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)
Aluin Chaput Caldari Mort's Navy	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:11:00 - [1] I have never really understood why HACs are held in such high re guard by 0.0 alliances. decent dps/faster but no insurance. Sounds like a fancy suicide kit. Please enlighten me.
Bugszor Caldari PodPal	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:13:00 - [2] if you actually live in 0.0.. isk should never be a problem for you. if it is. yer doing something terribly wrong. so for your answer. the extra dps/speed is easily paid by the pilots. so why not. ----------------------------------- Originally by: Nex Angelus Perhaps it was a Bugszor
Aluin Chaput Caldari Mort's Navy	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:14:00 - [3] Touche, just sounds like a waste in general.
SquadBroken Helljumpers Double Dutch Rudders	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:14:00 - [4] Speed.
Amon Dominus	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:22:00 - [5] Sniper hacs are very powerful in a support role and thier mobility allows them to gtfo and dictate range against other gangs. I dont have eft up but I believe a bc gang will struggle to hit the 100km while it is quite easy to do in a many hacs. In action RPGs, players are walking medieval magnets, stripping rooms of any equipment that isn't bolted down and ending up with a knapsack full of crap.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:45:00 - [6] Speed, mobility, versatility These. A bs is cheaper but in the end its a big fat slow target. And many in 0.0 run 2 accounts or more. One out pvping and the other ratting/missioning. Its rare when the pve account can't out earn whatever losses on the pvp side. Hacs are expensive but they don't pop that often.
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:53:00 - [7] Originally by: Crackzilla Speed, mobility, versatility If some newer people in CCP understood this basic concept, the Great Nano Nerf would not have happened with such horrid consequences.
SheriffFruitfly Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:57:00 - [8] Speed, dps, sr/lr option. A good combo. Downsides are real, of course: paper thin and spendy (no insurance). But eve is all about upsides and downsides. __________________________________________________________
Tormod Berg	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:58:00 - [9] Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Crackzilla Speed, mobility, versatility If some newer people in CCP understood this basic concept, the Great Nano Nerf would not have happened with such horrid consequences. The great nano nerf was a great thing, and I applaud CCP for having the balls to make it real
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:02:00 - [10] 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.
SquadBroken Helljumpers Double Dutch Rudders	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:07:00 - [11] 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. I miss my nano curse more than words can ever EVER express. That said, 14 km/s vaga's were very very annoying and perhaps (gasp) needed a tweak. The sledgehammer nerf they provided was a bit of a joke but I've grown to it. (Please note, I haven't grown to like it.)
bff Jill	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:15:00 - [12] This is all a lie. Hacs only ever got popular because people did not enjoy having to work all the way down F1 to F8 every time they wanted to shoot something. Hacs mercifully have fewer guns, and less slots in general. Thus fewer button presses. Humanities lazyness shows itself once again. Now that you can turn all guns on with one button HACs will fade out sooner or later once everyone realizes that the whole hac thing was just a fad. Any day now...
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:22:00 - [13] Chicks dig HAC pilots. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Darthewok Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:51:00 - [14] Sniper HACs in gangs of mixed ranges don't look so impressive as they can't always take advantage of their range tank. However, the dedicated sniper HAC gangs I've seen are formidable because of the 100km range tank + speed to escape heavy opposition + can easily pop tacklers and bubblers or burn to gates. Can probably rack up a high kill-loss ratio with few losses. My 2 ISK anyway
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.08.17 05:10:00 - [15] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 17/08/2009 05:11:05 HAC jumps into a gatecamp. BS jumps into the same gatecamp. One survives, one dies horribly. Which one escapes? Quote: Sniper HACs in gangs of mixed ranges don't look so impressive as they can't always take advantage of their range tank. While true, they can also act as epic anti-support (especially against tacklers and such)...not to mention that they don't have to burn towards the target to apply DPS.
Poses	Posted - 2009.08.17 05:37:00 - [16] um... BCs are very similar to hacs these days... cept a lot slower so harder to control the range of an engagement. thats the real key, if you control the engagement then you cannot lose.
