| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Wega Noir
Rampage Eternal
Ka-Tet
   |
Posted - 2006.12.11 01:25:00 -
[1]
With the new Tier 2 BC's, why on earth would anyone buy a rediculously priced HAC? Am I missing something here? I compared the stats of the Drake vs Cerberus and the Harbinger vs Zealot. Both Tier 2 BC's are overall better yet I can fully T2 fit one of those BC's and save 50-100 mil on the cost of the HAC ship ALONE!
Anyone else seeing what I am seeing? HAC prices simply have to get about a 75% price cut unless people out there are stupid enough to buy them at those absurd prices with the new BC's out.
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds... |
Aeaus
Tabula Rasa Systems
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 01:28:00 -
[2]
They're mo mobile, they're more fun, I still would prefer a HAC over a BC for normal fighting.
|
Aterna
Minmatar
M'8'S
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 01:37:00 -
[3]
HACs are faster. HACs have built in resistances. HACs have better overall grid, which allows them to fit higher tier weaponry without sacrificing tankability. HACs have 4 bonuses, which give them more potential.
Their downside is the overhead in losing one. 160mil for a Deimos+T2 fittings, and only like 40mil return from insurance, vs Myrmidon's cost (about 35m for me), and T2 fittings, means I lose less.
- - -
|
Benglada
Finite Horizon
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 01:50:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Aterna
HACs are faster. HACs have built in resistances. HACs have better overall grid, which allows them to fit higher tier weaponry without sacrificing tankability. HACs have 4 bonuses, which give them more potential.
Their downside is the overhead in losing one. 160mil for a Deimos+T2 fittings, and only like 40mil return from insurance, vs Myrmidon's cost (about 35m for me), and T2 fittings, means I lose less.
Hac insurance is about seven mill, lol.
---------------------------
Originally by: Arkanor
0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:06:00 -
[5]
HACs are not better then BCs, id take my drake over a HAC tbh. it insures better, has an awsome tank, great DPS and much higher Versitility.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
HACs are not better then BCs, id take my drake over a HAC tbh. it insures better, has an awsome tank, great DPS and much higher Versitility.
That's because the Drake is an I-Win button. 
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Infinitynexus
Astrodynamic Innovations
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:13:00 -
[7]
Well, if i know what kind of ship im fighting, i fit 4 racial ECM's and ECM drones :P
|
Tisanta
Amarr
Privateers
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:15:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
HACs are not better then BCs, id take my drake over a HAC tbh. it insures better, has an awsome tank, great DPS and much higher Versitility.
That's because the Drake is an I-Win button.
Thats not what the other 4 people said after i solo pwned them in my pilgrim..
---
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:18:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Wega Noir
With the new Tier 2 BC's, why on earth would anyone buy a rediculously priced HAC? Am I missing something here? I compared the stats of the Drake vs Cerberus and the Harbinger vs Zealot. Both Tier 2 BC's are overall better yet I can fully T2 fit one of those BC's and save 50-100 mil on the cost of the HAC ship ALONE!
Anyone else seeing what I am seeing? HAC prices simply have to get about a 75% price cut unless people out there are stupid enough to buy them at those absurd prices with the new BC's out.
If the teir 2 BC's become that valuable compared to HAC's the prices of HAC's will drop significantly due to demand drop off.
However, even though HAC's do less damage, they are much easier to tank, faster, more manuvereable and easier to fit big guns onto.
|
Infinitynexus
Astrodynamic Innovations
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:19:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Infinitynexus on 11/12/2006 02:19:46
that much is true, and im still more afraid of HACs than the new BC's.. habit of thought, hehe
But I wonder, what was the original intended role for HACs?
|
Tisanta
Amarr
Privateers
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:20:00 -
[11]
i think people need to stop pitching them against one and other cus HACs and BCs are designed for individual roles.. like BC is fleet command (noob one) and HAC is support vessel for BS
---
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Infinitynexus
Edited by: Infinitynexus on 11/12/2006 02:19:46
that much is true, and im still more afraid of HACs than the new BC's.. habit of thought, hehe
But I wonder, what was the original intended role for HACs?
If only because BC's are very easy to get into and HAC's are not. The 20 days for Cruiser 5 can buy you a host of other skills, and its not until all those other skills get boosted up that Cruiser 5 is undertaken as they provide a larger boost than getting into a HAC you cant fly well.
