| Ship | ISK (millions) |
| Cerberus | 220 |
| Eagle | 140 |
| Sacrilege | 175 |
| Zealot | 132 |
| Deimos | 180 |
| Ishtar | 185 |
| Muninn | 141 |
| Vagabond | 151 |
Courtesy of EVE-Central as of Sept 9, 2013
HACs are too expensive for the increase in power that they give vis-a-vis the Tech I cruisers.
This does not affect most other Tech II classes as they either provide unique capabilities not found in their Tech I counterparts (as in Covert Ops, Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, Recons, Command Ships, Black Ops), or the boost they provide in performance is considered worth the extra cost in enough cases to matter (see: Assault Frigates, Interceptors, Logistics)1.
Command Ships are especially notable as they used to be not worth the ISK but I'm finding, as many others are, that the changes make them attractive to consider in place of the ubiquitous Strategic Cruisers.
But this is about HACs.
The easiest comparison to make is looking at Assault Frigates which are essentially the same concept in a smaller hull size: same role as the Tech I conuterparts but with my tank, gank, and a role bonus for MWD usage. But it works for Assault Frigates; I've been flying more of them then Tech I frigs this past few weeks. But why?
If you compared the price of a hull and full fittings of a Tech 1 Merlin versus a Tech II Harpy, for example, you find that the Tech II ship is approximately 3 times more expensive all told, pegging in around 35-40 million compared to 10-15 million depending on fits. While that's a significant jump in price its manageable.
Now look at a Tech II HAC versus Tech I combat or attack cruiser. If you go with typical Tech II modules for fitting both ships fall in the range of ~20-25 million to fit, but the base price of the hull is about 10 million for Tech I to at least 140 million for Tech II. In the frigate comparison the fittings (which are roughly equal on both ship classes) are the majority of the ship cost, but in the larger hull size the fittings cost is the majority of the Tech I ship (putting it around 30-35 million) but a fraction of the cost of the Tech II version (putting it around 160 million for the cheaper HACs, over 200 million for the more expensive ones).
While the ratio is about the same (i.e. Tech II fully fit ship is 3-4 times more expensive), the scale is notable. Players have a threshold for what they think is worth the reward (The Price of Power) compared to the acceptable risk (The Cost of Doom). Depending on how rich a player is that threshold can change; for some pilots in Faction Warfare, Assault Frigates and Tech I cruisers are beyond that threshold, but for many they are not. I'd say the threshold for many is the ~75 million mark, maybe closer to 100 million.
But for almost all, that threshold is below the cost of HACs. And I suspect a lot of EVE feels the same way.
So what do I think the price of HACs should be? Personally I think the 100 million mark would be ideal. That would make it close to that threshold of what players are willing to spend and risk losing for the power while still making them ~10 times more expensive than the Tech I hulls they are based on.
The question now is if the balancing pass has made them enticing enough that some demand will increase thus convincing producers to make more and with an increase in supply driving the price down through competition. Or if an increase in demand coupled with static supply will drive prices up.
Time will tell.
Now look at a Tech II HAC versus Tech I combat or attack cruiser. If you go with typical Tech II modules for fitting both ships fall in the range of ~20-25 million to fit, but the base price of the hull is about 10 million for Tech I to at least 140 million for Tech II. In the frigate comparison the fittings (which are roughly equal on both ship classes) are the majority of the ship cost, but in the larger hull size the fittings cost is the majority of the Tech I ship (putting it around 30-35 million) but a fraction of the cost of the Tech II version (putting it around 160 million for the cheaper HACs, over 200 million for the more expensive ones).
While the ratio is about the same (i.e. Tech II fully fit ship is 3-4 times more expensive), the scale is notable. Players have a threshold for what they think is worth the reward (The Price of Power) compared to the acceptable risk (The Cost of Doom). Depending on how rich a player is that threshold can change; for some pilots in Faction Warfare, Assault Frigates and Tech I cruisers are beyond that threshold, but for many they are not. I'd say the threshold for many is the ~75 million mark, maybe closer to 100 million.
But for almost all, that threshold is below the cost of HACs. And I suspect a lot of EVE feels the same way.
So what do I think the price of HACs should be? Personally I think the 100 million mark would be ideal. That would make it close to that threshold of what players are willing to spend and risk losing for the power while still making them ~10 times more expensive than the Tech I hulls they are based on.
The question now is if the balancing pass has made them enticing enough that some demand will increase thus convincing producers to make more and with an increase in supply driving the price down through competition. Or if an increase in demand coupled with static supply will drive prices up.
Time will tell.
1 - We'll talk about Electronic Attack Frigates after they are visited by the balancing pass.
I think the price will come down somewhat over the next few months, but I don't think it should come down below the 100m mark. HACs are not common ships and they shouldn't become common ships.
ReplyDeleteI agree they shouldn't be common, but they should be a reasonable alternative to Tech 1 cruisers if you are willing to pay the price. Right now I think the price is too high.
DeleteAnother comparison that should be made is with navy ships. Navy frigates, with hull costs around 15 mil ('cept the firetail right now due to minmatar FW craziness), are nearly on par with assault frigates, at 20 mil. Their performance generally reflects that difference. They're generally quite a bit stronger than T1 frigates, but not quite on par with AFs.
ReplyDeleteCruisers are a different story. A T1 cruiser hull is 10 mil. Navy cruisers are 45-70 mil. And HACs, rather than follow the pattern set by frigates, are about twice the cost of their navy counterparts, while being about on par with them performance-wise.
I don't think it's so much T1 cruisers that are crowding out HACs. Navy cruisers are a more direct competition. The reason the zealot is the cheapest HAC right now is because of the popularity of the omen navy. Why fly a vagabond when you can run a SFI (either stabber or scythe) for skirmish work at half the cost? It's not the T1 omen or stabber that are stealing turf from HACs. They can't fulfill that role nearly as well. But navy cruisers can.
HACs certainly will have a niche going forward. They're much more resilient to various forms of ewar. But a lot of the time, that's quite a small niche.
Dammit, yes, I was going to compare the navy cruisers in here when I drafted this up in my head last week and then forgot today.
DeleteAnother comparison that should be made is with navy ships. Navy frigates, with hull costs around 15 mil ('cept the firetail right now due to minmatar FW craziness), are nearly on par with assault frigates, at 20 mil. Their performance generally reflects that difference. They're generally quite a bit stronger than T1 frigates, but not quite on par with AFs.
ReplyDeleteCruisers are a different story. A T1 cruiser hull is 10 mil. Navy cruisers are 45-70 mil. And HACs, rather than follow the pattern set by frigates, are about twice the cost of their navy counterparts, while being about on par with them performance-wise.
I don't think it's so much T1 cruisers that are crowding out HACs. Navy cruisers are a more direct competition. The reason the zealot is the cheapest HAC right now is because of the popularity of the omen navy. Why fly a vagabond when you can run a SFI (either stabber or scythe) for skirmish work at half the cost? It's not the T1 omen or stabber that are stealing turf from HACs. They can't fulfill that role nearly as well. But navy cruisers can.
HACs certainly will have a niche going forward. They're much more resilient to various forms of ewar. But a lot of the time, that's quite a small niche.
I run combat sites in low sec. As such, I like to run with a pvp fit, while doing pve. The Deimos is great for this. With a cap battery fit, it has a super strong tank and capacitor that can easily handle a hub or a 6/10. It's faster, has a smaller sig, and has a better capacitor then a similarly fit Proteus, while doing slightly less damage, and having fewer raw hp. It's also cheaper. T1 cruisers and ABCs can't do this. I realize this is a super niche application, but so far, I am loving it.
ReplyDeleteKey question: What production input is driving the higher HAC prices?
ReplyDeleteThe two big costs are Armour Plates and Microprocessors; between them they make up about 67% of the materials price. (Which are in turn mainly composed of the racial carbides and the racial metamaterials)
DeleteUnless CCP changes the blueprints, we're not going to see common 100m ISK HACs without a fairly broad drop in T2 prices. Using a Zealot as an example, a researched BPO can build one for ~93m ISK at Jita sell-order prices. The best possible material cost for an invented BPO is ~109m ISK, and you still have to add invention costs on top of that.
Essentially, the cheaper HACs listed are fairly close to the minimum-acceptable-profit line for invention already; prices aren't going to drop below that unless demand is so low that the BPOs can dominate the market completely.
AFs are cheap enough in absolute terms that people who use them tend not to be bothered by the fact that they're not really worth the price if you compare them to the competition. They also benefit from there being only one navy frigate - as a cruiser pilot, I have a racial 'heavy' faction cruiser and a racial 'light' faction cruiser (N. Aug and N. Omen, SFI and ScyFI. CNI and Osprey NI, Nexor and Nexquror). If I want a heavy frigate, it's AFs or nothing.
ReplyDeleteHACs are aguably in a better situation relative to their competition in terms of actually improvement, but they're still not really worth the cost and navy cruisers give you more alternatives than navy frigates and at a cheaper relative cost.
AFs are cheap enough in absolute terms that people who use them tend not to be bothered by the fact that they're not really worth the price if you compare them to the competition. They also benefit from there being only one navy frigate - as a cruiser pilot, I have a racial 'heavy' faction cruiser and a racial 'light' faction cruiser (N. Aug and N. Omen, SFI and ScyFI. CNI and Osprey NI, Nexor and Nexquror). If I want a heavy frigate, it's AFs or nothing.
ReplyDeleteHACs are aguably in a better situation relative to their competition in terms of actually improvement, but they're still not really worth the cost and navy cruisers give you more alternatives than navy frigates and at a cheaper relative cost.
In the end I would have preferred the MJD be add feature to the HAC, instead of the marauders. It would have made these ships unique. Add a script to control the jump range and this class becomes a potent foe better able to dictate range over the use of MWD.
ReplyDeleteI took a blaster deimos out for a test drive. Its nice, but its not really giving me something I can not already get from a stock brutix - never mind I have yet to fly a navy brut.