Respute Minmatar Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:00:00 - [17] The speed, agility, and range are obvious reasons. A pure sniper HAC gang that all fit 1 shield extender and bring along some Scimitar's can use their size, range, and speed to be very tanky. Against a Battleship fleet a sniper HAC that is properly setup and has Scimitar support can easily stay on the field for minutes when called primary. Speed also lets you fight on your terms and assures you are all the ones in your optimals and burn outta bubbles fast. If you are going to run a close range fleet BC put out more DPS, Tank, and are cheaper. While this is all and good they still lack some of the mobility to avoid sticky situations. I think I still lean towards bring a BC for close range work and keep the sniping to the HACs...although it really depends on how mobile you want your fleet to be. BC cannot hit the range HACs can, lack some speed/agility, and are bigger and easier to hit. At that point you might as well use sniper/RR BS. Hence why sniper HACs > Sniper BC.
Azael Lightshade Amarr V i L e	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:03:00 - [18] I will give you a good answer that most 0.0 pilots seem to forget because frankly they're not solo and they sometimes have no clue what it means to have red targets everywhere and no place to dock. HAC are good not because of the DPS but more because of the faster comment you made. Battlecruisers are very nice and can do many great things. They can be fitted to be like cruisers or fitted to be something more. The reason HAC's are good is because they are faster in agility, locking times, and velocity. One of the downfalls of being in a big ship is slow warp out times, slow locking times, slow agility times and slow velocity times. All the things needed to catch people to kill them. HAC's are more like cruisers than Battlecruisers are like cruisers. If you want to be aggressive with power you go HAC. If you want power you go Battlecruiser. It's all about the targets and you can't have your pick at what targets you run into. Think of it this way, battleships are powerful but you can't kill a cruiser unless you have a tackler. --- Recruiting 0.0 Pirates
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:14:00 - [19] Why do people love hacs? One word: Versatility. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING
Aluin Chaput Caldari Mort's Navy	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:21:00 - [20] Edited by: Aluin Chaput on 17/08/2009 06:20:49 How do they fare busting and then forming gatecamps?
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:30:00 - [21] Originally by: Aluin Chaput Edited by: Aluin Chaput on 17/08/2009 06:20:49 How do they fare busting and then forming gatecamps? Totaly depends on the camp I would say. They go from an inty and damage dealer all the way up to lulz 30 bubble megacamps with a few hundred ships. But in the most common cases they will either have the firepower to break it up or simply run away if they can't. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING
Aluin Chaput Caldari Mort's Navy	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:38:00 - [22] Well, I am looking for a ship that could (in gang/fleet) break up serious 0.00 bubblecamps.
Tagami Wasp Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.08.17 06:46:00 - [23] 0.0? Discophoon. Jumps in first, OMG!!111!eleven foollll pwnn him, SBs activate, 10 secs latter, when every small ship has popped, rest of gang jumps in, bubbles, kills whatever is left.
Aluin Chaput Caldari Mort's Navy	Posted - 2009.08.17 07:12:00 - [24] Edited by: Aluin Chaput on 17/08/2009 07:12:40 Serious replies please. What do the big guys use to take down other alliance's defenses?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.08.17 07:49:00 - [25] Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Crackzilla Speed, mobility, versatility If some newer people in CCP understood this basic concept, the Great Nano Nerf would not have happened with such horrid consequences. I think CCP understood the power of speed, mobility and versatility only too well - which is why speed got nerfed. And *******s to the "elite PVP" comment - there's nothing elite or, indeed, desirable about everyone flying the same half-dozen identically-fit ships because they so far outclass any other ship or class of ship for almost any job.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.17 07:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Bugszor if you actually live in 0.0.. isk should never be a problem for you. Fun reply seeing all the "0.0 don't pay enough" threads.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.17 07:54:00 - [27] 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. People doing PvP whine (PvE players can't care less about nanoships)), get what they wish and then other PvP people whine about their lost nanopower. So some PvP player win, some lose, all within the PvPers group. So where your carebears<->PvPers argument came from?
Joe Martin Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.08.17 08:01:00 - [28] 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. Oh please, the nano nerf was completely necessary. It opened up a huge new berth of viable fits and styles of play instead of vagabonds online. Speed went from the only important factor to one of many important factors, and despite the nerf the ability to use and abuse speed to one's advantage is still a massive determinant in fight outcome. Not to mention nano is still alive and well, it just takes a little more wit than activate mwd > activate guns.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.17 08:04:00 - [29] 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. I disagree. Nano was silly. What we have now is an "over nerf" maby, but nano needed some changes. Webs, imo, took a huge hit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2009.08.17 08:23:00 - [30] nerf was fine, you can still use speed to dictate range and gtfo. why I use hacs? cause they perform and look much better then their t1 version and I dont like large slow ships.
