Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zirth
Caldari The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:16:00 -
[1]
Do they?
I've been training for them for a while, I could already fly the caldari ones, but went for gallante now. After I fit an Ishtar, and killed a battlecruiser solo I was very happy.
Till I started being real. The guy had 1.5m sp, I got 18. I watched some vids of BCs some more, and ran some tests on my Ishtar.
What I found was that my ishtar, at a ship price of 200mil, wasn't even that great. A decent BC could kill it, it's as simple as that. Now I know that there's a way to kill any ship, speed means you need a web, nos means you stay out of nos range (basic examples)... But still, my ishtar wasn't all that hard to kill by the every-day BC.
Now I fit my ships with great care. I love number crunching, and I plan, test, test more, refit, etc. Not to say someone else can't get more out of this Ishtar, but it's at a very decent level already. Yet, it's so fragile, and so much more riscy to fly.
So I'm quite dissapointed. In EVE a battleship or battlecruiser takes alot less long to train for, period. And even battleships are often *less than half* the price of my ishtar. I could probably fit 5-8 battlecruisers at the same price of this Ishtar. Isn't that strange?
Sure, a battlecruiser is a bigger-sized ship than a cruiser. It's not *that* weird that a cruiser-class ship can be killed by a bigger-sized ship. But must the price differences, and training times be so insane, relatively, compared to the training times of a BC or BS?
I fully understand that HACs can be better than BCs. And that HACs do warp out faster, lock faster, are more agile.
But I still feel that at 200mil base cost of an ishtar for example, and the training times that are required to fly a decent hac, are just ridiculous considering BCs and BSs (not always) are often better, and require much less isk/time to fly. I love this ishtar, but I'm likely just going to sell it and fly a Myrmidon or something.
Does anyone agree with me somewhat. This comes from a PvPer?
|
pshepherd
Caldari Dark-Rising Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:19:00 -
[2]
The ship costs about 40million the build (rough estimate). The reason that they sell for 200million is because people buy them for that much.
The problem isn't that their underpowered, only that people see "T2" and assume it'll be better.
|
Symeonis Porphory
Gallente Philosophi Lapis
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:38:00 -
[3]
Originally by: pshepherd The ship costs about 40million the build (rough estimate). The reason that they sell for 200million is because people buy them for that much.
That doesn't explain yet why a ship with so high skill requirements seems to be loosing to ships that are far easier to use...
|
Zirth
Caldari The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:38:00 -
[4]
At 40mil they should be a real good ship. I tried to find a blueprint though, nothing. I'm not very into invention, or building for that matter (I really like it, real interesting, but with limited play-time I'd rather stick to PvP!)
You're right though. I just wish the price would drop :(
|
Niestrenna
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:39:00 -
[5]
HACs used to be much more agile than Battlecruisers, and since there's quite a gap between tier 1 and 2 BC, now tier2 BC tend to cast a shadow over HACs ...
You also have to consider that most HACs have a range/tracking Bonus and many of them are better than BC to take out support ...
They're close enough but not the same, and yes, HACs are stupidly overpriced!
|
Vathar
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Symeonis Porphory
Originally by: pshepherd The ship costs about 40million the build (rough estimate). The reason that they sell for 200million is because people buy them for that much.
That doesn't explain yet why a ship with so high skill requirements seems to be loosing to ships that are far easier to use...
Skill requirements between an AF and a cruiser are much higher, still a decent cruiser will crush an AF anytime ...
the thing also is that when you aim for high req ships, you tend to pick up useful skills around and that what makes you a good pilot...
There are many poor BC pilots around, but if you have the skills it requires to fly a HAC decently, you should also be quite lethal in a BC (provided you have the BC skill ofc)
Originally by: Radeberger If you plan to make your alliance combat based, recruit pvpers with mining alts rather than miners with pvp alts
|
Valea Silpha
Death Monkey's With Knives Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Symeonis Porphory
Originally by: pshepherd The ship costs about 40million the build (rough estimate). The reason that they sell for 200million is because people buy them for that much.
That doesn't explain yet why a ship with so high skill requirements seems to be loosing to ships that are far easier to use...
Technically speaking, the only functional skill difference on a HAC is cruiser 5. Same support skills, same guns/drones/missile skills. I know thats kinda picking a really pointless hole in the arguament but it is true. Good BC pilots will have t2 guns and tank and so forth, so its never going to be an easy fight.
Basically, BCs and HACs fill the same kinda role, that of being harder versions of cruisers. BCs do it by having more slots and grid and so forth, so they are more generalized. HACs (being t2 and all) have better bonuses etc, but have a very specific design purpose in mind, and need to use very specific tactics to win.
Thats the problem with all t2 compared to 'next ship up' t1. I mean... you wouldn't think it was too odd for a destroyer to slap an AF around would you ?
<Hammerhead> TomB is doing the nerfing <Hammerhead> I just stand behind him, look at his monitor and shake my head |
Spenz
Gallente FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 13:48:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Spenz on 09/02/2007 13:45:57 By far the biggest issue with HAC's is that there is a serious T2 BP cartel out there that jack up the prices far beyond reason. Problem with the whole 'well dont buy it if you dont like the price' thing is that the only source of these ships will not sell them any lower. IF you try to sell them lower, some market shark will buy it and just sell it at 200 mil again.
Thus is the price of a market controlled by cartels. Its OK to set it at 200 mil because everyone is used to buying them at that price. Invention was suppose to change that but...well...that hasnt changed much.
HAC's are good for combat IF you can afford to lose it. A HAC can and will take down the average BC, but the price disparity between the two makes it so that most pilots dont want to risk using the HAC in combat. Its much cheaper to just fit a T2 BC and call it a HAC. You wont be as durable (high base resists are very effective in combat), and you wont get any nifty bonus', but you will be insured.
|
Niestrenna
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 14:02:00 -
[9]
Bah, the "don't fly a ship you can't afford to lose" doesn't exactly apply to HACs.
I mean, if I have a HAC, I fly it, have fun with it, eventually lose it, but I don't need it, and it's thrilling to fly these toys sometimes, they're still fun to fly, but you don't NEED them!
the only ships I can't afford to lose are my isk earners, all others can be replaced and, provided you've got a minimal pool of pvp ships, you can always find something useful to help your mates.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 14:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: pshepherd The ship costs about 40million the build (rough estimate). The reason that they sell for 200million is because people buy them for that much.
The problem isn't that their underpowered, only that people see "T2" and assume it'll be better.
But T2 is better.
Cerb > Caracal Eagle > Moa and so on
OP, it's worth training for HACs, because then you're maybe a month away from Commandships, and they rule.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
|
Phish1
Liberty Forces Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 14:13:00 -
[11]
vagabond... need i say more?
now, let me present my argument:
heavy assault CRUISERS
not HABC, HAC
they arent ment to be solopwnmobiles, they are just a T2 ship. its like asking "why cant my AF kill a cruiser solo?" a cruiser can probably permatank most AFs if they have a half decent tank (bear in mind BCs are normaly fitted with a wcicked tank)
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 14:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Spenz Edited by: Spenz on 09/02/2007 13:45:57 By far the biggest issue with HAC's is that there is a serious T2 BP cartel out there that jack up the prices far beyond reason. Problem with the whole 'well dont buy it if you dont like the price' thing is that the only source of these ships will not sell them any lower. IF you try to sell them lower, some market shark will buy it and just sell it at 200 mil again.
Thus is the price of a market controlled by cartels. Its OK to set it at 200 mil because everyone is used to buying them at that price. Invention was suppose to change that but...well...that hasnt changed much.
HAC's are good for combat IF you can afford to lose it. A HAC can and will take down the average BC, but the price disparity between the two makes it so that most pilots dont want to risk using the HAC in combat. Its much cheaper to just fit a T2 BC and call it a HAC. You wont be as durable (high base resists are very effective in combat), and you wont get any nifty bonus', but you will be insured.
Okay, I'm sorry, but this post makes little if any sense and contradicts itself more than once.
First you state that mythical T2 BPO cartels keep the HAC prices high, then you state that people that do sell for lower than 200mil have the ships bought up and resold by market sharks, then jump on the cartel bandwagon again.
The fact is there are several sources for reasonably priced HACS, available to everyone if they have the patience to wait for their order to be filled. However in most cases the product is resold for the higher current market price by those pesky market sharks you mentioned. So, you sort of sideswiped the facts on your way by them.
And as for just fitting a T2 BC and calling it a HAC, but you won't have the high resists????
Two words: Command Ship
I think I"ll just assume you haven't had your morning cup of coffee yet.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 14:44:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Spenz Edited by: Spenz on 09/02/2007 13:45:57 By far the biggest issue with HAC's is that there is a serious T2 BP cartel out there that jack up the prices far beyond reason. Problem with the whole 'well dont buy it if you dont like the price' thing is that the only source of these ships will not sell them any lower. IF you try to sell them lower, some market shark will buy it and just sell it at 200 mil again.
