It seems as though (based on the Tech chart from a while ago and various comments) that CCP envisions HACs as a tankier version of a T1 Attack Cruiser. This idea worked great in the Zealot, because it can mount a significant tank (~+100%) over an Omen, project more damage with its damage bonus (on top of its RoF bonus) AND have better optimals with the +optimal bonus. The Zealot combines the best of Amarr T1 into a T2 hull: strong tank (like a maller) and good damage (like an Omen (old ONI)). Each race has one HAC that is supposed to elevate their T1 Att. Cruiser and then some. Zealot already does this, Deimos should, Vagabond should and Cerebus should (probably does after this pass).

Then, the other ships in the HAC category were racial wildcards. Amarr had Sacrilege (firing HAMs from an armor hull), Gallente had Ishtar (which was supposed to be some sort of super Vexor), Minmatar the Muninn for a specialized long rage Arty boat and Caldari the Eagle for a similar purpose. What happened in the mean time is T3 BCs were released, obsoleting the long range ships and T1/Navy got such boosts that the rest, save from the shining-star Zealot--which really wasn't affected because the package on the ONI is for kiting, just couldn't keep up. Obviously, the Zealot was a beautiful ship, well designed and didn't need to change.

Unfortunately, the other ships weren't at this place. The Deimos isn't a "better" Thorax. The Thorax still tracks better, is faster and puts out the same (or more) damage than it. Eagles will still put down pitiful dps (at range! whoo! /sad) and the same dps as a Moa up close. I have to disagree with CCP that HACs shouldn't be "better" than a T1 ship. Yes, they should be. The Zealot, by all measures, is flat-out better than an Omen and a Maller. HACs should put out more damage with ~60k tank (with an ACR). Command Ships, OTOH, should put out similar damage to their T1 counterparts but have a tankier ship. That'd distinguish CSs with HACs: HACs give you damage and CSs give you tank.

But back to the point: CCP likely wants HACs to be what their name implies: A heavy assau--attack--cruiser. A T1 cruiser with more tank. But that distinguishment will never justify the 10:1 increase in cost, and if they don't balance based on cost, then there's really no point in having these ships cost more just so we can get a marginal increase like extra optimal range. (And besides, Navy ships are already T1 ships with more tank.) These ships have to do more: project damage better, better falloff, better tracking, faster rate of fire, stronger cap, stronger tank, etc. There needs to be a reason to buy one--and a much better reason than a marginal performance increase.

CCP, I urge you to have a hard look at the Zealot and why it's been so successful in the game. Ask yourselves why Deimoses, Eagles and the others have been shelved. Then, once you answer those questions, work in solutions to this line that addresses those answers.