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
Joe Martin Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.08.18 08:55:00 - [61] Originally by: Ahz Originally by: Aluin Chaput Why HACs? Vagabond = BS damage and durability + cruiser speed. Wow where can I get one of those vagabonds?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.08.18 09:02:00 - [62] Quote: Fun reply seeing all the "0.0 don't pay enough" threads If you have multiple accounts and spend your time squatting and ratting in a backwater system it's one thing. If you have daily PvP ops you have to attend and actually have to defend against active enemies the equation changes a bit. As for why everyone and their dog fly HACs? For the same reason everyone and their dog played warrior + druid in WoW, or train certain schools of magic in Darkfall Online or play Bright Wizards in Warhammer Online: it's the I win solution. Sure, over time all of the above (and HACs) have been / will be nerfed but usually the combo stays forever viable and winning thru the years. The borderline "overpowered-that-is-still-legit" thing. Want to win? You roll an HAC. Want to do BS-alike DPS without the BS slow-pokeness and long lock time? You roll an HAC. Want to solo gank like a pro and have an almost granted win? You roll an HAC. Been on the receiving end of Vagas :S Want to snipe harder and farter than a BC but be more agile than it? You roll an HAC. Want to be able to burn back to a bubbled 0.0 gate and survive to tell? You roll an HAC. Want to freely 0.0 roam without turtles (BSs) but still not be cruiser paper thin? You roll an HAC. Want speed and kiting? You roll an HAC. Expecially the "want to win" clause vastly makes up for the cost. After all, if you fly the pwnmobile you are not meant to lose it all the time, don't you? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Jaina Proudmoar	Posted - 2009.08.18 10:12:00 - [63] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha After all, if you fly the pwnmobile you are not meant to lose it all the time, don't you? You forget the number of people who are absolutely terrible at this game.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.08.18 10:24:00 - [64] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Want to win? You roll an HAC. Want to do BS-alike DPS without the BS slow-pokeness and long lock time? You roll an HAC. Want to solo gank like a pro and have an almost granted win? You roll an HAC. Been on the receiving end of Vagas :S Want to snipe harder and farter than a BC but be more agile than it? You roll an HAC. Want to be able to burn back to a bubbled 0.0 gate and survive to tell? You roll an HAC. Want to freely 0.0 roam without turtles (BSs) but still not be cruiser paper thin? You roll an HAC. Want speed and kiting? You roll an HAC. Uh? no (well unless its tempest and deimos comparison) rest is more-less accurate
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.08.18 10:29:00 - [65] Originally by: Ranger 1 Chicks dig HAC pilots. This is the correct answer. Like driving a Porsche instead of a dump truck.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.18 10:34:00 - [66] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Ranger 1 Chicks dig HAC pilots. This is the correct answer. Like driving a Porsche instead of a dump truck. If only this was true, but there are no chicks in eve, since the chicks in eve is actually dudes :(. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2009.08.18 10:40:00 - [67] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Ranger 1 Chicks dig HAC pilots. This is the correct answer. Like driving a Porsche instead of a dump truck. If only this was true, but there are no chicks in eve, since the chicks in eve is actually dudes :(. I can't decide whether to say: "The Internet, where the men are men, the women are men and the children are the FBI" "MMORPG - Many men online roleplaying girls" or "GIRL - Guy in Real Life". But there you are. ________________________________________________ For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (Now with added summary!)
Fastbikkel T.H.U.G L.I.F.E	Posted - 2009.08.18 11:07:00 - [68] Originally by: Bugszor if you actually live in 0.0.. isk should never be a problem for you. if it is. yer doing something terribly wrong. I want to remind you of the following : if the enemy is constantly barging into your systems and you cannot rat safely, there is simply no isk either. Lose a couple of ships and you will probably have to do missions again in emp. I'm speaking out of experience. -If the enemy is in range, so are you-
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.08.18 11:23:00 - [69] Quote: Uh? no (well unless its tempest and deimos comparison) Yes :S You got me in my subliminal message to buff my race's BS Quote: I want to remind you of the following : if the enemy is constantly barging into your systems and you cannot rat safely, there is simply no isk either. Lose a couple of ships and you will probably have to do missions again in emp. I'm speaking out of experience QFT. Talking about how rich is 0.0 is easy, then you discover "regular alliance people" won't milk R64 moons and that it takes a small roaming enemy fleet to force people to dock and not earn a penny. And it takes either an NPC system or a rare well negative true sec system to even get decent rats. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.