Thus is the price of a market controlled by cartels. Its OK to set it at 200 mil because everyone is used to buying them at that price. Invention was suppose to change that but...well...that hasnt changed much.
HAC's are good for combat IF you can afford to lose it. A HAC can and will take down the average BC, but the price disparity between the two makes it so that most pilots dont want to risk using the HAC in combat. Its much cheaper to just fit a T2 BC and call it a HAC. You wont be as durable (high base resists are very effective in combat), and you wont get any nifty bonus', but you will be insured.
There are no existing T2 BPO cartels, with the exception of this hilarious joker who keeps trying to pricefix Mining Drone IIs.
The only problem is that there's a ton of people buying the HACs, and only a few BPOs making them. Supply and demand, and not enough supply.
-[23] Member-
EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame) |
Bronson Hughes
Caldari Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 14:55:00 -
[14]
I think that part of the problem with HACs is that they aren't really HACs. They are Heavy Assault Ships not Heavy Assault Cruisers. People see "Heavy Cruiser" and assume that it's at least as strong as a battlecruiser.
HACs are specialized cruisers. They build on a base model and do something that base model does really well. Eagles, for example, make amazing snipers with their double range bonuses. They aren't solo killing machines that can demolish all in their path.
|
Linavin
Mercurialis Inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:12:00 -
[15]
HACs are great, while BC's are more on the BS side of the heavy cruiser spectrum (more slots, guns, overall tank and damage) but HACs remain closer to a cruiser. If you fly one, you need to use the speed advantage to its fullest extend. And as far as taking battlecruisers with an ishtar, its completly doable. The only problem with engaging anything bigger than yourself is nos, which is a completly different balancing issue. As said, HACs fill more specific roles with greater agility than BCs ---
|
Christopher Dalran
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:19:00 -
[16]
If you want a fast response group or a raiding party that can get the job done and leave before help arrives than HAC's and AF's are your best friend. They do very well in groups but it is much to great a risk to fly them around solo. A well fitted BC can take down a HAC simply because of its far greater array of slots and much greater armor.
Have you ever tried flying a Demios with a Laeches (or however you spell the gal combat recon)? A demios can achieve phenominal DPS but its tank sucks and its the only HAC with less speed than its t1 counterpart but with dampers from a ship with a bonus you dont even need to worry about that.
My personal opinion however is that untill i either Invent a HAC bpc or the prices fall within reasonable range (somewhere near their cost, not 5x it) I will just stick to a Battle cruiser that i know i can fit to beat a HAC senseless.
|
X99 Z990
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:21:00 -
[17]
Edited by: X99 Z990 on 09/02/2007 15:19:21 Well HACs arent really going to win in a 1 on 1 slugfest with a battlecruiser.
They by no means suck but if you cant find a reason to justify the extra isk they cost by all means you will be better off in a battlecruiser.
|
Spenz
Gallente FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:25:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Spenz on 09/02/2007 15:22:04 Sorry but you really believe a ship that costs 40 mil to make, but is 200 mil on the market is attributed to low supply and high demand? Thats like saying Cap Recharger II prices were perfectly fine at 30 mil a pop because there werent enough people making them. If you give me the names of a few of these 'reasonable' T2 producers (and no I dont mean alliance members with BPO's), then I might be inclined to believe you. Until then I get to hear grand stories of people with 100+ billion isk because they trolled the market and made T2 stuff.
As for the whole 'outfit a BC and call it a HAC' thingy, nowhere did I imply command ships in that sentence. Besides the fact that Command ships take a helluva long time to skill up for, and the fact that the 2 command ships branch off into such different skill paths that it can take up to a month after you trained for 1 to train for the other, this thread isnt about command ships, its about HAC's vs BC's.
So Im not happy with T2 prices. NOBODY is except for the BPO holders. Maybe cartel isnt the proper word, but you would be lying to think that T2 prices atm are fair (they are only getting worse atm).
|
zayanka
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:37:00 -
[19]
HACS rnt bad...they can kill stuff....they can kill cruisers easily...if they wouldnt cost 130 mils then they would be great...
Hac should be 20 mils or so...thats the good price for it
|
Kunming
Outcasts
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:40:00 -
[20]
HACs suck cause AFs are pretty much obsolete in pvp!
Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
|
|
Celedris
Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 15:44:00 -
[21]
You can't just match up ships against each other 1v1 when comparing them. A billion-isk Rattlesnake can easily get destroyed by a cheaply fitted 60-mil Domi 1v1. Just because you decided to buy an expensively marked-up ship doesn't mean it deserves to beat less expensive ships in every 1v1 situation.
A cheap 50-mil Gallente/Amarr/Matari combat recon can effortlessly kill most HACs & battlecruisers 1v1. Likewise, a cheaply fit 6-mil nos vexor will kill almost any 30-mil T2 assault frig 1v1 as well.
|
Blood Raine
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 16:06:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Blood Raine on 09/02/2007 16:13:30 You do realize that T2 prices are the way they are not because of the producers, but because of resellers that drive the prices up to make money?
I should know I own stock in a corporation that does this
|
Harry Voyager
Obscurity LLC
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 16:40:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Harry Voyager on 09/02/2007 16:41:15 Folks, let's think about this for a minute, if there was no demand for HACs, do you think people would pay 200m for them? Market histories and purchase counts are publicly available.
In the Forge region alone, there have been ~40 Cerbs sold in the past week, all at ~200m each, and maybe 20 are currently up for sale right now. Seems to me they're selling at a pretty good clip, even with the price.
Harry Voyager
Doh, didn't go to the end of the thread: If the 200m price for the Cerb was an artificial inflation, then there would be a much higher ratio of ships for sale, relative to the number that have moved in the past week, simply because people who are trying to maximize their profits would be attempting to sell more ships at the inflated price, which would lead to a market glut.
(The argument that producers are not selling ships, in order to drive up profits don't hold with observed behaviors, as it would require the producers to be selectively greedy. A classic example would be OPECs attempts at price fixing oil. They attempted to limit their production in order to drive oil prices up, but members started producing over their quotas, in order to take advantage of the elevated oil prices, and ended up driving oil prices back down.)
|
Nuhatai Almeisan
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 16:45:00 -
[24]
Erm Spenz, theres this thing in EvE called a player driven market. The market sets it own price, based on the demand for the items and what people are willing to pay. For example, if you sell an ishtar for anything under 180 million, expect it to bought up almost immediatley, most likly to be resold at a high price. People buy ishtars at 200 mil and below, thus the price dosen't go much higher.
|
Kehmor
Caldari PAK
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 17:08:00 -
[25]
ships don't suck, pilots do. Ok well maybe the ferox sucks...
|
OhMyGodess
Caldari Xenobytes Stain Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 17:35:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Zirth At 40mil they should be a real good ship. I tried to find a blueprint though, nothing. I'm not very into invention, or building for that matter (I really like it, real interesting, but with limited play-time I'd rather stick to PvP!)
You're right though. I just wish the price would drop :(
well, ishtar can't be fitted proper with 1600mm and mwd [only ab] - and it will have passive tank? so? stick to myrmidon - it have much better active tank [2 reps], and even if u use blasters + MED drones - it will have same dps as ishtar, i don't talk about heavy dronez or full gang setups that make ishtar cry, just it.
|
Alowishus
OctoberSnow Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 17:49:00 -
[27]
According to these forums all ships suck. Except nanoships, those are overpowered. But everything else sucks. Promise.
|
Atandros
Gallente Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 17:56:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Atandros on 09/02/2007 17:52:59
Originally by: Spenz So Im not happy with T2 prices. NOBODY is except for the BPO holders.
Oh, hardly. Their corpmates / alliancemates are exuberant too!
Quote: Maybe cartel isnt the proper word, but you would be lying to think that T2 prices atm are fair (they are only getting worse atm).
Sorry, "fair" is a word that has no place whatsoever in Eve.
Now, ontopic. HACs are probably the least cost-efficient class at the moment (at open market prices, at least) and they occupy a small and barely existent niche (that of high-firepower ships able to redeploy quickly), small because they aren't *that* fast compared to battleships or BCs / CBCs yet their firepower is markedly lower, and it is a niche that is only getting smaller thanks to recent changes such as WTZ and the nano-craze. Still, if you treat them as elite cruisers - no more, no less - and have access to a cheap supply, they can be a useful asset sometimes.
-------
|
Marachus
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 18:01:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kehmor ships don't suck, pilots do. Ok well maybe the ferox sucks...
I think I remember a Dev saying they were gonna give the Ferox a 6th hybrid hardpoint, which would do much to help it as a railboat. Just they had to get the artists to do it before implementing. So who knows...
|
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari Gallente Federal Bank Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.09 18:18:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 09/02/2007 18:16:29
Originally by: Spenz If you give me the names of a few of these 'reasonable' T2 producers (and no I dont mean alliance members with BPO's), then I might be inclined to believe you.
contact me in game spenz. I dont have the bpo, but i know someone that does.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |