DUST Search - Just figured out that JLAV's are still a thing

True Adamance wrote:

TheEnd762 wrote:

I love how everyone calling JLAVing a "crutch" and "for scrubs" is rolling around in super-tanked mobile murder fortresses with ridiculous armor/shield reppers, and likely wearing a heavy suit with HMG to mow down any stragglers.

Who is doing that?

I wear a basic light frame with a scrambler pistol and no cloak and never leave my vehicle......

Armour reps are not ridiculous but they are passive which never made sense, and Shield reps are yes ridiculous which is why I'm trying to get Ratatti to put them back the way they used to be on Chromosome.

But JLAVing is a broken mechanic. It's simply a bad mechanic.

Most players have paid for BPO's of suits, LAV, etc meaning only the RE's themselves are required essentially ensuring and investment of between 1500 and 30,000 ISK tops and 0SP trumps a role that costs millions of SP and 500,000 ISK.

Now I'm not saying I want to be an invincible tanker, I never have, all I want is for a player with a real AV weapon or another tank/dropship etc to kill me.

The tactic rewards players too much for too little risk. You know you are going to die so you are ISK efficient. You know you could run this tactic 10x (in some cases indefinately) and still remain ISK positive.

That's not in keeping with New Eden at all.

EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5919	Posted - 2014.12.22 10:43:00 - [1] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Because Gunlogis are invincible as ever. Yet I'm trying to fix Gunnlogi. What the **** are you doing about JLAV's? JLAVs are love. JLAVs are life. And to the nerd saying gunnlogis are easy... Gunnlogis under 20 mil SP are easy. Let's not make any mistake. 25 mil gunlogis will take 2-3 AV to bring down because of just how heavily they can be tanked. Upper end gunnlogis are out of balance. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5920	Posted - 2014.12.22 11:10:00 - [2] - Quote Not arguing the point. But until a 1v1 between AV/V is only mildly stacked in the favor of vehicles rather than an obnoxious pendulum there is a place for the JLAV. But given that it can take two full magazines to breach a gunnlogi this is not currently the case. Especially with the HMG sentinel drivers poptarting. Maddies are more sane at one full magazine (don't miss) you still have the sentinel poptart. Until these issues are fixed I will support keeping JLAVs on the field. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5928	Posted - 2014.12.23 05:17:00 - [3] - Quote True Adamance wrote: TheEnd762 wrote: I love how everyone calling JLAVing a "crutch" and "for scrubs" is rolling around in super-tanked mobile murder fortresses with ridiculous armor/shield reppers, and likely wearing a heavy suit with HMG to mow down any stragglers. Who is doing that? I wear a basic light frame with a scrambler pistol and no cloak and never leave my vehicle...... Armour reps are not ridiculous but they are passive which never made sense, and Shield reps are yes ridiculous which is why I'm trying to get Ratatti to put them back the way they used to be on Chromosome. But JLAVing is a broken mechanic. It's simply a bad mechanic. Most players have paid for BPO's of suits, LAV, etc meaning only the RE's themselves are required essentially ensuring and investment of between 1500 and 30,000 ISK tops and 0SP trumps a role that costs millions of SP and 500,000 ISK. Now I'm not saying I want to be an invincible tanker, I never have, all I want is for a player with a real AV weapon or another tank/dropship etc to kill me. The tactic rewards players too much for too little risk. You know you are going to die so you are ISK efficient. You know you could run this tactic 10x (in some cases indefinately) and still remain ISK positive. That's not in keeping with New Eden at all. Suicide ganking says you're wrong. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5935	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:48:00 - [4] - Quote It's official! This thread has achieved critical stupid. Everyone who has posted here should feel ashamed. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5949	Posted - 2014.12.24 12:01:00 - [5] - Quote The primary problem is the imbalance of Jihad Jeeps versus shields and armor. A tanked gunnlogi who hasn't been sucking on AV fire for a little bit can survive an impact. A madrugar with the same ISK/SP investment cannot. I will definitely admit that this is indicative of a problem. While I would like to see the gunnlogi brough to the level of the maddy, there REALLY needs to be options for the maddies to take explosive damage and not collapse like a punk. The Gunnlogi needs to retain the ability to trump explosives as well. I'd like to see the efficacy of standard RE's dropped by 30-50% versus HAVs only and then the Gunnlogi raw survivability dropped. The packed REs can do full damage to HAVs but their blast radius makes them less of a sure thing with JLAVs. A major part of the problem is that the baseline tanks are not roughly equal in power and survivability. I see this as a problem. Honestly my wishlist would be all things being equal a maddy takes 4 forge shots, a gunnlogi takes 5 at best overall tank. (I'm assuning the hardener timer has run out and it's either recharging, or you haven't activated it) But we'd need a shield busting weapon that takes out the gunnlogi in 4 and the maddy in 5. there needs to be some kind of parity where the weapon you bring to the field to kill an HAV whether that is a Forge Gun, PLC, Heavy Rail Turret, Heavy missile Turret, Heavy Blaster Turret swarms or what have you, there is another equally effective (not identical) weapon that can do the same to the other tank. It's possible to have an asymmetric battle if one side has the right type of tank and guns to weather the assault of the enemy and the enemy doesn't have the tank or the correct guns to do the same. Another thing is the turrets on HAVs desperately need a rework. I think they should behave more like cannons. Not everyone agrees with me and I can respect that while still arguing. But they need to have SOME reasonable utility versus infantry because it's the purpose of Infantry AV to fight, drive off and destroy enemy vehicles. It is NOT the job of Infantry to maker the players of HAVs feel impotent and helpless in the face of oncoming fire. my wishlist for how many shots an HAV should take to destroy is a guideline for a non-hardener active. THe "waves of opportunity" concept is a respectable one, and if Tankers have to time their attacks just so AV should absolutely have to follow suit. I don't think that being able to mount two or more hardeners and keeping them always up is great design space though. Finally... variety. There isn't enough variety in fittings. Too much crap was homogenized into the base hull. What happened to people who were willing to suck up the old horribad slow tank speeds in exchange for monster tank? Oh wait, they're gone because most of the modules were made obsolete by the changes packing most of the bonuses into the base hulls. The biggest b*tch I have heard from vehicle drivers (and running my Maddy Pilot Good Lord do I agree) is that the fittings we have for vehicles is lackluster. I blame the fact that vehicles are now hull-centric rather than fitting-centric. When tanks are fitting centric you can HAVE variety on the field. You can have glass cannons. You can have slow, overtanked demon boulders of atrocity. You can have a balanced loadout. right now there's a cookie cutter. Right now the gunnlogi and madrugar are the vanilla tanks with the sica and soma being the cheap seat tanks. If the Enforcers are supposed to be the murderers of vehicles where does that lead marauders? What do they counter? IMHO the marauder job should be suppression of infantry and support AV rather than primary AV. Make it so the gunnlogi and madrugar can fit for AV or Infantry suppression but neither does the job as well as the marauder/enforcer. If we aren't going to pre-define a role, then give the drivers enough options that they can CREATE a role for themselves on the field. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5959	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:54:00 - [6] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Also, why is driving away a bad thing? Nobody ever said you had to kill it. Making a HAV run= killing it, as it's not there; it's a non threat. Just because no one ever said I have to doesn't mean I can't or Won't. Killing HAVs is as valid gameplay as the drive away return drive away WP farming Yo yo. It's just that one of them actually kills the nerd behind the wheel. Which is the objective. You just have to go through a glacis plate to do it. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:06:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Gyn Wallace wrote: Maybe. Sometimes gankers are single individuals using multiple fairly new, cheap accounts. Sometimes they're coordinating with allies. The problem with complaining about the cheapness of gank fits is that they do fit the risk/reward equation. The ganker is almost certain to lose his ships; unless the ganker uses overwhelming force (which is more expensive) the target might escape the gank. Just like the JLAV and targeted tank. I think you're misunderstanding my question. If someone wanted to gank a battleship using only a single ship, about how much would they need to spend in order to achieve this goal? less than a tenth of the cost. Assault ships and interceptors will do the job if you time it right. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:15:00 - [8] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: Isk spent building ships in Eve is only circumstantially advantageous. this is what people fail to realize when they bang the ISK spent drum. a 20m Interceptor or assault ship hull can spend maybe 10-15 more million to create a solid murder fit in Null and go find a Battleship (which is usually poorly equipped to handle fast moving interceptors) that is engaged, tackle and tear it down piece by piece. Bonus points if you're in an amarr assault ship neuting it to death. Average T2 fit Battleship: 450-600m ISK You got ganked for the cost of your ammo for three days. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5977	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:30:00 - [9] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Gyn Wallace wrote: Isk spent building ships in Eve is only circumstantially advantageous. this is what people fail to realize when they bang the ISK spent drum. a 20m Interceptor or assault ship hull can spend maybe 10-15 more million to create a solid murder fit in Null and go find a Battleship (which is usually poorly equipped to handle fast moving interceptors) that is engaged, tackle and tear it down piece by piece. Bonus points if you're in an amarr assault ship neuting it to death. Average T2 fit Battleship: 450-600m ISK You got ganked for the cost of your ammo for three days. That isn't the same thing, and you know it. for AV it ABSOLUTELY is. For the jeeps, a better comparison would be what happens if you can put an MWD on an Atron and do collision damage. I think regular RE should have their damage versus HAV cut in half due to the introduction of the packed AV charges. The packed AV means you HAVE to expose the REs to oncoming to be able to do damage since the radius is tiny. plus even if you hit unless you land perfectly you STILL ain't popping that tank. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.