| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dirtball
Kemono.
   |
Posted - 2006.12.26 19:01:00 -
[31]
Basicly all the reseller salesmen margin trading bungholes are taking one up the ole highway. The t1 ships are more fun to fly anyway.
Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Dal Thrax
Caldari
House Of Troy
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 19:14:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Roemy Schneider
scratch reseeding and especially invention from your lists.
new BCs are the only reason. those (stupid) drakes even had an effect on those (stupid) ravens.
reminds me - who allowed the drakes to become this overpowered?
You do realize that in real life a BC CAN give a BS a run for its money and will pretty much PWN a cruiser (assuming we're talking ship types between Battle of Juteland and say Pearl Harbor).
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 19:24:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 26/12/2006 19:24:23
Originally by: Dal Thrax
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
scratch reseeding and especially invention from your lists.
new BCs are the only reason. those (stupid) drakes even had an effect on those (stupid) ravens.
reminds me - who allowed the drakes to become this overpowered?
You do realize that in real life a BC CAN give a BS a run for its money and will pretty much PWN a cruiser (assuming we're talking ship types between Battle of Juteland and say Pearl Harbor).
Originally by: Wikipedia
Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century first introduced by the British Royal Navy. They evolved from armoured cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships. Generally, battlecruisers were similar in layout and armament to battleships but with significantly less armour allowing for gains in speed.
In real life, battlecruisers were ships with Battleship-sized guns but weaker armor.
In EVE, battlecruisers do not nearly equal the damage of a battleship.
-[23] Member-
Listen to EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame) |
alfabit soup
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 19:24:00 -
[34]
Why do people always try to compare eve ship classes to irl ship classes? They aren't the same. Stop.
|
violator2k5
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 19:36:00 -
[35]
in my eyes the only thing this has to do with is the changes they made in revelations and the new bc's being able to move as they can and out dps any hac currently there so people will more then likely train more for them instead of hac's
it has nothing to do with invention and nothing to do with the new seeding
(invention isnt worth a squirt of ....)
(the bpos are still being seeded for those of you who dont know)
|
Shakuul
Caldari
The Imperial Commonwealth
The Sundering
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 19:58:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ichabod Crane
Its not a crash, its just supply starting to meet demand.
Supply always met demand; thats what determines market price and quantity. What we are seeing now is an outward supply shift. If you knew the exact rate of reseeding you could derive the demand curve for HACs.
Originally by: Hakera
tis the proverbial HAC bubble bursting. Currently HAC's simply arnt value for isk at their current prices and so prices will fall till people think they are cost effective again in preference to teir 2 bc's or command ships.
I wouldn't really call it a bubble, since I don't think demand is falling. A bubble is when an asset is overvalued (usually a stock or something) and then the price falls rapidly as everyone realizes its overvalued (think of the dot com bubble). In the case of HACs, as I said above, its just supply falling, as HAC producers undercut each other.
|
Shakuul
Caldari
The Imperial Commonwealth
The Sundering
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 20:00:00 -
[37]
Originally by: violator2k5
in my eyes the only thing this has to do with is the changes they made in revelations and the new bc's being able to move as they can and out dps any hac currently there so people will more then likely train more for them instead of hac's
it has nothing to do with invention and nothing to do with the new seeding
(invention isnt worth a squirt of ....)
(the bpos are still being seeded for those of you who dont know)
Why would the price drop occur now instead of earlier? Does it take people that long to change their minds and think that bcs are better? I think HACs still out tank bcs by a lonshot.
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 20:07:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Shakuul
Originally by: violator2k5
in my eyes the only thing this has to do with is the changes they made in revelations and the new bc's being able to move as they can and out dps any hac currently there so people will more then likely train more for them instead of hac's
it has nothing to do with invention and nothing to do with the new seeding
(invention isnt worth a squirt of ....)
(the bpos are still being seeded for those of you who dont know)
Why would the price drop occur now instead of earlier? Does it take people that long to change their minds and think that bcs are better? I think HACs still out tank bcs by a lonshot.
Its only been about a month since REV was released. Price drops take time. This is about as fast as i would have expected. Actually, given the usuelessness of invention atm i would have expected it to happen slower.
