My point is even IF we had chunky end game enemies, HAG would still be a bad choice purely because of damage per shot with that flux costs. And I don't think tournaments are very representative of the real game, I followed most of them and strats that are broken there would just be mediocre in campaign.
The math doesn't really bear that out - see below.
The closest thing we have to chunky endgame enemies is large derelict bounties with Rampart spam. I sincerely hope none of you bring Hephaestus there.
It depends whether the "chunk" is from extremely heavy armor or extremely heavy hull - and currently Ramparts have very heavy hull with only moderately high armor. As I showed in the previous posts:
Hellbore is way more efficient than LAG at anti-armor, but HAG does more DPS at most reasonable armor ranges. Accuracy is an issue for both guns, but the hellbore's single shot will crack the armor all around where it hits (its a great can opener).
HAG does much more DPS vs bare hull than the Hellbore at moderately reduced efficiency. With 1000 base armor, 50 residual, HAG is operating at .83 d/f, 397 dps, while the hellbore is at .97 d/f, 242 dps. So while the Hellbore is still more efficient, there is a significant DPS gap.
HAG is better vs armor than Mjolnir except for accuracy: DPS by a small amount and efficiency by a lot (like 60% more efficient).
HAG has worse DPS than the mjolnir vs stripped hull, about 85% of it vs 1000 base armor converted into 50 residual, but better efficiency (~18% better or so at the same, eyeballing it).
So for dealing with huge chunks of hull covered in moderately heavy armor, the HAG seems like an ok tool. It sits in the middle ground between the other options: worse at cracking the armor than the Hellbore, but the DPS roughly keep up, and superior to the Mjolnir. Vs Hull it is less flux efficient than the Hellbore but a lot more DPS; more efficient than the mjolnir, but moderately less DPS.
Explain why is it cheap/efficient, I just don't see it. And Hellbore comparisons aside, look at the Devastator. Different role but it's so much better at actually doing the HE job. Before the "but it misses half of the shots" argument, don't forget it has 0.5 flux efficiency. You get a weapon that completely shuts down fighters and frigates around you as a bonus (AOE is huge), while HAG can even struggle to hit some frigates.
Is it the worst weapon in the game? Certainly not. But it doesn't deserve to be in such place (it sounds so good).
I haven't found in testing the devastator to be an effective anti-armor or anti-hull weapon outside of SO builds that compress the firing arc and have reckless personality to fly to ultra close range (in those situations its pretty good!). Its good for splashing around frigates yes, and is great at clearing out fighter wings, but in terms of dealing damage to enemy ships it consistently fails.
i really want Hephag to be useful... goddamnit... and i just don't see why people say it is rn. You know what's a better anti-armor and anti hull weapon? A high intensety laser. slightly more dps and flux but 500 hit strenght vs armor compared to the 240 of the hephag. And it costs the same OP. And doesn't have to deal with recoil and such. And it has 100 more range. Yes, it doesn't deal hardflux to shields, but why would you use hephag on shields, it'S not even remotely flux efficient. I really like the "doubled damage, halved firerate" sugesstion from SafariJohn, and if that's too strong then you could still look for something between that and the current version that is balanced
Absolutely! HILs are incredible anti-armor weapons and better anti-hull than the large ballistics too, only really losing to the plasma cannon in that role. Pinpoint accurate, good beam extend speed, and Sunders can mount them to give destroyer squads heavy anti armor ability. Soft flux vs shields so even more useless than HAGs in that role, but they are a specialist tool so its ok.
But they are a large energy mount, not a large ballistic mount, so its not a 1-1 comparison: If I could mount a HIL on an Onslaught I absolutely would, but I can't. In general energy has really good anti-hull and anti-armor abilities across all its mount sizes, but poor anti-shield, and combining large energy + and kind of long ranged ballistics is a very potent combo.