|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
434
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 13:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Michael Epic wrote:I actually disagree with you. I understand your side of the story and that a blueprint LAV loaded down with an entire suite of remote explosives that are rather cheap can blow your expensive tank sky high.
But why shouldn't it? Tankers are generally cowardly players. I feel like that's half of the motivation behind skilling your character into a tank. Its people who are worried about their kill death ratio because they can't deal with losing (at a video game where everyone wins and loses on a consistent basis)
I have zero tank skills. I have never had desire to have tank skills. I don't have dropship skills either because I want to be in the thick of it, up close and personal with you guys duking it out and seeing who the better man is. Sometimes its you, sometimes its me. Its fun.
Flying in the sky and dropping death from above or rolling around in a big armored "look how big my shag-stick is" vehicle and going 70/0 in a game or camping objectives (both tank/dropship) is a cowardly move.
So why not roll a Jihad LAV right up to the tank and blow it....want to know a really smooth tactic? Its one that I use...I get the LAV going as fast as I can make it go....I can judge how far it'll roll once I jump out...I hop out, watch it go...I can switch to my remote detonator quickly and POP! Tank goes bye bye.
Tanks are annoying. They enable cowards to be cowards. I understand your call to arms to remove the jihad jeeps and I will support you on that when you also make a call to arms to remove the ability for players to be cowards.
You can rip opponents out of Titans in Titanfall, but I can't hop on the tank, open the hatch and shoot you in the face like the cowardly little terd that you are? Oh but you can shoot me in the LAV while I'm driving (I personally love that lol)
Do you see my point?
I actually don't.
I three-shotted a Sica with my DAU today.
If I wasn't a scrub and a terrible shot I'd have four-shotted a particle accelerator Gunnlogi. (I missed the kill-shot).
When I really want to kill a tank I IAFG it. It dies.
Sometimes I like to prox the main road and then camp it with a forge; that way when the tank comes past he can either stand still and die to my FG or move and die to my proxes.
I would just like to point out, though, that tanking is not, as it undeniably was in 1.7-Bravo, a KD/ISK farm. It is easy to kill a tank now, and if you disagree I'd emphasise that there are greater problems than HAV EHP, such as you being terribad.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
451
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 00:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Quote:low-risk adjective (also low risk) GǦ likely to be successful , or unlikely to be connected with danger or problems :
JLAVs can (and usually are) insta-killed by anything which happens to fire at the front part of the vehicle, creating a reasonable amount of danger for the Pilot. Most terrain in DUST 514 is rather bumpy, which can make hitting a vehicle at full speed difficult, creating a problem for the Pilot. Therefore, JLAVs cannot -definitively- be considered "low-risk" I won't even bother addressing the "low-effort" argument, as it's laughably hypocritical considering how "low-effort" piloting an HAV is. [/thread] Did some JLAVing myself after I posted this thread. Wanted to see whether it was in fact as difficult as you were saying.
Well, I stole a few kills from Jason and then decided to start experimenting with placement. It's not really a big deal to place them somewhere they won't be shot. I'd have thought it was pretty elementary.
It took somewhat less time than pulling my FG, setting up and making the kill, so 'it takes you out of the battle' is BS.
The presence of the nitrous means your LAV is as effective as a rifle at slaying. It could be argued as more effective.
HAV piloting is expensive, and the power of AV as it stands makes it definitively 'high-risk' in the sense that 'you are risking a lot of ISK that is easy to kill'. All it takes is a brain.
It is, at a high level of pilot skill, difficult to kill a HAV. I've dumped countless Sicas in matches to watch them get insta killed, while I roll around the rest of the match. I saw countless blues pull X-0 games in Somas back in 1.7-8, where X is lower than 5-10, and I'm comfortably pulling 20 kills off a stock fitting. That you suggest skill isn't important for HAV piloting is pretty out-there. If I wanted to play a 'no-skill' playstyle I'd be maining a cheap heavy. Doesn't die, doesn't matter when it does (sound familiar? Seems like those Somas I mentioned...).
That you can honestly suggest that deploying a 500k fitting, as so many tankers do, is somehow low-risk shows a significant lack of understanding of tanking. There's a reason we're reimbursed at a high level.
All I can say is this: if you're having issues killing a Gunnlogi, go get a forge.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
467
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 05:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Seymour KrelbornX wrote:Death Shadow117 wrote:^ Above poster isnt very smart. Have you ever even tried tanking? Do you even know how much sp/isk it takes to become a real tanker because im sure you dont. yes I have tanked.... but that wasn't my point... I was trying to convey the frustration of non tankers who are told by tankers their means of anti tanking takes no skill, while tankers act like they are the only skill intensive role in the game. I'm sorry that went over your head... I'll try to type more slowly for you in the future.... How about this, then: in a world of JLAVs, what is the point of FGs and SL vs. HAVs?
Also, yeah, your method of anti-tanking takes no skill. HAV piloting is approximately as skill-intensive as FGing, and significantly more SP and ISK intensive.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
502
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bormir1r wrote:Proto Amarr Heavies are 3-4 shot at the least depending on they're configuration. Never one shotted.
Mathematically speaking Amarr Sentinel maxes out at 595/1195, which is 991/1327 vs explosives (if my maths is correct).
In other words, you are categorically, mathematically wrong.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
502
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Seymour KrelbornX wrote:Leeroy Gannarsein wrote:Seymour KrelbornX wrote:Death Shadow117 wrote:^ Above poster isnt very smart. Have you ever even tried tanking? Do you even know how much sp/isk it takes to become a real tanker because im sure you dont. yes I have tanked.... but that wasn't my point... I was trying to convey the frustration of non tankers who are told by tankers their means of anti tanking takes no skill, while tankers act like they are the only skill intensive role in the game. I'm sorry that went over your head... I'll try to type more slowly for you in the future.... How about this, then: in a world of JLAVs, what is the point of FGs and SL vs. HAVs? Also, yeah, your method of anti-tanking takes no skill. HAV piloting is approximately as skill-intensive as FGing, and significantly more SP and ISK intensive. I never said jlav is my style of av... I use nades, swarms (proto) and forge too (at 3 atm) the point is to give another option, both effective and fun... and seriously... whats the point???? then I could say the same of rifles, why have more than one type... that's just a ridiculous thing to ask.... and it does take skill... its all about dodging fire sneaking into position maneuvering well and hitting the tank the right way and compensating afterward for a second try if it doesn't pan out... and yes HAV is sp intensive... but that doesn't mean it takes a lot of player effort... whether tanking does or doesn't take skil isn't even the point... the point is to respect the way other people play even if it is different than yours, so long as they aren't using exploits or other cheats.... in this whole thread you still haven't told me how jlavs break the game.... because you cant.... because they don't. It is not.
It is about nothing more than sticking REs somewhere they won't get shot (I mean really, this should be obvious), driving somewhere you can see the tank, hitting nitrous and exploding.
I tried it about ten-fifteen times, and I was exploded by infantry twice. My ram failed once.
It is really not hard to JLAV, and you suggesting they are is ridiculous.
And I have at no point suggested JLAVs are 'game-breaking'. Don't you be putting words in my mouth. At every point I have stated they are a BS, no-skill tactic and they should be removed.
People defended SLs from outside render distance too.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Leeroy Gannarsein wrote: How about this, then: in a world of JLAVs, what is the point of FGs and SL vs. HAVs?
JLAVs aren't ideal for every situation, because the terrain may be ridiculously bumpy, and you may be facing a tanker who's actually competent and destroys the JLAV every time. The point of Forge Guns and Swarm Launchers, would be long range AV Weaponry. Leeroy Gannarsein wrote:Also, yeah, your method of anti-tanking takes no skill. HAV piloting is approximately as skill-intensive as FGing, and significantly more SP and ISK intensive. Swarm Launchers require that you have situational awareness, as you -typically- cannot see around you during engagements because your too focused on the vehicle. They also require that you make every shot count (resource management) due to the awful ammunition reserves, and they require patience in the sense that firing at the wrong time guarantees that your target escapes (the only other AV weapon actively requiring this skill is the Plasma Cannon). HAV Piloting is not as skill intensive as Forging. The FGer puts themselves at risk to far more items, and has a TTK far lower than that of an HAV. When you also consider the fact that an HAV can easily escape danger in most situations, they're quite literally the easiest item to use in DUST 514. I'm a PRO FGer too. I am not a proficiency'd swarmer, so I am not using it for examples. The only times I have ever used a swarm was when they were OP and I wanted to annoy someone I knew.
FGs are easy to kill with.
Unlike HAVs, an FG is not an obvious target. Not being an idiot means your fatsuit (which is pretty defensible against anything except SGs and HMGs) is pretty safe.
Hell, when I kill the tank in my ADV suit I usually go to town on people with my SMG.
Being 'at risk to more items' is a red herring. So are snipers vs infantry, but I can guarantee that a dedicated sniper has a better ISK gained/lost margin than an infantry player. I would never suggest that a logi is 'at risk to more items' than an assault, but it sure as hell feels that way when I'm playing one. The number of things to which you are vulnerable is entirely irrelevant.
My DAU 3-shots most Sicas. Considering the dramatically longer average TTK of vehicles vs infantry (particularly considering HAV's sluggish acceleration) this is practically an insta-kill. My 'investment' is about 50k, and it takes me about ten seconds from engaging to killing the target. Compare, then, to a Neutron blaster, which can take dramatically longer than the FG, which is a direct result of the Sica's pilot (and some low-tank Gunnlogis, for the record) often knowing the other vehicle is there.
Now, I'm not trying to argue that MLT HAVs are balanced; far from it. I'd like their price to be increased. Maybe even doubled (with a commensurate increase to STD HAVs.
Had some more to say, but I have to run - will edit post or respond further later.
I also should probably subscribe to this thread.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack 3enimble wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:BLOOD Ruler wrote:No you just suck I use it and love dying by it. How much do your fittings cost? I'll tell you what, next time I see you running infantry I'll pull a BPO LAV with a nitrous and an HMG and I'll murder-taxi you. Deal? Or if you're flying I'll pull out a Gorgon and ram you. Sound fun? Since JLAV needs to go i think we should introduce seat switch delay. Say 4 seconds to prevent you from using your same coward like tactics. How about that. Hello Pot, meet Kettle... Sounds good.
Also, what seat switch tactics?
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Seymour KrelbornX wrote:True Adamance wrote:I do wish to point out that dealing with JLAVs when we had no dispersion was fine since a good tanker could pick off the remotes if they had the piece of mind....... now that the dispersion is atroscious...... half your shots will miss the LAV, 45% will miss your intended target on the LAV, and odds are even after a solid 3-4 seconds of firing your enemy will drive with impunity into the side of your vastly more expensive and SP invested vehicle......
put some small rail turrets on that tank and get a buddy to shoot for you, problem solved... also it literally takes one shot from the big turret to connect to make a jlav go poof... See, I JLAVed a little, I AV a lot, but clearly you don't ever tank.
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
|
|
|