CHICKS DIG DREADS (and i DONT mean capital ships) |
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 20:07:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
In real life, battlecruisers were ships with Battleship-sized guns but weaker armor.
Not exactly.
Britsh BCs had BS guns and cruiser armor.
German BCs had cruiser guns and BS armor.
But in either way, RL examples are rather meaningless for eve.
Originally by: Shakuul
Supply always met demand; thats what determines market price and quantity. What we are seeing now is an outward supply shift. If you knew the exact rate of reseeding you could derive the demand curve for HACs.
I think he was referring to supply getting more equal to demand, the differences between both getting less extreme.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 20:09:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Aramendel
Not exactly.
Britsh BCs had BS guns and cruiser armor.
German BCs had cruiser guns and BS armor.
But in either way, RL examples are rather meaningless for eve.
Actually sounds interesting to me... I wouldnt mind seeing the races in Eve more different to eachother than they are now. But I guess any change to the way it works now will lead to Forum War III. 
---
Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 20:14:00 -
[41]
Long term trend, or blip ?
LONG TERM.
Invention ?
NO WAY. Invention isn't worth diddly squat for HACs. It isn't worth even if the prices wouldn't had been droping.
New BPO seeding ?
NO WAY EITHER. You can't see much more HACs on sale, they just accumulated over the past month.
New BCs ?
RIGHT ON. One of the main reasons for the price crash.
Before, you really had no decent alternative other than command ships (and those take even MORE training on top of HAC training), but now you have a (much) lower SP, arguably better alternative to the formerly overpriced HACs.
I can only foresee a drop of HAC prices down to 70-90 mil or so in the "not so far" future.
Still well over 100% profit for one HAC compared to manufacture price, but no longer the 500% or 1000% insanity.
___
Drake vs Cerberus, about the same omni-tank with nearly the same gank (bit less range though), for a fraction of the cost. With rigs, a Drake beats a Cerberus in pretty much any aspect.
The only thing a Cerberus is better now is kin/therm specific tank, or anti-torp sigradius tank... or outranging the enemy.
Other than that, I'd take a Drake over a Cerberus any day.
And I can only suppose the WCS nerf (byes stabbabond) and the fact HACs are "uninsurable", compared to this new cheaper (and usually better) alternative makes HACs pretty much worthless at the old prices.
Add to that the skill needs for a HAC, and you'll see nobody with a brain is much to keen on getting a HAC anymore, so you can say the demand has indeed sharply dropped, you know, anvil-from-an-airplane-like drop.
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 20:56:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Akita T
Long term trend, or blip ?
LONG TERM.
Invention ?
NO WAY. Invention isn't worth diddly squat for HACs. It isn't worth even if the prices wouldn't had been droping.
New BPO seeding ?
NO WAY EITHER. You can't see much more HACs on sale, they just accumulated over the past month.
New BCs ?
RIGHT ON. One of the main reasons for the price crash.
Before, you really had no decent alternative other than command ships (and those take even MORE training on top of HAC training), but now you have a (much) lower SP, arguably better alternative to the formerly overpriced HACs.
I can only foresee a drop of HAC prices down to 70-90 mil or so in the "not so far" future.
Still well over 100% profit for one HAC compared to manufacture price, but no longer the 500% or 1000% insanity.
Correct in every respect I would say, except that it's too early to predict the level that prices will drop to.
In the very long term (1-2 years), I would expect HAC prices to rise again as demand begins to outstrip even the increased supply created by the new seeding and the settled invention system.
At that point we should be due another round of BPO's, or a tweak in the drop rate of invention components.
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
Is there anything other than ISK you might be interested in? |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 02:30:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Butter Dog
I've noticed the price of most of the HAC's in major hub systems is crashing, by as much as 50%.
Do we think this is a long-term trend, or short-term blip?
What might the causes be? Invention? New BC's? New BPO seedings (wouldnt have thought those would be coming out of production yet)?
Interested in any perspectives on this - especially from HAC BPO owners themselves, how do they feel right now?
The masses have finally finished their Command ship skills?
I doubt it's simply new BPOs, unless some people failed economics and are doing massive undercutting when it's not needed.
Invention sure as hell isn't a reason, because it's a total failure.
