Now we can concentrate on the wild speculation about What This Means. ---
**Author:** ![Aria\_Jenneth](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aria_jenneth/32/469792_2.png) [@Aria\_Jenneth](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aria_Jenneth)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/35 "2018-03-21T15:26:06Z")
Oh … yeah. That seems likely, considering we actively tried and succeeded earlier in drawing their attention by hitting that Lancer patrol. I guess they were still looking for us hours later. I guess what I’m wondering is, supposing someone else showed up at that observatory and got attacked (because: apparently more-hostile Drifters). Would the battleships and Lancers have joined in? ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/37 "2018-03-21T17:50:53Z")
Additional combat testing has been performed. We’ve established the following about the Vigilant Tyrannos cruiser piloted by clones call-signed Cassandra Tyrannos. The Cassandra Tyrannos cruiser appears mixed with Autothysian Lancers as part of reinforcement groups, corseting Lancer patrols in both non-wormhole systems and wormhole systems. Lancer reinforcement groups are now to be expected to contain two or three Cassandra Tyrannos ships. The Doomsday weapon has now been tested against a fairly standard brick, and we’ve determined that it is _not_ an omni-damage weapon in the same pattern as prior Drifter weaponry. Instead, at present it appears to fire preferentially in the EM and kinetic damage profiles, with smaller amounts of damage registering as explosive or thermal. The damage standardizes to approximately 42,000 units. The exact output of the standard weapons is still being refined, but is approximately 700 standard units/second. Capacitor warfare is negligible, at about 30Gj/10s. Needless to say, the ship _is_ capable, but in the quantities we’ve seen them are perfectly manageable for the prepared capsuleer. ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/38 "2018-03-21T17:55:10Z")
Additionally; Arrendis, Lancers are active even without a visible uiWH in system. To that end, harvesting is on-going. We remain uncertain if the Lancers cache salvage in a deadspace pocket to be removed at a later time, or if they evacuate materials via micro- or brief-duration wormholes. The latter _is_ an option, given the apparently untraceable transit of Arithmos battleships to C5 and C6 systems when Sleeper infrastructure is attacked. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/39 "2018-03-21T18:14:46Z")
42k? And this is again synchronized to the loss of the overshields? Also, re: Lancer activity—even if Lancer activity has gone on undetected (which is possible, but questionable), the simultaneous decay in precisely the same ways would be almost impossible to put as the direct result of that activity. The same parts would have had to have been removed or exposed from every Observatory in New Eden at the same time. Otherwise, wear and tear patterns would immediately begin to differentiate. As a result, the continued breakdown of the structures along uniform lines still indicates common environmental and structural causes, not external activity. ---
**Author:** ![Julianus\_Soter](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/julianus_soter/32/387707_2.png) [@Julianus\_Soter](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Julianus_Soter)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/40 "2018-03-21T18:31:47Z")
I’ve conducted my own analysis on the doomsday, and it is approximately around the same value. My primary concern, as stated before, isn’t small squads of these units, but fifty. They can be mass produced ad infinitum. With a more compact and productionized doomsday device, they probably are an order of magnitude or less cheaper than the original Drifter Battleship. ---
**Author:** ![Morgana\_Tsukiyo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/morgana_tsukiyo/32/385507_2.png) [@Morgana\_Tsukiyo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Morgana_Tsukiyo)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679/41 "2018-03-21T18:34:57Z")
> [@Julianus\_Soter](#): > > I’ve conducted my own analysis on the doomsday, and it is approximately around the same value. > > My primary concern, as stated before, isn’t small squads of these units, but fifty. They can be mass produced ad infinitum. With a more compact and productionized doomsday device, they probably are an order of magnitude or less cheaper than the original Drifter Battleship. That applies if one presumes their bottleneck is hardware. Could very well be that their problem is lack of wetware to interact with abundant hardware. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/arc-vigilant-tyrannos-cruiser-identified-observatories-further-damaged/64679.md?page=3)