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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Just figured out that JLAV's are still a thing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5103	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:31:00 - [31] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Simply put, because it's valid gameplay. Already explained to you why it is not. And you were wrong. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4068	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:45:00 - [32] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: This is not an argument against JLAVS. It is, however, a good argument against free LAVs. Militia LAV then? Not free but cheap enough to not care. Sole Fenychs wrote: JLAV is FULL risk, by virtue of costing you an entire fitting (generally around the 40k mark) and having a possibility of failing. APEX suits cost nothing. Sole Fenychs wrote: LAV handling isn't exactly the best in the game. You can die by driving out too early or too late or by missing the tank or by having AV randomly shoot at you... Or by hitting a random rock. LAV handling if fine if you use the proper control setup and are skilled with them. I used to drift around corners to avoid Swarms back when I used LAVs more frequently, it's not difficult to spear an HAV with an LAV. Sole Fenychs wrote: And if you want to raise your probability of success, you need to dish out money for some additional LAV modules, like nitro. Fun fact, you can fit a Militia Heavy Shield Extender on an LAV. Cheap or free if you have the BPO. Sole Fenychs wrote: It's the incarnation of risk/reward. You make your death inevitable and use it to do a lot of damage. Not in terms of ISK efficiency. Again, it would be like taking a free Noob ship in EVE and crashing it into a 2 Billion ISK Marauder Battleship and blowing both up, then saying "Well, I guaranteed my death, so that's fair!" "Hell, the HAV driver has an easier time escaping than the LAV driver. If they see the hit coming but can't counter anymore, they can just let their fatsuit teleport out of the vehicle." Again, Free/Cheap LAV instantly killing a 1Million+ HAV. It does not matter if his damn clone dies, no one cares about a single clone dead (especially since most pilots just use a starter suit anyways. I would rather lose my clone than lose the vehicle. And if you're THAT upset about them hopping out, then add a time to slow down climbing in and out of vehicles. Don't use that as an excuse to defend the JLAV. "JLAV is the vehicle version of sniping, with the difference that you can't hide behind the redline or even any cover at all." Right. Sniping. Except in this case shooting them anywhere on the body is an instant kill.... Give me a break. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood 681	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:35:00 - [33] - Quote 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4077	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:39:00 - [34] - Quote 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. I have no issue with the tactic itself. I have an issue with how effective it is compared to how much it costs the driver of the LAV. Either make it less effective, or make it cost more. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16221	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:45:00 - [35] - Quote 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5928	Posted - 2014.12.23 05:17:00 - [36] - 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.
SgtMajSquish MLBJ Consolidated Dust 257	Posted - 2014.12.23 05:54:00 - [37] - 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 working as intended Rise and shine CCP. It's time to implement ping based match making.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1621	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:32:00 - [38] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Why. Why the hell does these things still exists. EDIT: Since some people thinks it's perfectly fine, a question to them: Would you say that DS crushing should be brung back to the game? It's quite literally on the same level of bullshit. It's good that JLAVs exist, if they wouldn't, New Eden would be slightly duller place to be. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4087	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:57:00 - [39] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Suicide ganking says you're wrong. Suicide ganking actually costs ISK. Also, I'm not too familiar with the exact finances of ISK efficiency in ganking since it's not an activity I partake in. Typically speaking what ratio of cost does it take to gank your average T1 Battleship with a T2 fit? I know people love to cite "BUT BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT GANKING HULKS?!" well sure if the HAV was a mining vehicle I'd totally buy that argument, but it's not, its a heavy combat vehicle, much like a battleship. So how much ISK do you have to spend to gank your average battleship? I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 281	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:04:00 - [40] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 1. Actually suicide ganking in EVE is far more expenisve and do it means you will lose ISK unless the loot fairy is kind and gives your group some good stuff which pays off the cost of ganking in the 1st place 2. Ganking does require skills to be trained to a certain point so you can fire a high alpha shot and depending what sec it is you may even get a second or 3rd shot off - In DUST its train RE to level 3 and use a BPO logi suit with a BPO LAV 3. Ganking - Its a group thing in EVE generally, sure you can gank a miner solo but unless its Hulkageddon you wont get paid for it, but if your after high value targets like a freighter then you need a group and also lots of damage but also you need someone to scan the ship to see if what they are hauling is worth the ISK loss 4. JLAV are simply put for bad players, its been reduced somewhat due to the bandwidth but its still about - Cheap lazy tactic which requires minimal SP and ISK to destroy something that requires much much more SP and ISK to field

Banjo Robertson Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 379	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:11:00 - [41] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sole Fenychs wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Why. Why the hell does these things still exists. Because it's a fun example of emergent gameplay. Don't give me this bullshit. If that's the case, DS crushing would still be a thing. What happened to that? I've seen people get crushed by dropships in 1.10. Sure dropships are clunky to drive now, which I wish wasnt the case, but you can still crush people with them, just as much as you can still run people over with a LAV or HAV.