If anything, I'd say more people are using tier 2 BCs, others have trained for Command ships, which are simply better, and then you have a few more BPOs in play, which affect it some, but likely not THAT drastically.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 02:32:00 -
[44]
Originally by: ScreamingLord Sutch
It's a combination of all the reasons stated.
a) New BC's
b) New seeding
c) Invention
Invention is in no way affecting T2 HAC prices.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Coasterbrian
Gekidoku
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 02:39:00 -
[45]
People are finishing training for Command ships. Command ships are better than HACs in almost every way, and with the agility boost in Kali they are evil ships.
The new BCs affect it some as well, because myrmidon > ishtar, drake > cerb, and harbinger > zealot (or so I've been told). Oh, and the Vaga sucks after the WCS nerf.
----------
I say what I mean, but I don't always mean what I say. |
Mortuus
Minmatar
Just-fun
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 03:29:00 -
[46]
Because for much less you can get a better ship for almost any type of combat, the tier 2 Battlecruiser.
Why fly a HAC? I have no idea.
Ran into a Rapier and a Cerb with my Hurricane and a buddy in a Brutix. Tore both of them apart without either of our tanks getting dented.
ex-Occassus Republica <3 |
Joe
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 03:43:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Mortuus
Why fly a HAC? I have no idea.
The right tool for the right job. I quite like my Eagle, and it does the job its designed for pretty well. A BC wont be replacing it anytime soon.
Ofcourse i dont treat my ships like they're soloPwnMobiles, and im not under any delusions that every engagement is 1v1. The arguement that people should go out and buy BC now becuase they're > all is abit silly imho.
Pe0w |
Miss Overlord
Gallente
Ferrum Pugnus
New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 04:04:00 -
[48]
invetnion isnt doing anything right now
These posts represent my personal views and not those of my corp or alliance. These do not reflect offical alliance or corp views
This is a disclaimer |
J Valkor
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 04:18:00 -
[49]
Tier 2 BC's are a cheap alternative. At the same time, BC pilots who have been at it for a while are starting to get command ships. The nighthawk is still (last time I checked) cheaper then a Cerberus.
This adjustment has been a long time coming and thank god it has.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 05:40:00 -
[50]
The OP doesnt understand the concept of "crash" with respect to markets.
Wherever you went - here you are.
|
Lamic Tarvalla
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 06:06:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I prefer the new battle cruisers to hacs now. Mostly because of their dps, price and insurance options.
Yeap I'm with you on that. More fun to fly, cheaper to loose, and speaking of the Myrmidon sexier looking ships.
|
Anatolius
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 06:24:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Anatolius on 27/12/2006 06:26:17
Originally by: Aramendel
Not exactly.
Britsh BCs had BS guns and cruiser armor.
German BCs had cruiser guns and BS armor.
But in either way, RL examples are rather meaningless for eve.
So... Harbinger (factoring in tasty bonuses) vs. Prophecy. 
In real life, battleships weren't slow hulking behemoths. They had quite decent speed. Even during the age of sail, a ship of the line could easily run down most things under its rate. (Given the weather gauge, proper wind and tide, all that jazz.)
In real life, battleships mounted more than battleship class weapons.
In real life, frigates don't have warp scramblers.
In real life, we don't have space-based vehicles.
In real life, when we do have space-based vehicles, any government that thinks in blue-water naval terms is going to get its arse handed to it by any government that realizes space != ocean.
In real life, private citizens can't generally own modern-day military warships complete with current-generation armaments.
Bringing real life to EVE will make EVE suck horribly. That about cover it?
(I still want larger ships to be faster, though. )
TBH, I have no problem with a higher ship class beating the living snot out of anything under it in a direct firefight. That is, barring surprise, shady tactics like ECM/NOS, people doing stupid things like not mounting anti-frigate weaponry (c'mon, drones even!). s'how it should be. Expensive toys are expensive toys. Just because you spent three bajillion ISK on it doesn't mean it should be a solo wtfpwnmobile.
"If God be for us, whom can be against us?" |
VossKarr
Caldari
The 6th Directorate
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 06:47:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Shi Mun
HAC prices are falling because they are being out performed in their role by more cost-effective ships.
...that are fully insurable, more readily available and easily manufacturable, if you're so inclined, to boot. Win-Win! 
|
Alliaanna Dalaii
Gallente
Does Not Compute
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 07:55:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Zealots and Cerberuses are crashing because the Harbinger and Drake own them in the face 
Depends if you suck with a Zealot I guesse
Alliaanna
DNC Treasure Hunt !!
