EVE Search - What happened to the glory days of HACs?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

What happened to the glory days of HACs?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
OutofSight Caldari United Space Republic Malice.	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:07:00 - [1] When I left the game last, the idea of the nano ship hadnt really been explored. (There wernt even t2 nanofibers and overdrivers). Apart from the vaga most HACs were hard hitting and good tanking boats, which were often upclose in your face ships and being webbed didnt mean then end of your HAC. (Obviously the vaga was still a very fast ship back then, a precursor to the nano fit of today) My main question is what have I missed in terms of changes in the game that change the role of HACS? I always liked the idea of zooming to your target and just melting it (the zealot being my favourite). It never seemed so suicidal to be in web range in a HAC back then. The only things I can come up with right now is there is now a huge variety of ships now and I guess there are many ships that can do similar jobs for alot cheaper or alot better (Absolution for example) I also havent heard much mention of the Eagle/Cerberus lately, are they no longer popular/useful HAC? In times of War the law falls silent... OutofSight, OutofMind
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:10:00 - [2] The HP boost helped out BSs that got more HP than the HACs. --------------------------------- Oh noes! Originally by: CCP Greyscale moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal
Darth Kenzie Amarr Ganja Labs Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:12:00 - [3] Edited by: Darth Kenzie on 19/05/2008 23:12:17 Also alot of the teir2 bc equal or out preform alot of the HAC's in many situations... and they are fulling insurable. (put bs instead of bc) ------- I am the King of Rome and above grammar.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:16:00 - [4] recons happened ***** ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Kamen SRBI Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:19:00 - [5] In my personal experience/opinion, cerb and especially eagle are obsoleted by the drake in skirmish war situations (gate range). They can only do damage and only in SOME situations do it better than Drake, but Drake can deal damage much longer because it will live longer in most cases. I would put Muninn and Deimos in the same bucket. Nano ishtar, vaga, zealot and sac have arguably (situational) overall better survivability than T2 BCs. Vagas also can take multiple roles in its standard fitting, so they are better or on-par with BCs in my opinion. ------------------------------------------------ (Recruiting ad) SRBI regrutuju! Dodjite na nas javni SRBI kanal. Kontakt Soder/Me West
Venus Felix	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:34:00 - [6] I'd say that larger and more coordinated gangs is the main reason. Although most HACs still have good tanks it's no match for any ten ships focusing their fire. Essentially if you're in range of too many enemy ships at once you're dead, and if you try to run straight for them you will be. The only exception to this rule of "stay out of range or die" I can think of is spider tanks which doesn't work too well on ships smaller that BS due to the limited range of the smaller Remote Repair Systems. As others have pointed out, the fact is that - when it comes to firepower and tank - the BCs are at least as good as HACs. This has some part in their declining popularity, of course. I see HACs these days as very specialized ships, just as most other T2 cruisers. Considering the Cerb and the Eagle they both have a few specific roles that they do very well. The Cerberus can send fast missiles after small ships from great distance and the Eagle can take out careless tacklers very quickly at a distance. The Cerberus is also a good nano ship, much thanks to (for Caldari) low weight and capless weapons.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.05.19 23:40:00 - [7] Originally by: Venus Felix I'd say that larger and more coordinated gangs is the main reason. Although most HACs still have good tanks it's no match for any ten ships focusing their fire. Essentially if you're in range of too many enemy ships at once you're dead, and if you try to run straight for them you will be. The only exception to this rule of "stay out of range or die" I can think of is spider tanks which doesn't work too well on ships smaller that BS due to the limited range of the smaller Remote Repair Systems. As others have pointed out, the fact is that - when it comes to firepower and tank - the BCs are at least as good as HACs. This has some part in their declining popularity, of course. I see HACs these days as very specialized ships, just as most other T2 cruisers. Considering the Cerb and the Eagle they both have a few specific roles that they do very well. The Cerberus can send fast missiles after small ships from great distance and the Eagle can take out careless tacklers very quickly at a distance. The Cerberus is also a good nano ship, much thanks to (for Caldari) low weight and capless weapons. Actually, the Cerb is one of the slower Nano fits thanks to it's inordinately high weight; however, the agility of the ship is amazingly low (as are all Caldari ships) in spite of the weight. Thus the reason the Sac is almost universally prefered over the Cerb - one can easily get into the major damage mitigation range in a sac, but doing the same thing in a Cerb requires some fairly expensive gear.
Siadyu Amarr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.05.20 00:49:00 - [8] Quote: My main question is what have I missed in terms of changes in the game that change the role of HACS? The nos nerf made it all but impossible to run a strong tank on a cruiser-sized vessel without unacceptable reductions to both dps and utility. There are a few exceptions, though. For example, the sacrilege gets a big capacitor bonus, capless weapons, and a nice tanking bonus.
Squatdog Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.20 01:03:00 - [9] The advent of nanofaggotry made tanked HACs obsolete. [yellow]Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigato
Mortuus Minmatar Occassus Republica Legio Mithras	Posted - 2008.05.20 01:39:00 - [10] Edited by: Mortuus on 20/05/2008 01:39:22 HP Boost killed small ship combat in anything other than a gang. So to adapt people fitted high speed to avoid gangs of enemy ships and to catch the now speed fitted people running away. Occassus Republica <3
ElCholo Minmatar The SMITE Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.05.20 03:21:00 - [11] sadly, if you dont nano your hac, your better off in a bc, or a recon, or a bs, or a hic ..
FluffyBunnyPuPu COAD Alts United	Posted - 2008.05.20 03:52:00 - [12] My Raven was equipped with the following: HIGH 06 x Cruise Missile Launcher I 01 x SMALL TRACTOR BEAM 1 01 x SALVAGER I MEDIUM 04 x LARGE SHIELD EXTENDERS 01 x 'HYPHNOS' ECM 01 x MEDIUM SHIELD BOOSTER LOW 01 x EMERGENCY DAMAGE CONTROL 01 x ARMOR KINETIC HARDENER I 01 x ARMOR THREMIC HARDENER I 02 x WARP CORE STABILIZER I DRONES 02 x WARRIOR I DRONES 03 x HAMMERHEAD I DRONES UPGRADES 01 x ROCKET FUEL CACHE PARTINTION I 01 x BAY LOADING ACCELERATOR I
Cutie Chaser Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.05.20 04:23:00 - [13] Originally by: ElCholo sadly, if you dont nano your hac, your better off in a bc, or a recon, or a bs, or a hic .. This is exactly it; if you want face melting DPS and a rock-solid tank you should fly a Tier 2 BC. This leave nano as the only option to make your HAC outperform its cheaper and less skill-intensive cousin. The rash of nano HACs is a symptom of a festering unbalanced caused by the introduction of BCs in general. Despite this CCP will continue to trim and cut away speed like gangrenous limbs, rather then addressing the underlaying cause. Give HACs a role that they don't get upstaged in by cheaper ships(other then speed) and you'll see the problem dissipate; leave it alone and nerf nano fittings and you'll end up with an entire class of useless ships, much like their tiny, slow sibling the assault ship. *** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers.
Ortos Abyssus Incendia THORN Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.20 04:51:00 - [14] Nanofits are a countermeasure to todays tactics.
Depp Knight Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.20 05:26:00 - [15] There isnt just one thing, it was a lot of things, the new ceptor roles and stab nerf being some of the biggest.I remember back in the days that if my ceptor went 5k/s I was really going fast. But now that your -1 scrams dont use the normal 15cap per 5 secs or whatever, ceptors are now purely speed fitting it. They dont need cpr's to hold their scram. Prior to this stabs were nerf. This meant that 7.5km scrams were neglected and still are. Sometimes ceptors needed -2 scrams to combat stabs. This meant that it can get pretty damn nasty if a ceptor goes up against a hac. Now you have ceptors going over 10k's. Infact if you are not going that speed, then why are you flying a ceptor. That means that sniping ships like the muninn, and the eagle are neglected. Before it would take 20 to 35 secs to reach the sniping eagle (and you would need to get some serious transversal to avoid getting hit), but now it is taking about 10 to 15 secs. So sniping hacs have been taken out from the game somewhat. Now you have ships going so fast that fitting, arty's, beams, or rails are sorta pointless. You just cannot hit fast ships with them. So now you are relying on falloff and 20km skirmishes. Which means, you need speed, or huge tank. But then you have neuts and nos. draining you at 24km distance. The way to combat that was to get out of range, which means nano's. Tank is not an option, you just dont have the cap to fight. In short,I am not here to say that nano's and od's have ruined the game. The game is just different, and although it does help many aspects of the game, like small gangs, it also neglects other aspects of the game. If nanos and ods were removed for the game, it would mean the end of small gang skirmishes. Is that a huge deal? Yes, the game then would change and become 'different' once again, but that doesnt mean it would become bad.
Euriti Gallente Caritas.	Posted - 2008.05.20 06:22:00 - [16] Originally by: Cutie Chaser Originally by: ElCholo sadly, if you dont nano your hac, your better off in a bc, or a recon, or a bs, or a hic .. This is exactly it; if you want face melting DPS and a rock-solid tank you should fly a Tier 2 BC. This leave nano as the only option to make your HAC outperform its cheaper and less skill-intensive cousin. The rash of nano HACs is a symptom of a festering unbalanced caused by the introduction of BCs in general. Despite this CCP will continue to trim and cut away speed like gangrenous limbs, rather then addressing the underlaying cause. Give HACs a role that they don't get upstaged in by cheaper ships(other then speed) and you'll see the problem dissipate; leave it alone and nerf nano fittings and you'll end up with an entire class of useless ships, much like their tiny, slow sibling the assault ship. Exactly, and this is why nano should not be nerfed, we'll just end up with a broken class of ships just like their little brothers. It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. Nanos aren't as invincible as it's claimed, there are many counters to them, people just need to think outside the f1-f8 megathron orbit and win mentality.
slothe Caldari Murky Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.20 07:39:00 - [17] Originally by: Euriti Exactly, and this is why nano should not be nerfed, we'll just end up with a broken class of ships just like their little brothers. It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. Nanos aren't as invincible as it's claimed, there are many counters to them, people just need to think outside the f1-f8 megathron orbit and win mentality. sorry i dont agree. i think polycarbs need looking at and tweaking to make them in line with the nanofiber module as currently they are disproportionately good. i fly nano ships but would welcome any change that would slow nano ships down marginally, so i would be able to dust off my armour tank ships and fly them again.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2008.05.20 08:37:00 - [18] Originally by: slothe Originally by: Euriti Exactly, and this is why nano should not be nerfed, we'll just end up with a broken class of ships just like their little brothers. It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. Nanos aren't as invincible as it's claimed, there are many counters to them, people just need to think outside the f1-f8 megathron orbit and win mentality. sorry i dont agree. i think polycarbs need looking at and tweaking to make them in line with the nanofiber module as currently they are disproportionately good. i fly nano ships but would welcome any change that would slow nano ships down marginally, so i would be able to dust off my armour tank ships and fly them again. "disproportionately good"???????!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!! Have you seen the price of them lately? QFT. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
Kay Rissa Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.05.20 09:05:00 - [19] Edited by: Kay Rissa on 20/05/2008 09:05:47 hacs and recons are the best ships for kill and run operations in 0.0 BC, BS, CS dont stand a chance in hostile 0.0 area, because they are very slow. Obviously BC are fully insurable and much better vs single hac, but solo PVP in eve is dead, and you will loose that BC every single day. Nowdays its smaller blob vs larger blob, or blob vs blob. Quick allinging and dealing good damage is necessary. And only hacs can provide this. Proud member of RTSQ ps: i dont like to kill innocent ppl, so if i killed u, u rnt innocent
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.20 09:23:00 - [20] Another HUGE change that balanced (some can read "nerfed") uberly tanked HASes is mass addition through modules: you could fit a 1600mm RT plate and gain a huge buffer tank with the given T2 resistances. In the modern "nano-world", HAS = faster than BC and BS, cause out-tanking or out-ganking them is not very realistic when either fits for it. Plating HASes makes them slow and forces them to accelerate and align more like their bigger T1 adversaries, leaving very few advantages in the long end, combined with way higher and un-insurable hull costs. People do not understand that fitting over-sized plates and/or speed mods is not viable in the nano world, and we see many lol-posts with uber-nanoed 100mn MWD Zealots and such, that have the turning ability of a brick falling down a cliff Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game! Introduce HEAT EMMITERÖ for the Pilgrim