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14660	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:12:00 - [42] - Quote The tears here are almost as good as last year's. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5561	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:17:00 - [43] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Why. Why the hell does these things still exists. EDIT: Since some people thinks it's perfectly fine, a question to them: Would you say that DS crushing should be brung back to the game? It's quite literally on the same level of bullshit. I crushed a sniper on a tower with a Dropship just yesterday. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:46:00 - [44] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: 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 working as intended Previous blaster aim that everybody wanted to get nerfed and achieved their goal = working as intended, because aim. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:51:00 - [45] - Quote 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. Love how you're complaining that tanks have better damage output and HP than infantry does. That's what your complaint is. Then we get close and jump out with an HMG in your face. Why? Because people like you whined, moaned, complained, cried, kicked and screamed, and threatened to biomass because pilots have the experience to very quickly change the course of a battle. But that wasn't fair, because you want to be able to alpha vehicles with 2 AV grenades, or 2 swarm volleys, or 1 forge gun round. You wanted to be the end-all against vehicles, and you succeeded for the most part. We had ridiculous reppers, but because of the aforementioned, they were completely taken away and replaced with passive rep modules. But then those got nerfed, even though we were following Gallente lore, and they repair less now, because one person with Darkside swarms couldn't destroy it. No teamwork required for infantry, but we need 2 gunners to use our vehicle. The double standards are so hot, I'm surprised miniature suns haven't developed at all your homes. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:53:00 - [46] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Why. Why the hell does these things still exists. EDIT: Since some people thinks it's perfectly fine, a question to them: Would you say that DS crushing should be brung back to the game? It's quite literally on the same level of bullshit. Bopping infantry on the head can still be done if you have good enough control of the ship. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:44:00 - [47] - Quote Atiim wrote: The tears here are almost as good as last year's. Go back to complaining that a few thousand damage per volley from swarms plus Minmando to 5 isn't enough to destroy a tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5935	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:48:00 - [48] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:54:00 - [49] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It's official! This thread has achieved critical stupid. Everyone who has posted here should feel ashamed. I am without shame, for only he who is shameless can call himself Pokey. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 764	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:55:00 - [50] - Quote Bring back the stupid AOE on rail turrets and problem solved. Blasters and missiles can already make the JLAVs suicide. Until then you could always fit a small blaster or small missile launcher on top of your turret and get a buddy to help you. If you're soloing as a rail tanker outside of your red line that's your fault. Rail tanks are pretty easy to pop solo anyways if you use AV so to me the JLAV is fair game still. Dropship ramming I think was fair game as well since an attack dropship will have gunners that can help watch out and Assault dropships are faster and never should be sitting in one place. Complaining about dropship ramming is like complaining about counter sniping. If you stand still in one spot expect to get head shot from no where.

TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 764	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:02:00 - [51] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: The tears here are almost as good as last year's. Go back to complaining that a few thousand damage per volley from swarms plus Minmando to 5 isn't enough to destroy a tank. Spkr if you just used sicas/logis right now then you would be doing great. Not our fault if you are stubbornly using the underpowered armor tanks.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 21:53:00 - [52] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: The tears here are almost as good as last year's. Go back to complaining that a few thousand damage per volley from swarms plus Minmando to 5 isn't enough to destroy a tank. Spkr if you just used sicas/logis right now then you would be doing great. Not our fault if you are stubbornly using the underpowered armor tanks. I have the experience to make the Madrugar work. Your move. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1623	Posted - 2014.12.24 07:50:00 - [53] - Quote I gotta say I like jihad jeeps, from both angles. Even the tankers'. There are a few reasons why they are okay. JLAVs are not that powerful as people with one sided experience would think. Easy to counter and even without using those counters they often just plain fail. JLAV success ratio is far less than 50%. Far. Why is that? It's not that LAVs can teleport next to you. Good tankers are aware of most vehicle deployments. LAVs can be heard and good tankers realise the risk of possible JLAV and prepare to face it. JLAV user has to do all the following: Respawn - or run - to a distant location (otherwise there is a chance LAV deplo gets busted) Vehicle quota must not be reached Has to have peaceful moment to prep REs Has to find where the tank has moved to (weak tankers stay put as turrets, good ones move) Has to approach tank preferably from rear (to avoid getting blown) Has to be lucky enough not to be blown by small arms (or sacrifice more prepping by using other player's remotes) And finally has to hit fast tank enough to detonate - easy on flat ground but very tricky on rolling terrain Above there's plenty of uncertainties or delaying factors. The whole process can take minutes, long time out of a 4-15 min matches. EDIT: Even bigger now as the bug 'unsuitable location' is here. Cheap isk-wise, yes, but isk balancing is worst balancing. The biggest thing is the price in sacrificing fight time on which you could be helping your team otherwise. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16254	Posted - 2014.12.24 08:49:00 - [54] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: I gotta say I like jihad jeeps, from both angles. Even the tankers'. There are a few reasons why they are okay. JLAVs are not that powerful as people with one sided experience would think. Easy to counter and even without using those counters they often just plain fail. JLAV success ratio is far less than 50%. Far. Why is that? It's not that LAVs can teleport next to you. Good tankers are aware of most vehicle deployments. LAVs can be heard and good tankers realise the risk of possible JLAV and prepare to face it. JLAV user has to do all the following: Respawn - or run - to a distant location (otherwise there is a chance LAV deplo gets busted) Vehicle quota must not be reached Has to have peaceful moment to prep REs Has to find where the tank has moved to (weak tankers stay put as turrets, good ones move) Has to approach tank preferably from rear (to avoid getting blown) Has to be lucky enough not to be blown by small arms (or sacrifice more prepping by using other player's remotes) And finally has to hit fast tank enough to detonate - easy on flat ground but very tricky on rolling terrain Above there's plenty of uncertainties or delaying factors. The whole process can take minutes, long time out of a 4-15 min matches. EDIT: Even bigger now as the bug 'unsuitable location' is here. Cheap isk-wise, yes, but isk balancing is worst balancing. The biggest thing is the price in sacrificing fight time on which you could be helping your team otherwise. Actually ISK balancing would be fantastic balancing. The more useful something is, with the correct components the more valuable the components are the high the cost to field those items, thus reducing the access players have to them depending on their value on the Market. For example- A T3 Cruiser is incredibly expensive because it is incredibly powerful and useful. However their use is restricted by their massive costs. It is not economical to take a 1 Billion + ISK vessel out to simply PvP. A Dust comparison might be the Marauder. It could be a very difficult unit to destroy. But if a Marauder costs 3-4 Million ISK to field its use outside of controlled situations would be uneconomical to run. Contrary to this ideal is the JLAV. It's cheap and dirty and immensely powerful. It's like ramming a 0SP toon in a rookie ship into a 100 million SP player in a Battleship for an instant kill and killmail and calling that fair. It's frankly not fair. It would be fantastic instead if players could use the vehicles inertia to ram the jeep into the tank severely damaging but not destroying it and them following that up AV fire or grenades. But being a 50,000 ISK solution requiring at best only the SP to use Remote Explosives vs a Player who has forked out 10x the ISK, 10x the SP and pretending like your broken mechanic is positive gameplay, possessed of some great skill, or fair is ridiculous. Now I won't say "TAKE OUT JIHAD JEEP! MEH SALTY TEARS!" I'd say tone it down. Give HAVers a chance to react and not make this an instant kill. Hell most players hate the Scrambler Rifle charged shot claiming its and instant kill, or the HMG is OP cuz its TTK is too quick, or the shotgun scout is OP because you cannot react to it..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1626	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:28:00 - [55] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Actually ISK balancing would be fantastic balancing. The more useful something is, with the correct components the more valuable the components are the high the cost to field those items, thus reducing the access players have to them depending on their value on the Market. For example- A T3 Cruiser is incredibly expensive because it is incredibly powerful and useful. However their use is restricted by their massive costs. It is not economical to take a 1 Billion + ISK vessel out to simply PvP. A Dust comparison might be the Marauder. It could be a very difficult unit to destroy. But if a Marauder costs 3-4 Million ISK to field its use outside of controlled situations would be uneconomical to run. Contrary to this ideal is the JLAV. It's cheap and dirty and immensely powerful. It's like ramming a 0SP toon in a rookie ship into a 100 million SP player in a Battleship for an instant kill and killmail and calling that fair. It's frankly not fair. It would be fantastic instead if players could use the vehicles inertia to ram the jeep into the tank severely damaging but not destroying it and them following that up AV fire or grenades. But being a 50,000 ISK solution requiring at best only the SP to use Remote Explosives vs a Player who has forked out 10x the ISK, 10x the SP and pretending like your broken mechanic is positive gameplay, possessed of some great skill, or fair is ridiculous. Now I won't say "TAKE OUT JIHAD JEEP! MEH SALTY TEARS!" I'd say tone it down. Give HAVers a chance to react and not make this an instant kill. Hell most players hate the Scrambler Rifle charged shot claiming its and instant kill, or the HMG is OP cuz its TTK is too quick, or the shotgun scout is OP because you cannot react to it..... Oh no, isk balancing the battlefield really is the worst there can be. Your T3 comparison is flawed because a) eve has no engagement limits and asymmetrical warfare. Dust has limited symmetrical 16 vs 16 matches. b) setting something to high price only delays it's full use. Battlefield HAS to be balanced with the most maximum effective combination in mind. People WILL use the most powerful tools available. Anything else creates a fotm or no-brainer situation. It's good to realise that some people are and always be that rich that they can run anything, and the number isn't that small. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 564	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:47:00 - [56] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: 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 working as intended Can something work as intended if it's unintended? Or did the devs give REs the ability to stick specifically to allow JLAVs? Edit: @KEROSIINI-TERO Thanks. I had been writing a long-ass post but I had no idea how to get the concept across, so I scrapped it. You took the words out of my mouth.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5949	Posted - 2014.12.24 12:01:00 - [57] - 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.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 163	Posted - 2014.12.24 13:46:00 - [58] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Suicide ganking says you're wrong. Suicide ganking actually costs ISK. Also, I'm not too familiar with the exact finances of ISK efficiency in ganking since it's not an activity I partake in. Typically speaking what ratio of cost does it take to gank your average T1 Battleship with a T2 fit? I know people love to cite "BUT BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT GANKING HULKS?!" well sure if the HAV was a mining vehicle I'd totally buy that argument, but it's not, its a heavy combat vehicle, much like a battleship. So how much ISK do you have to spend to gank your average battleship? I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone. Hey Pokey, The answer depends entirely on what's being ganked and how many of what is doing the ganking. Gankers don't generally use T2 fits, they use the cheapest crap on the market, but lots of it, i.e. a bunch of T1 cruisers, lets say 3 or 4M each x 6 or 7 ships, all land on the 150M Battleship at their optimal, web/scram, blap. Cost about 28M, destroy about 150M, maybe loot 10M, so ratio of about 1:5, but that changes radically if the BS is a pricey mission runner, which can cost over a bil. Then you might need 13 gankers, but your ratio jumps to 1:20. Its hard to get an answer because the numbers can vary so wildly. Suicide ganking tends not to be profitable; people don't do it for profit, they do it for tears, just like some JLAVing. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 163	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:20:00 - [59] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I use a couple fluxes on a Maddy, then swarmed him got him almost dead in one mag, and then threw a RE at it. That took a solid 30 seconds, give or take. . You're doing it wrong somehow (not hitting the weak point and shooting at a Gunnlogi, especially when it's hardened would be doing it wrong). Let me see if I understand your argument. You want tanks/AV balanced so that instead of being easy, its somewhat more difficult to kill a tanker who lingers right next to AV infantry for 30 seconds? If the game were balanced for that circumstance, it would be impossible to kill tankers who don't linger next to AV infantry. That has very little to do with improving tank/AV balance. I'd support removing JLAVs from the game, as soon as AV infantry has a way to counter tanks just driving away from any troublesome infantry. The JLAVs are used, because there's no other way to catch or trap good tankers, the ones who use their superior mobility. Introduce webber AV nades, webber swarms, or webber plasma cannons, or make flux nades briefly slow tanks down to scout sprinting speeds, ANYTHING to (not take away completely, but) counter the ability of tankers to just drive away from AV infantry, and no one will need to resort to JLAVs to deal with more competent tankers. I agree that BPOs, that are actually useful as AV, aren't a great way to achieve balance. But currently, they might be the only way to catch good tankers, i.e. the ones that don't just sit there letting AV infantry hose them. Maybe CCP has the numbers on forge/swarm fits lost vs. tanks lost, so that they understand that the balance is better with JLAVs than it would be without them. How can we know? Perhaps CCP will share those numbers with us. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14674	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:25:00 - [60] - Quote This late into the game and people still care about ISK Price? JLAVs could cost 100mil ISK and it would still kill you. Gameplay wise you'd still be unaffected by how much ISK was spent on the JLAV so what's the point in complaining about it? The 1st Matari Commando -HAND



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 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 OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 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, OMG Labs. 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.