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 08:16:00 -
[55]
Originally by: ScreamingLord Sutch
a) New BC's
This is pretty much the only factor. The new BCs (and BCs in general, now that they have been boosted) give much better bang for the buck, and can give a HAC a serious fight in a 1-on-1 -- yes, depends on ship, fittings and pilot of course.
Used to be that HACs were the only choice if you wanted a heavy hitter that isn't a battleship. Isn't anymore, and you're starting to see the result in the price drops -- which are the result of less demand, as less people are willing to pay silly prices for hacs.
As an added (small) factor, I'd add the fact that more people are starting to have command ship skills, and those cost less than HACs at the moment and can do much of the same things.
Originally by: ScreamingLord Sutch
b) New seeding
Nah. Any new BPOs people might have gotten via that are still in research (ME improvement). No effect on markets yet.
Originally by: ScreamingLord Sutch
c) Invention
Absolutely not. If you have read what people have written about the state of invention nowadays, you'll know that it's a waste of time at the moment. Maybe some day, but now? Njet.
|
Aphotic Raven
Gallente
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 08:20:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Pinky Denmark
as CCP value the Hacs to about 20m isk they sure deserve to get plastered by tier2 BC's... 100-150m seems to be a fair price anyway
You hit the nail on the head, im not sure how the base price is worked out by CCP (mins with 0me ?) but Evemon will tell you that hacs are between 17-27mil base price, given that the most you'll pay for pretty much any t1 cruiser is 7 mil this seems pretty reasonable given their capabilitys.
If you own a HAC BPO its not certain free money (unless you sell it) because of ore prices and the like... but if you're a crazy carebear you can make them and sell them for less than this with research... so we are seeing ships with a possible production cost of less than 25mil selling for 200mil or so.... whats happened is simply a balance to bring things back in line with other ships.... and hopefully the market will reflect this more and more as time goes on!
*prays for REASONABLY priced ishkurs and ishtars*
 |
Aphotic Raven
Gallente
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 08:21:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Dal Thrax
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
scratch reseeding and especially invention from your lists.
new BCs are the only reason. those (stupid) drakes even had an effect on those (stupid) ravens.
reminds me - who allowed the drakes to become this overpowered?
You do realize that in real life a BC CAN give a BS a run for its money and will pretty much PWN a cruiser (assuming we're talking ship types between Battle of Juteland and say Pearl Harbor).
You do realize that in real life we dont have uber space ships that can pwnerate planets and other uber space ships with their awesome lazors and ****. (assuming you play eve).
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 08:28:00 -
[58]
I used to fly Ishtars a lot back when they were in the 40-50 mil price range and everyone thought they were crap. 
Don't fly them much anymore, at least not in pvp; 200mil is just too much for that ship, nice as it is. If they were to drop below 100mil again I might consider them, but as is the Astarte, Eos and the t1 bcs offer a much better deal atm.
|
Contralto
Binary Fringe inc
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 08:51:00 -
[59]
Just checked the Verge Vendor market... 1 Ishtar going for 160 mill, 2 more for 190 mill.
|
Midshipman
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 09:46:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Anatolius
In real life, battleships weren't slow hulking behemoths. They had quite decent speed. Even during the age of sail, a ship of the line could easily run down most things under its rate. (Given the weather gauge, proper wind and tide, all that jazz.
First of all, why even bring up sailing vessels. Secondly, with the exception of the Iowa class, most battleships had cruising speeds of 29 knots or less. Meanwhile, most cruisers and many destroyers could do 31+ knots.
Quote:
In real life, battleships mounted more than battleship class weapons.
True, but what is stopping you from mounting smaller weapons on your Eve battleship? Drones could also be the equivilent of secondary armament.
Quote:
In real life, frigates don't have warp scramblers.
If you are refering to a smaller ship cutting off the escape of a larger ship, then you are wrong again. Torpedo firing destroyers have on several occasions forced battleships to alter their course at key points in major battles.
I won't pick on the rest of your post because it starts shooting off into ridiculous tangents. In the future, please don't try tp draw comparisons in a subject that you obviously know nothing about.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |