EVE Search - Why the love of HACs?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why the love of HACs?

» 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)
Darthewok Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.17 09:23:00 - [31] Originally by: Aluin Chaput Serious replies please. What do the big guys use to take down other alliance's defenses? this is the thing. in EVE there are 2 broad divisions of battles. 1) battles over strategic points and structures where ships fight to the bitter end because there is something at stake. Short of Caps, BS is king for this (according to conventional tactics anyway) due to highest DPS, tank, range if fit. 2) roaming fights where people fight if the odds are good and run if they are not. people are perfectly willing to take and abandon positions as is convenient as there is nothing at stake. to maneuver, you need mobile ships so usually no BS. HAC is king for this as they are the best at picking fights and running if the fights go against them. In other words, static positional fight where neither side will run but go for a showdown, BS Running around a bunch of systems trying to catch the other side off guard or at a disadvantage, HAC To my meagre understanding anyway, DE
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.08.17 09:41:00 - [32] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 17/08/2009 09:42:06 Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Webs, imo, took a huge hit. And they needed it more than anything else. I remember the days when BSs would tear cruisers and even frigates to shreds at close range, good thing that is over. This coming from someone who flies minmatar recons 50% of his gametime.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.17 10:26:00 - [33] Originally by: SquadBroken Edited by: SquadBroken on 17/08/2009 03:23:41 Speed, mobility, versatility. People are going to give you very long answers but ultimately it boils down to those three. You forgot range, but basically, yeah.
Aluin Chaput Caldari Mort's Navy	Posted - 2009.08.17 10:49:00 - [34] Originally by: Darthewok Originally by: Aluin Chaput Serious replies please. What do the big guys use to take down other alliance's defenses? this is the thing. in EVE there are 2 broad divisions of battles. 1) battles over strategic points and structures where ships fight to the bitter end because there is something at stake. Short of Caps, BS is king for this (according to conventional tactics anyway) due to highest DPS, tank, range if fit. 2) roaming fights where people fight if the odds are good and run if they are not. people are perfectly willing to take and abandon positions as is convenient as there is nothing at stake. to maneuver, you need mobile ships so usually no BS. HAC is king for this as they are the best at picking fights and running if the fights go against them. In other words, static positional fight where neither side will run but go for a showdown, BS Running around a bunch of systems trying to catch the other side off guard or at a disadvantage, HAC To my meagre understanding anyway, DE So BSs = what is needed for gatecamp takeover on a serious level?
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.08.17 11:07:00 - [35] Originally by: Aluin Chaput So BSs = what is needed for gatecamp takeover on a serious level? Usually yes. Or you can always try to hotdrop few dozen capitals on em if the system is not cyno jammed. Altho most fun fights happen if there is more or less equal sides and they dance around the gate trying to get the edge. On serious level people are not after fun unfortunately, they do (or try to do) what is needed to be done to win.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2009.08.17 11:23:00 - [36] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/08/2009 11:23:59 Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 17/08/2009 09:42:06 Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Webs, imo, took a huge hit. And they needed it more than anything else. I remember the days when BSs would tear cruisers and even frigates to shreds at close range, good thing that is over. This coming from someone who flies minmatar recons 50% of his gametime. Sure, it was needed to a extent (although: BS hitting frigs at close range? Yeah, if the frig has 2-3 webs on it with MWD on and the BS is not moving.), but it's way overdone. Now you've got problems with equal size ship classes and short optimals on many guns, and you need another midslot, minimum, to keep something at close range (eg, blaster/AC optimal). Nerfing modules 400% at a time is way too much, particularly when you add other mods to counter. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.17 11:41:00 - [37] You cannot bust through a system gate that is camped by a formidable force without formidable tank to compensate. That's why only tanky BSs or BCs and/or RR blobs can cope with the first few seconds of focused dps in order to turn the tide, assuming that the enemy gate camp is not a handful of T1 lol-ships and AFs/Ceptors. HACs where the combo kings of mobility, range and buffer. Actual DPS is irrelevant when you completely speed tank or range tank your enemy. Since the nano-nerf, the mobility advantages are not as profound as they used to be over non-plated BCs etc, while DPS and tank is usually inferior. Range is the only real advantage nowadays, thus apart from a few exceptions (like the Vagabond and in some cases the Ishtar, ships that retain some niche roles) non-sniping/long range HACs are neglected. Also T2 ships in general cost like 2 times what they did a year ago, and the whole deal doesn't add up for small-time crooks. Experienced pilots lead by good FCs can still take advantage of HACs, but without real nano advantages, most pilots are unable to solo/small gang roam un-touched with them. Does that mean HACs should not be loved? Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game!
Darthewok Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.17 13:51:00 - [38] Originally by: Aluin Chaput So BSs = what is needed for gatecamp takeover on a serious level? As the posters above have said, yes. By serious level I am assuming you mean its a do or die fight where the defenders bring out their toughest ships, which are usually BS, even Caps if its serious serious. If its a semi-serious gate camp by a roaming gang of HACs or BCs mainly for fun, HACs/BCs will do.
Salpad Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.08.17 13:58:00 - [39] The introduction of sized rigs will almost certainly make HACs more popular, right? -- Salpad C.E.O., Carebears with Attitude (CBWA)
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.08.17 14:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Salpad The introduction of sized rigs will almost certainly make HACs more popular, right? Only marginally, surely? Everyone rigs HACs already, so all it does is slightly reduce their cost.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.08.17 14:55:00 - [41] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Salpad The introduction of sized rigs will almost certainly make HACs more popular, right? Only marginally, surely? Everyone rigs HACs already, so all it does is slightly reduce their cost. but now people will not care so much on using the most expensive rigs... for example.. trimarks on hacs were very very rare because they were so expensive that were limtied to battleships. Now if you want to dual trimark your sacriledge.. you won't need to put 50% extra cost on the ship.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.08.17 15:17:00 - [42] Originally by: Seishi Maru but now people will not care so much on using the most expensive rigs... for example.. trimarks on hacs were very very rare because they were so expensive that were limtied to battleships. Now if you want to dual trimark your sacriledge.. you won't need to put 50% extra cost on the ship. This makes no sense on any level. Trimarks are rare on HACs not because of their cost, but because they're a bloody stupid rig to fit on a HAC. Stating that HACs aren't trimarked because of cost, whereas BS are, is complete nonsense considering the costs after insurance of BS and HACs and the fact that BS would take three trimarks relative to the two on HACs.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.08.17 15:36:00 - [43] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Seishi Maru but now people will not care so much on using the most expensive rigs... for example.. trimarks on hacs were very very rare because they were so expensive that were limtied to battleships. Now if you want to dual trimark your sacriledge.. you won't need to put 50% extra cost on the ship. This makes no sense on any level. Trimarks are rare on HACs not because of their cost, but because they're a bloody stupid rig to fit on a HAC. Stating that HACs aren't trimarked because of cost, whereas BS are, is complete nonsense considering the costs after insurance of BS and HACs and the fact that BS would take three trimarks relative to the two on HACs. It makes completely sense. If you know what cost really means. Cost is not an absolute value is the cross product of how much you pay for them for how much they give you on chance of not loosing isk (as the ship) or gettign more isk by killign stuff. THey would be very useful on a lot of hacs, but not enough to cover their price. Simple example is sacriledge. On battleships the cost of the rigs is lower because rigs can make HUGE difference on survivability of battleships. So on the long run if you rig your battleship you gonna loose less isk. On hacs that is not so much important because hacs usually fight exactly looking for scenarios where they can always escape. I am yet to loose 1 HAC or recon this year.. whiel BSs are much more likely to blow weekly. Sided with that, 90% of my isk risked is in my implants, And BS usually die in situations that is much more likely you gonna loose your implants (in big balls of lag and bubbles, while hacs in big fights usually persih at the peripheric area of the combat. That is main reason I am much more worried to die in a battleship. I simply do not fit rigs on HACs at all except cheap weapon rigs because their cost is not good. With that I mean, My hac will survive likely without rigs.. so why to spend that much on it?
Xiaodown Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2009.08.17 15:50:00 - [44] Uhh... 4 bonuses per ship. --
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.08.17 15:54:00 - [45] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Seishi Maru but now people will not care so much on using the most expensive rigs... for example.. trimarks on hacs were very very rare because they were so expensive that were limtied to battleships. Now if you want to dual trimark your sacriledge.. you won't need to put 50% extra cost on the ship. This makes no sense on any level. Trimarks are rare on HACs not because of their cost, but because they're a bloody stupid rig to fit on a HAC. Stating that HACs aren't trimarked because of cost, whereas BS are, is complete nonsense considering the costs after insurance of BS and HACs and the fact that BS would take three trimarks relative to the two on HACs. It makes completely sense. If you know what cost really means. Cost is not an absolute value is the cross product of how much you pay for them for how much they give you on chance of not loosing isk (as the ship) or gettign more isk by killign stuff. THey would be very useful on a lot of hacs, but not enough to cover their price. Simple example is sacriledge. On battleships the cost of the rigs is lower because rigs can make HUGE difference on survivability of battleships. So on the long run if you rig your battleship you gonna loose less isk. On hacs that is not so much important because hacs usually fight exactly looking for scenarios where they can always escape. I am yet to loose 1 HAC or recon this year.. whiel BSs are much more likely to blow weekly. Sided with that, 90% of my isk risked is in my implants, And BS usually die in situations that is much more likely you gonna loose your implants (in big balls of lag and bubbles, while hacs in big fights usually persih at the peripheric area of the combat. That is main reason I am much more worried to die in a battleship. I simply do not fit rigs on HACs at all except cheap weapon rigs because their cost is not good. With that I mean, My hac will survive likely without rigs.. so why to spend that much on it? Way to completely miss the point. I can't actually talk slowly on the internet, but let's just pretend I am. Slowly and carefully. As if speaking to a child. Hacs advantage is speed. Speedy ships shield tank. Trimarks affect armor, not shield, and their side-effect slows you down. Hacs don't fit trimarks. Cost has nothing to do with it, it's just a bad choice of rig. Ps: the sac is just a wannabe battlecruiser. Originally by: CCP Tuxford Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke! inb4 stealth edit
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.08.17 16:01:00 - [46] Originally by: Seishi Maru It makes completely sense. If you know what cost really means. Cost is not an absolute value is the cross product of how much you pay for them for how much they give you on chance of not loosing isk (as the ship) or gettign more isk by killign stuff. THey would be very useful on a lot of hacs, but not enough to cover their price. Simple example is sacriledge. I simply do not fit rigs on HACs at all except cheap weapon rigs because their cost is not good. With that I mean, My hac will survive likely without rigs.. so why to spend that much on it? No, this makes very little sense either. Making decisions on rigs to fit based on cost is absurd - you should fit the correct rig for the fashion in which you expect to employ your ship. For HACs, that's range, mobility or damage rigs. Or shield extender rigs. Cost doesn't really come into the equation much. Regardless of this, the correct rig is not trimarks, which probably reduce the survivability and utility of a Sacrilege by reducing its mobility. The rest of your observations reflect the differences between HACs/Recons and BS, rather than the advantages/disadvantages of certain rig types and their costs.
Sinnister	Posted - 2009.08.17 16:07:00 - [47] Originally by: Seishi Maru loosing Losing. LOSING. LOSING!
Christina Bamar Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.08.17 17:56:00 - [48] Originally by: Aluin Chaput Originally by: Darthewok Originally by: Aluin Chaput Serious replies please. What do the big guys use to take down other alliance's defenses? this is the thing. in EVE there are 2 broad divisions of battles. 1) battles over strategic points and structures where ships fight to the bitter end because there is something at stake. Short of Caps, BS is king for this (according to conventional tactics anyway) due to highest DPS, tank, range if fit. 2) roaming fights where people fight if the odds are good and run if they are not. people are perfectly willing to take and abandon positions as is convenient as there is nothing at stake. to maneuver, you need mobile ships so usually no BS. HAC is king for this as they are the best at picking fights and running if the fights go against them. In other words, static positional fight where neither side will run but go for a showdown, BS Running around a bunch of systems trying to catch the other side off guard or at a disadvantage, HAC To my meagre understanding anyway, DE So BSs = what is needed for gatecamp takeover on a serious level? It all depends on who you're fighting. Even that aside, in order to do well you need to have the tactics and organization to back-up what you're flying. You can have all the sniping HACs in the world but if none of your pilots know what you're doing then you're screwed. Unless they've just got massively overpowering odds, the specific tactic you use is secondary to your competency with said tactic. Pick the ship-type to go with your strengths, not visa-versa. CEO, Agony Unleashed
Gim Memore Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.08.17 18:41:00 - [49] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Seishi Maru but now people will not care so much on using the most expensive rigs... for example.. trimarks on hacs were very very rare because they were so expensive that were limtied to battleships. Now if you want to dual trimark your sacriledge.. you won't need to put 50% extra cost on the ship. This makes no sense on any level. Trimarks are rare on HACs not because of their cost, but because they're a bloody stupid rig to fit on a HAC. Stating that HACs aren't trimarked because of cost, whereas BS are, is complete nonsense considering the costs after insurance of BS and HACs and the fact that BS would take three trimarks relative to the two on HACs. It makes completely sense. If you know what cost really means. Cost is not an absolute value is the cross product of how much you pay for them for how much they give you on chance of not loosing isk (as the ship) or gettign more isk by killign stuff. THey would be very useful on a lot of hacs, but not enough to cover their price. Simple example is sacriledge. On battleships the cost of the rigs is lower because rigs can make HUGE difference on survivability of battleships. So on the long run if you rig your battleship you gonna loose less isk. On hacs that is not so much important because hacs usually fight exactly looking for scenarios where they can always escape. I am yet to loose 1 HAC or recon this year.. whiel BSs are much more likely to blow weekly. Sided with that, 90% of my isk risked is in my implants, And BS usually die in situations that is much more likely you gonna loose your implants (in big balls of lag and bubbles, while hacs in big fights usually persih at the peripheric area of the combat. That is main reason I am much more worried to die in a battleship. I simply do not fit rigs on HACs at all except cheap weapon rigs because their cost is not good. With that I mean, My hac will survive likely without rigs.. so why to spend that much on it? Trimarks on a sac is a v bad idea unless you want to be a poor armour version of a drake. Plus, since you have not lost a single HAC this year, you obviously either do not fly them at all often... or you never fly them in any situations other than an easy gank and so either way, you are not qualified to comment about rigs on them. Having said that, I am looking forward to ACR's and Locus rigs being affordable and think they will be used much more often on HACs.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2009.08.17 19:43:00 - [50] People fly hacs because they like winning. Put a bunch of skilled players in t2 ships and they will generally wipe the field of cheaper more 'cost effective' ships... Right until you want to brawl over stationary assets. Then everyone crawls into bs to smash each others faces in.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.08.17 20:09:00 - [51] cane Its not as good as a hack but in a small fleet it holds its own and is practically free. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Kessiaan Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.17 20:44:00 - [52] HACs are good because they're fast. They align fast, they move fast (with an MWD), and they lock fast. And they do BC-level DPS. Any situation that depends on speed a HAC is usually a superior choice to a BS, and oftentimes even a BC. A HAC can gank a lone straggler before his buddies in system can come help him, a BS/BC can't. A HAC can survive a run back to a gate (or even run out of it sometimes) where a BS would just die. Unlike BS, HAC gangs generally lose potency as gang size increases since blobs, almost by definition, are not fast. Still, a large long-range HAC gang makes great antisupport.
tis per	Posted - 2009.08.17 22:09:00 - [53] Originally by: Ephemeron Quote: The great nano nerf was a great thing, and I applaud CCP for having the balls to make it real It was a nerf to PvP as a whole. I understand the game has many more Carebears than PvPers, but this nerf was plain wrong. This game should promote elite pvp, not mindless carebearism. Without phoons macharials and nightmares zooming around at over 6k m/s, there is no elite pvp lol
Death Merchant InterGalactic Corp. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.08.17 22:46:00 - [54] They just added too much nerf at one time. They should have used a nerf stick. They could have kept webs the same, plus allowed 2 point scrams to disable mwd. Try that out and see how it affected balance. Arazu's and Rapiers combos with heavy DPS could be used to counter nano gangs much easier. That would lead to more mixed types gangs however it wouldn't kill nano completely. Instead they used the Superior Nerfbat of Game Breaking Destruction. Just seems like they turned it to even more of a bring more numbers game imo.
The Tzar Quam Singulari Cult of War	Posted - 2009.08.17 23:01:00 - [55] goes to buy up all the ingredients for medium lock time rigs __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________
Noisrevbus Caldari Breams Gone Wild	Posted - 2009.08.17 23:52:00 - [56] Edited by: Noisrevbus on 17/08/2009 23:52:12 Another way to quickly sum up what makes HACs lovable and still viable post nano-nerf, is looking at how they relate to ships one size up and down. A HAC still compare far better to larger ships than smaller ships do to them. Overall, a HAC fare much better against BC/CS and BS/etc than an Interceptor, Interdictor, EAS or AF fare against a Cruiser, Recon or HAC. This of course also say a bit about the plight of the frigate-sized ships that don't quite come into proper play. EAS and AF still struggle, and while changes throughout this year have seen a broadened use of Interceptors, Interdictors are still suffering alot from their nerf and are very role-dependent today. At the same time, looking at larger ships CS have definate scaling issues (compare a HAC to a Cruiser, in terms of ... everything, then look at a CS compared to a BC). Admittedly CS, unlike HACs, have their heavily focused role on links; but at the same time there still is alot of rough sides to chisel out on them. The same goes for ships like BOps. They have their role, which is fine in itself, but the role alone doesn't outweigh cost or performance for the ship alone, and there's still work to be done on that role as well. I'm drifting a bit here, but to tie it back to HACs, other tech II ships 'suffer' far more than HACs do. That was the point, and it probably say something about the popularity of HACs (or Cruiser-sized roaming combat overall). For a good overview of recent development and trends in the use of HAC, read Diomidis post above. I think he did a very good summary.
Kismo	Posted - 2009.08.18 00:38:00 - [57] Originally by: tis per Without phoons macharials and nightmares zooming around at over 6k m/s, there is no elite pvp lol You know, what's funny is that I have 40M Minmatar pure PVP SP, and alot of that SP is dedicated to smaller ships. Minmatar ships just don't compete on the level that they did before the nano nerf. Fortunately, I knew a nano nerf was inevitable and trained battleships. Boy did I pick the wrong race!
Mahke Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.08.18 03:55:00 - [58] 1) sniping. HACs are the king for sniping out support. 2) niche roles. Ishtar/vaga come to mind. There simply is nothing else that even compares here. 3) Roaming. Roaming is all about being as effective as possible while still being able to avoid the blob that inevitably will be chasing you. t2 (and now t3) cruisers are the most powerful ship that still has a respectable chance of dodging an incoming gang three times the size of yours. 4) Logistics in deep lowsec and 0.0 suck. So if you're going to be doing a lot of bother getting ships out that shifts your preferences a lot away from cost effective and towards better at not dying all the time. Theres a reason you often see BC after BC after BC (with some BS thrown in) in empire wars.
Ahz	Posted - 2009.08.18 06:40:00 - [59] Originally by: Aluin Chaput Why HACs? Vagabond = BS damage and durability + cruiser speed. Only a handful of ships allow for virtually unconstrained movement through 0.0. Fewer still allow you to move around and take real killing power along with you. HACs do both.
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2009.08.18 07:23:00 - [60] also hacs are nice for ratting due to t2 resists and fast warp speed

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.