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.20 09:26:00 - [21] A number of things have changed. (1) We have a excellent line of Tier 2 BCs which generally outpreform non-nano (and sometimes nano) HACs 1v1 while being cheaper to boot and fully insurable on top. (2) HP buffs favouring bigger ship classes (BC/BS) more then smaller T2 ones, and favouring ships with more grid for plates/etc. (3) Tanking boosts of all sorts, mostly provided by tanking rigs which are disproportionally good vs gank rigs. (4) Wide poliferation of 90% webs - if you're talking about the time when you didn't have T2 nanofibers/overdrives, then most likely people didn't have 90% webs at the time either (bar paying for a very expensive fleeting one) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.05.20 09:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: slothe Originally by: Euriti Exactly, and this is why nano should not be nerfed, we'll just end up with a broken class of ships just like their little brothers. It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. Nanos aren't as invincible as it's claimed, there are many counters to them, people just need to think outside the f1-f8 megathron orbit and win mentality. sorry i dont agree. i think polycarbs need looking at and tweaking to make them in line with the nanofiber module as currently they are disproportionately good. i fly nano ships but would welcome any change that would slow nano ships down marginally, so i would be able to dust off my armour tank ships and fly them again. "disproportionately good"???????!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!! Have you seen the price of them lately? QFT. Price should never be an excuse for something being good. I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.05.20 09:36:00 - [23] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: slothe Originally by: Euriti Exactly, and this is why nano should not be nerfed, we'll just end up with a broken class of ships just like their little brothers. It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. Nanos aren't as invincible as it's claimed, there are many counters to them, people just need to think outside the f1-f8 megathron orbit and win mentality. sorry i dont agree. i think polycarbs need looking at and tweaking to make them in line with the nanofiber module as currently they are disproportionately good. i fly nano ships but would welcome any change that would slow nano ships down marginally, so i would be able to dust off my armour tank ships and fly them again. "disproportionately good"???????!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!! Have you seen the price of them lately? QFT. Polycarbs are indeed very good at what they do. While the rigs are in high demand and supplies of the components are very low (I myself have salavaged no more than a dozen Alloyed Tritanium Bars), their high cost is well offset by imparting a high degree of survivability on certain ships. I could certainly create a fanstastical Drake, full of faction gear and deadspace items, but with no ability to get away from anything I don't outgun and/or outtank such a ship is simply a huge loss waiting to happen. On the other side of the coin, a faction fit deadspace vagabond is almost unkillable by any reasonable standard. Anything a vaga can't outgun it can easily outrun and the pilot will only lose his ship if he suffers a fatal case of stupidity. But the deadspace MWD, the faction OD's and Nanofibers, the faction guns - all of these things are a waste without the polycarbs. No other item has such an impact on your end state speed and agility until you start getting exhorbinant with Snake implants. 50 million isk is a small price to pay when you conder how much it can increase the odds of survival on certain ships.
Squatdog Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:19:00 - [24] Edited by: Squatdog on 20/05/2008 11:21:16 It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. LOL....cry more. Nano-faggotry is massively overpowered and has been for the last year or so. For less than the price of a BS, you can have a ship that is very difficult to hit and impossible to catch. The 'counters' are: 1- Abuse nanos yourself 2- Fly a Huginn/Rapier(usually nanoed) 3- Heavy Neut on BS (they'll still escape) 4- Precision Caracal (too little dps to break their tank) 5- 3man ECM/Inty/dps gang (need 3 vs 1 odds to win) 6- Dual Web Hyena (will get pelted usually) 7- Ram them into things (doesn't work most of the time) 8- Pray that the nano-pilot is intellectually handicapped and wil make some boneheaded mistake
Kay Rissa Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:26:00 - [25] Edited by: Kay Rissa on 20/05/2008 11:29:13 Originally by: Squatdog Edited by: Squatdog on 20/05/2008 11:21:16 It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. LOL....cry more. Nano-faggotry is massively overpowered and has been for the last year or so. For less than the price of a BS, you can have a ship that is very difficult to hit and impossible to catch. The 'counters' are: 1- Abuse nanos yourself 2- Fly a Huginn/Rapier(usually nanoed) 3- Heavy Neut on BS (they'll still escape) 4- Precision Caracal (too little dps to break their tank) 5- 3man ECM/Inty/dps gang (need 3 vs 1 odds to win) 6- Dual Web Hyena (will get pelted usually) 7- Ram them into things (doesn't work most of the time) 8- Pray that the nano-pilot is intellectually handicapped and wil make some boneheaded mistake Look, if u cant play this game, dont play. Stop whining about nano ships ! Do you realise that any decent gang has at least 1 Huggin/Rapier with dual webs ??? Do you realise that if nano ships will get nerfed, 90% of 0.0 engagement will dissapear. It will be only blob vs blob ? Is that what you want ? Do you understand, that if you have small nano-hac-recon gang and you get blobed, you still have a small chance to run away to another system, jump to another gate and try to kill someone, when nano will be nerfed you will start whining about ppl logging off, because it will be impossible to play ! Or r u so bad at playing this game, that you cannot defend your space ? quit the game then ! Proud member of RTSQ ps: i dont like to kill innocent ppl, so if i killed u, u rnt innocent
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:28:00 - [26] Originally by: Squatdog The 'counters' are: 1- Whine on the forums. 2- Whine like a little baby. 3- Forum whine, but they still escape. 4- Precise forum whines, but they can tank those. 5- Forum whiner blobs. ... You were saying? Also, I laugh at your "for less then the price of a battleship" - I've flown and lost a couple of Typhoons, they're anything but expensive. The loss cost of a unrigged one is a piddly 30M (premium insurance FTW). Tip: (a) Nanoships (cruiser-sized) are fairly easy to hit with cruiser-sized weapons. (b) Nanoships are far from impossible to catch; in the 150M price region, only the Vagabond is fast enough to be a serious challenge to catch. (c) You get a -20% chance per level of Forum Whining skill to catch nanoships. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ahmadiyya	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:33:00 - [27] Originally by: Erotic Irony recons happened ***** yeh lachesis > ishtar anyday -.-
Squatdog Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:33:00 - [28] Do you realise that any decent gang has at least 1 Huggin/Rapier with dual webs ??? You MUST have one particular ship just to counter nano-fags? Thanks for proving my point! Do you realise that if nano ships will get nerfed, 90% of 0.0 engagement will dissapear LMFAO!!!! This is probably the single stupidest thing I've read on this forum and that's saying a lot.
Squatdog Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:41:00 - [29] Edited by: Squatdog on 20/05/2008 11:41:38 *(a) Nanoships (cruiser-sized) are fairly easy to hit with cruiser-sized weapons.* LOL...no they aren't. Heavy Missiles/HACs won't do jack and turrets will have a really hard time doing appreciable damage without tracking mods. You seem to be confusing Signiture Radius with Target Velocity *Nanoships are far from impossible to catch; in the 150M price region, only the Vagabond is fast enough to be a serious challenge to catch.* A typical nano-boat can easily do over 3000ms with decent skills and T2 fittings, then overload to 4500 or so. How is a typical gang going to catch them when they only have to slip out of scram range to warp? Interceptors get pelted or (even worse) neuted and insta-popped *(c) You get a -20% chance per level of Forum Whining skill to catch nanoships.* I've already given a list of tactics to deal with nanofaggotry, the trouble is that most of them are either ineffective or won't actually kill them.
Euriti Gallente Caritas.	Posted - 2008.05.20 11:43:00 - [30] Originally by: Squatdog Edited by: Squatdog on 20/05/2008 11:21:16 It'll also destroy ALOT of training that people have put into flying nano and will wreck BILLIONS useless for many players (Polycarbed ships, snakes) which isn't what we need. LOL....cry more. Nano-faggotry is massively overpowered and has been for the last year or so. For less than the price of a BS, you can have a ship that is very difficult to hit and impossible to catch. The 'counters' are: 1- Abuse nanos yourself 2- Fly a Huginn/Rapier(usually nanoed) 3- Heavy Neut on BS (they'll still escape) 4- Precision Caracal (too little dps to break their tank) 5- 3man ECM/Inty/dps gang (need 3 vs 1 odds to win) 6- Dual Web Hyena (will get pelted usually) 7- Ram them into things (doesn't work most of the time) 8- Pray that the nano-pilot is intellectually handicapped and wil make some boneheaded mistake The counters to a BS blob are: 1- Another BS blob 2- Capital hotdrop OMG LESS COUNTERS NERF BLOBS. 8 counters is plenty, you must be ********.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.