I.E. it makes sense from a strength gain/time perspective to train HAC's later and train gunnery/support first, so the people you do see in HAC's will have plenty of training.
|
Andrea Jaruwalski
Caldari
Angel Deep Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 02:47:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Tisanta
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
HACs are not better then BCs, id take my drake over a HAC tbh. it insures better, has an awsome tank, great DPS and much higher Versitility.
That's because the Drake is an I-Win button.
Thats not what the other 4 people said after i solo pwned them in my pilgrim..
The fact they didn't shoot down your drones is what shows they were complete idiots..
|
Felix Dzerzhinsky
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 03:08:00 -
[14]
Hacs are still more powerful imo for the same reasons previously mentioned:
1) skills - a Hac pilot with very few exceptions will fit a full T2 setup or better and have the complementary skills trained to max or near max potential. This makes Hac pilots fantastic cruiser pilots and very dangerous in a Hac. These skills also mean that most Hac pilots are familiar with their ships and are not afraid to use them in combat.
2) Resistances - this is a big deal and oftain under-estimated even in PvP - the passive resitances of hacs are simply out of this world good and very easy to boost to phenomenal levels. To think that a Hac is 'just a cruiser' is to ignore their amazing damage and tanking abuility.
3) speed - I find that as I get older, I look for smaller ships that can perform more. Like many pilots, I went streight for the Raven because of its massive damage potential and soon found it lacking. Of course, with missle skills and t2 torps being trained to high levels, the Raven or any other BB that I chose to fly is still massive - but I am slow. The Hac will hit harder then a noob BB and still maintain its high speed and tactical advantage - and these are very good in small gang engadgments. Speed is not a luxery anymore, it is a survival tool - and hacs bring speed and power together.
--
The price is prohibitive, but the advantages of using one - especcially hacs with unique roles such as he Vega, or those that can really dish out the damge like the Ish or the Zelot will always remain in high demand and add a lot of potential to a group. I wish T2 BPOs would get seeded like all other BPOs though, then we could all enjoy these ships without being too worried about losing them - they are afterall, simply a cruiser 
|
Father Weebles
Wreckless Abandon
The UnAssociated
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 05:16:00 -
[15]
latest ishtar (jita) 180m
latest deimos (jita) 140m
"Welcome to EVE, where inflation is out of control." |
Prabms
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 07:59:00 -
[16]
It's like ass frigs versus t1 cruisers 
|
Kiyano
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 09:07:00 -
[17]
I dont' see the problem here. "If" the tier 2 BC's make for cheaper and equivilent if not better alternatives to the HAC's the price of HAC's will drop if demand drops, making the price of HAC's easier to live with and then you might want to use them instead of the BC's for whatever reasons.
|
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 09:33:00 -
[18]
Isk for isk no one doubts a BC is better.. but the HACs are still better solo ships. In fact the new BC are not THAt better than the old ones (at least our minmatar one :( ... give our damm 7th tturret back!!!)
Who would like to field a single HAC against 4 BC? yeahh you can win.. but you have a LARGE chance of being vaporized
|
Kehmor
Caldari
PAK
Shroud Of Darkness
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 10:29:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Prabms
It's like ass frigs versus t1 cruisers
took the words right out of my mouth. Niether ship is better, they are different. If you can't spot the uses of a HAC then its probably a good thing you arn't in one and more over means you probably can't afford one. Stick to the more obvious ships like the drake until you realise the full potential behind eve's more specialised ships.
|
Gyro DuAquin1
Tri Optimum
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 11:54:00 -
[20]
well even before the bc have been a good hac alternative.
Taking a ferox (which is not a missle boat) vs an eagle in long range anti support fleet combat ;)
ive only tested it once in a real pvp fleet situation but wasnt that bad at all, u have on more gun, good power grid and whatnot, which means in other words at least the ferox has been alternative for hacs.
The brutix was probally as good as a deimos with 7 blasters.
The cycloone was like a good rupture.
BC where just to slow and not that good for running for the hills. But before the patch it was an option but normaly bc get treaten like a noobie ship ;)
|
Ione Hunt
Celestial Fleet
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:05:00 -
[21]
Sold my Ishtar...Myrmidon ftw!
________________________________________________
|
Kalek Astroth
Amarr
The Electrocuted
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:11:00 -
[22]
even Tier1 Bc can pwn an Hac...
|
Yar0
Rage of Angels
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:17:00 -
[23]
BC lvl5, med blaster spec lvl 4...brutix will rip apart most hacs...exept vagabond, cause it can run away
|
K1K1R1K1
Team Machine Incorporated
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:24:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Kalek Astroth
even Tier1 Bc can pwn an Hac...
What he said... the new Tier 2 bc's change nothing in terms of the bc/hac relationship.
_______________________________________
Don't worry aboutit. |
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:42:00 -
[25]
ô2) Resistances - this is a big deal and oftain under-estimated even in PvP - the passive resitances of hacs are simply out of this world good and very easy to boost to phenomenal levels.ö
I wonder how many peoples realise command ships can have even better resistance then HACS without useing mid or low slots while having better tanks and being a lot cheaper while doing more damage?
HACS are over rated.
öIsk for isk no one doubts a BC is better.. but the HACs are still better solo ships.ö
Command ships are much better solo ships then HACS. ShouldnÆt it be HACS to Command ships as well as its T2 vT2.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
infraX
Caldari
Finite Horizon
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 13:01:00 -
[26]
Tier 2 BC's vs. HACs
Tier 2 BC:
Pro:
Cheap.
Insurable.
Easy to obtain.
Easy to get into skillpoints wise.
Much more hitpoints after the recent changes.
More cap. (takes longer to NOS down).
Con:
Larger sig radius.
Less agile.
Slower.
HAC
Pro:
Smaller sig radius.
More agile.
Faster.
Con:
Stupidly overpriced.
Not insurable for anything meaningful.
Not always readily available.
Requires more training to fly.
Just to add - HAC's have the better resists but Tier2 BC's have a lot more base hitpoints now. So really the pro's of flying a HAC is all about sig radius, speed and agility. It's up to you whether you think the cons are worth it.
|
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 13:20:00 -
[27]
ôHAC's have the better resists but Tier2 BC's have a lot more base hitpoints now.ö
HACS donÆt have better resistance. Command ships have the same base resistance as a HAC only half of them have +25% resistance as a bonus and another 22.5% or more from gang assist.
Add on the right gang assit and they can be pretty fast as well. Command ships also got a large boost to the agile spec.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
slothe
Caldari
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 13:23:00 -
[28]
Edited by: slothe on 11/12/2006 13:27:54
The ship is only as good as its pilot. A lot of the people here who say BC are better than HAC's im fairly sure have only tried them in missions.
Ireckon i could beat their bc in my hac, then beat their hac in my bc, but enough of that.
Tier 1 bc are really good never mind tier 2. with the right fittings t1 bc > hac. but same the other way round. half the time the decisive factor can be luck/ and who keeps their nerve, and most importantly tactics.
oh and to move onto the OP's point ...
"With the new Tier 2 BC's, why on earth would anyone buy a rediculously priced HAC? Am I missing something here? I compared the stats of the Drake vs Cerberus and the Harbinger vs Zealot. Both Tier 2 BC's are overall better yet I can fully T2 fit one of those BC's and save 50-100 mil on the cost of the HAC ship ALONE!
Anyone else seeing what I am seeing? HAC prices simply have to get about a 75% price cut unless people out there are stupid enough to buy them at those absurd prices with the new BC's out."
what you dont factor into this is that some people, unlike you, can afford to lose expensive ships. They maybe absurd prices to you, but to players that have been in the game for years, and who have accumulated isk, they can afford to lose one every few weeks no problem, even with fittings that cost twice as much as the ship.
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
HACs are not better then BCs, id take my drake over a HAC tbh. it insures better, has an awsome tank, great DPS and much higher Versitility.
would be interseting v an ishtar tbh. i think that would be a close call.
Before complaining about any ship try flying Minmatar |
Leuko Uratne
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 13:27:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Pottsey
“HAC's have the better resists but Tier2 BC's have a lot more base hitpoints now.”
HACS don’t have better resistance. Command ships have the same base resistance as a HAC only half of them have +25% resistance as a bonus and another 22.5% or more from gang assist.
Add on the right gang assit and they can be pretty fast as well. Command ships also got a large boost to the agile spec.
But then again there is after all a difference between Tier 2 BC (Drake, Myrmidon, Hurrican, Harbinger) and the command ships, so the argument is still true.
|
Fodderrr
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 13:33:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Yar0
BC lvl5, med blaster spec lvl 4...brutix will rip apart most hacs...exept vagabond, cause it can run away
Nope it will do what any other minmatar ship with barrage ammo would do and just kite ya
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |