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)
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 04:43:00 - [1] - Quote Why. Why the hell does these things still exists. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3239	Posted - 2014.12.22 04:46:00 - [2] - Quote Because Gunlogis are invincible as ever. "Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
Hector Carson Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 122	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:11:00 - [3] - Quote Not really I have killed a Gunnlogi many times My Corp fights for whoever has money, Primarily PC battles
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:43:00 - [4] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Because Gunlogis are invincible as ever. I hope you're not serious. I quit playing for a solid couple months, and I easily killed 4 with AV, and then JLAVed one at the end of a game, just to see if it still worked. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vicious Minotaur 1545	Posted - 2014.12.22 06:13:00 - [5] - Quote And I just figured out you still exist. Why. Why the hell hasn't a confessed killer been dealt with? I am a minotaur. a+üa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa+üa¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça+üa+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+üa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa+üa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ë
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 06:18:00 - [6] - Quote Vicious Minotaur wrote: And I just figured out you still exist. Why. Why the hell hasn't a confessed killer been dealt with? The Fish Lord cannot be delt with. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood 681	Posted - 2014.12.22 09:52:00 - [7] - Quote Because HAVs can still cut and run, and/or have a heavy pop out with an HMG.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16210	Posted - 2014.12.22 10:21:00 - [8] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Because Gunlogis are invincible as ever. Yet I'm trying to fix Gunnlogi. What the **** are you doing about JLAV's? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1913	Posted - 2014.12.22 10:34:00 - [9] - Quote I still love my jlavs i also haven't really had a problem with them i blew one up thus morning as he was carrearing at me like a batout of hell jhe must have had help as I got 8 equipment destruction point messages as well lol. Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior. I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5919	Posted - 2014.12.22 10:43:00 - [10] - 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.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16210	Posted - 2014.12.22 10:52:00 - [11] - Quote Breakin Stuff 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 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. Yeah they are and Ill be the first to admit that..... but one broken mechanic should not be widely accepted as a positive thing in order to beat the other. JLAV are almost 0 risk for massive potential reward. Honestly when Rattati speaks of bringing back Marauder, etc I can see why some pilots want them to be OP..... who the ** wants to play a 1.5-3.0 million ISK HAV when a douche bag with less than 50K ISK can instantly wreck you with little to no effort. *"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 5920	Posted - 2014.12.22 11:10:00 - [12] - 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.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 558	Posted - 2014.12.22 12:03:00 - [13] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Why. Why the hell does these things still exists. Because it's a fun example of emergent gameplay.
Slave of MORTE Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 149	Posted - 2014.12.22 12:31:00 - [14] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: Because HAVs can still cut and run, and/or have a heavy pop out with an HMG. Because scrubs like this ^ need it as a crutch Yet another slave of Mortedeamor
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:41:00 - [15] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: Because HAVs can still cut and run, and/or have a heavy pop out with an HMG. So on every last engagement, if you have AV, you EXPECT to kill a HAV. No, making it go into hiding basically making that person useless on the field is not good enough, right? Go cry me a river. Also, teamwork is OP, deal with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:42:00 - [16] - Quote 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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:43:00 - [17] - Quote Slave of MORTE wrote: TheEnd762 wrote: Because HAVs can still cut and run, and/or have a heavy pop out with an HMG. Because scrubs like this ^ need it as a crutch lol click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:46:00 - [18] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I still love my jlavs i also haven't really had a problem with them i blew one up thus morning as he was carrearing at me like a batout of hell jhe must have had help as I got 8 equipment destruction point messages as well lol. I have had a almost 100% kill rate with the things, and I haven't lost a dime. That is bullshit. There is no way to slice that. On top of that, unless you are a complete idiot, evading a HAV's shots at you, and hitting the target is very easy. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:51:00 - [19] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 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). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:52:00 - [20] - Quote Breakin Stuff 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 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. No, they are still easy. You're just, as I said before, doing it wrong. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5101	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:52:00 - [21] - Quote Simply put, because it's valid gameplay. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2669	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:54:00 - [22] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Simply put, because it's valid gameplay. Already explained to you why it is not. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4068	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:36:00 - [23] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Simply put, because it's valid gameplay. It's not valid if it takes a ** on risk/reward balance. That would be like saying that in EVE I should be able to ram a Marauder Battleship with my Rookie ship and blow it up. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3492	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:47:00 - [24] - Quote I've always been against Jlav, but if you call a tank just to camp in your redline you actually deserve it. Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Slave of MORTE Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 150	Posted - 2014.12.22 17:15:00 - [25] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff 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 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. No, they are still easy. You're just, as I said before, doing it wrong. Correct they are easy almost as easy as back in the day where I alone could keep most pubs clean of anything This is getting ridiculous again ..i hope ccp buffs vehicles and removes JLAVs soon Yet another slave of Mortedeamor
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2670	Posted - 2014.12.22 17:32:00 - [26] - Quote Slave of MORTE wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff 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 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. No, they are still easy. You're just, as I said before, doing it wrong. Correct they are easy almost as easy as back in the day where I alone could keep most pubs clean of anything This is getting ridiculous again ..i hope ccp fixes vehicles and removes JLAVs soon Fixed click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2670	Posted - 2014.12.22 17:33:00 - [27] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I've always been against Jlav, but if you call a tank just to camp in your redline you actually deserve it. If you're actually in the redline, you deserve to get EVE OB'ed click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 558	Posted - 2014.12.22 17:53:00 - [28] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Simply put, because it's valid gameplay. It's not valid if it takes a **** on risk/reward balance. That would be like saying that in EVE I should be able to ram a Marauder Battleship with my Rookie ship and blow it up. Running up and putting remotes directly on an HAV? Risky, postentially costly, high reward. Valid Gameplay. Setting up a minefield? Not as risky, not as rewarding due to ease of avoidance, moderate reward. Valid Gameplay. Strapping remotes to a free LAV, swapping to a cheaper suit, ramming an enemy HAV. Low risk, low cost, high reward. Bullshit Gameplay. Don't sit there and tell me "It's a valid tactic" when it completely disregards the core principle of a game like this. You should know better than that, Xel. This is not an argument against JLAVS. It is, however, a good argument against free LAVs. JLAV is FULL risk, by virtue of costing you an entire fitting (generally around the 40k mark) and having a possibility of failing. 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. And if you want to raise your probability of success, you need to dish out money for some additional LAV modules, like nitro. It's the incarnation of risk/reward. You make your death inevitable and use it to do a lot of damage. 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. JLAV is the vehicle version of sniping, with the difference that you can't hide behind the redline or even any cover at all.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2670	Posted - 2014.12.22 17:59:00 - [29] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Simply put, because it's valid gameplay. It's not valid if it takes a **** on risk/reward balance. That would be like saying that in EVE I should be able to ram a Marauder Battleship with my Rookie ship and blow it up. Running up and putting remotes directly on an HAV? Risky, postentially costly, high reward. Valid Gameplay. Setting up a minefield? Not as risky, not as rewarding due to ease of avoidance, moderate reward. Valid Gameplay. Strapping remotes to a free LAV, swapping to a cheaper suit, ramming an enemy HAV. Low risk, low cost, high reward. Bullshit Gameplay. Don't sit there and tell me "It's a valid tactic" when it completely disregards the core principle of a game like this. You should know better than that, Xel. This is not an argument against JLAVS. It is, however, a good argument against free LAVs. JLAV is FULL risk, by virtue of costing you an entire fitting (generally around the 40k mark) and having a possibility of failing. 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. And if you want to raise your probability of success, you need to dish out money for some additional LAV modules, like nitro. It's the incarnation of risk/reward. You make your death inevitable and use it to do a lot of damage. 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. JLAV is the vehicle version of sniping, with the difference that you can't hide behind the redline or even any cover at all. Put RE's inside LAV switch suits uses a free LAV Just broke the system. Quiet. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2903	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:22:00 - [30] - Quote They are literally zero risk. Step One: Call in one of the craploads of BPO LAVs, some still available for purchase. Step Two: Lay a crapload of REs on the thing. Step Three: Swap to a Logistics APEX suit so you still have all of your bajillions of REs active. Step Four: Enjoy your literally free bomb that can take out even Supply Depots (I would know, I've done it). Anyone who has complained about dropship crushing or the old super-cloaked super-aware super-tanked shotgun scouts of old chucking frisbee-REs have absolutely no business defending a garbage mechanic such as JLAVs And I'll be damned if I've ever considered JLAVs hard to pull off, I've done it numerous times, and it's stupid easy. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire

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

Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 164	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:34:00 - [61] - 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 just realize I commented without answering your original question. Yes, dropships should be able to crush things, so long as the damage is mutual and they show up on radar like a Christmas tree. (Merry Christmas, btw.) With respect to tank balance, I favor slower, more ehp, more expensive tanks. I have trouble feeling bad for tankers whose losses are cheaper than mine when I go AV. Tanks should be end-game force multipliers for well coordinated teams; not newb-friendly hot rods with a get out of trouble nitro button. Any tanker who gets in nade range of two or three enemy AV infantry should die if he isn't accompanied by friendly anti-personnel infantry. Solo tankers speeding around the map are every bit as cheesy as JLAVs. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4126	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:18:00 - [62] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: 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. So in that case it would take 6-7 people in order to pull that off. About how much would it take for a single person to perform the same job? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:29:00 - [63] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: 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 just realize I commented without answering your original question. Yes, dropships should be able to crush things, so long as the damage is mutual and they show up on radar like a Christmas tree. (Merry Christmas, btw.) With respect to tank balance, I favor slower, more ehp, more expensive tanks. I have trouble feeling bad for tankers whose losses are cheaper than mine when I go AV. Tanks should be end-game force multipliers for well coordinated teams; not newb-friendly hot rods with a get out of trouble nitro button. Any tanker who gets in nade range of two or three enemy AV infantry should die if he isn't accompanied by friendly anti-personnel infantry. Solo tankers speeding around the map are every bit as cheesy as JLAVs. If your loses are more than a HAV, you're doing it wrong. My AV fits are 100k, and my HAV's are at least double that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:31:00 - [64] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Gyn Wallace wrote: 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. So in that case it would take 6-7 people in order to pull that off. About how much would it take for a single person to perform the same job? Also this. Teamwork is OP. This takes teamwork out of it.I'm fine if swarms ambush me, I'll be pissed at my team for not helping me (which they hardly ever do). When one person can do the job of a couple people, it pisses me off. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:32:00 - [65] - Quote Atiim wrote: The tears here are almost as good as last year's. What tears? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:46:00 - [66] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: 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 guy wasn't lingering, a chased it down, cornered it, and then laid into it. You assumed that it was out in the open, just sitting there. 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. And yes there is. The setup for me trapping the HAV took a minute to do (including killing it). Also, if you want better ways of dealing with vehicles, vehicles needs better ways of dealing with infantry. You can't just become overall superior, end all solution to vehicles, that's just wrong. Also, I like how you assumed that I just want to sit there for 30 seconds without having to worry about infantry, when I've never said that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:49:00 - [67] - Quote Atiim wrote: 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? Yes, not everyone is rich. And they most likely would, unless a idiot is using them, they are super easy to use. As for me being affected, that's not the point. It's that the fact that they are so ******* cheap is what bothers be. On top of that, they are extremely easy to use. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5959	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:54:00 - [68] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:03:00 - [69] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. If you want to kill it, then you should have to put in the extra effort to. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4128	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:14:00 - [70] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So in that case it would take 6-7 people in order to pull that off. About how much would it take for a single person to perform the same job? Also this. Teamwork is OP. This takes teamwork out of it.I'm fine if swarms ambush me, I'll be pissed at my team for not helping me (which they hardly ever do). When one person can do the job of a couple people, it pisses me off. I think its fair when a group of people working together have a far better ISK efficiency. That's more or less what Force Multiplier means. But when its a solo JLAV vs an HAV.....I kinda expect a small ISK ratio. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:28:00 - [71] - Quote blub click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 165	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:24:00 - [72] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Gyn Wallace wrote: 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. So in that case it would take 6-7 people in order to pull that off. About how much would it take for a single person to perform the same job? 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. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 165	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:43:00 - [73] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: The guy wasn't lingering, a chased it down, cornered it, and then laid into it. ... 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. ...You can't just become overall superior, end all solution to vehicles, that's just wrong. Also, I like how you assumed that I just want to sit there for 30 seconds without having to worry about infantry, when I've never said that. There is a difference between pointing out a problem with the argument you're presenting (AV Infantry aren't "doing it right" if they fail to mimic your stellar performance when killing lousy tankers) and making assumptions. I haven't argued that AV infantry should be superior; I've pointed out a problem with your argument for why JLAVs should be removed. The way to fix your argument, isn't by falsely accusing me of making irrelevant assumptions about the details of your AV efforts. The way to fix your argument is to present a balanced solution that works against tankers that aren't lousy, i.e. tanks that don't get chased down and cornered by AV infantry. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4147	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:49:00 - [74] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 166	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:02:00 - [75] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: If your loses are more than a HAV, you're doing it wrong. My AV fits are 100k, and my HAV's are at least double that. And tanks usually die as a consequence of multiple people using their AV fits, which have a combined cost that routinely exceeds the value of the tank. Comparing the cost of your single AV fit, which has almost no chance of killing a well driven tank without cooperation from the rest of your team, isn't a useful comparison. If 4 or 5 people have to use AV fits to get 3 or 4 of them in position to do damage quickly enough to kill a good tank driver, the cost of all their fits is properly compared against the cost of the tank. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:06:00 - [76] - 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.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 166	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:16:00 - [77] - 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? I don't know. I'm speculating: It would depend entirely on the security level of the space. In high sec, they can't spend enough. No single ship can suicide gank a well tanked battleship in 1.0 space. Concord would kill you too quickly to punch through a decent battleship's tank. I doubt a single well crafted gank ship could even get through a poorly tanked battleship's tank in 1.0 space. In 0.6 space, I would guess its possible, but have no idea. But if we're not talking about suicide ganking in the presence of Concord, if we're just talking about risk/reward out in low or null sec, a 10M ship can destroy a 1B battleship, if the 10M ship is perfectly crafted for taking on that 1B battleship. There are many instances in Eve of wildly cheaper fits taking on and beating (without having to suicide) wildly more expensive ships. Isk spent building ships in Eve is only circumstantially advantageous. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:15:00 - [78] - 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.
MrShooter01 Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1233	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:47:00 - [79] - Quote 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. but but he paid 500 million for his battleship he should be untouchable by anything other than an enemy 500 million isk battleship fighting him 1v1 or 3-5 smaller tech 2 ships that cost almost as much anything less should be an annoyance and nothing more its not fair
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 22:08:00 - [80] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2671	Posted - 2014.12.24 22:11:00 - [81] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If your loses are more than a HAV, you're doing it wrong. My AV fits are 100k, and my HAV's are at least double that. And tanks usually die as a consequence of multiple people using their AV fits, which have a combined cost that routinely exceeds the value of the tank. Comparing the cost of your single AV fit, which has almost no chance of killing a well driven tank without cooperation from the rest of your team, isn't a useful comparison. If 4 or 5 people have to use AV fits to get 3 or 4 of them in position to do damage quickly enough to kill a good tank driver, the cost of all their fits is properly compared against the cost of the tank. If you're taking more than one AV to kill a HAV now, you're still doing it wrong. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood 682	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:22:00 - [82] - Quote I've never seen anyone pull out a JLAV right out of the gates, unless it's for a infamous individual. I always see people, and do myself, try to engage with swarms and whatnot first. But when I put 3 volleys of swarms into an HAV and don't even go through the shields, I'm pulling out a JLAV. Especially if the driver pops out in a heavy suit to mow me down.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5977	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:30:00 - [83] - 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.
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3264	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:19:00 - [84] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff 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 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. Yeah they are and Ill be the first to admit that..... but one broken mechanic should not be widely accepted as a positive thing in order to beat the other. JLAV are almost 0 risk for massive potential reward. Honestly when Rattati speaks of bringing back Marauder, etc I can see why some pilots want them to be OP..... who the ** wants to play a 1.5-3.0 million ISK HAV when a douche bag with less than 50K ISK can instantly wreck you with little to no effort. Look. When a single AV player can solo a tank, Im all for removing JLAV's. Until then, its a balancing factor for vehicles: if you are a low SP player who doesn't have prof 5 swarms and proto minmando with double complex damage mods, you need something else. Very similar to the shotgun or RE's for infantry: you can kill any scout in the game with a single SG blast, and can kill all but the most heavily tanked of the heavily tanked heavies with a single boundless RE. There should always be risk for a vehicle user of someone using an easily counter able tactic that is also very effective if you aren't situationally aware. "Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 167	Posted - 2014.12.25 14:27:00 - [85] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: If you're taking more than one AV to kill a HAV now, you're still doing it wrong. The way to fix your argument is to present a balanced solution that works against tankers that aren't lousy, i.e. tanks that don't get chased down and cornered by a lone AV infantry. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14683	Posted - 2014.12.25 22:15:00 - [86] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Look. When a single AV player can solo a tank, While I certainly don't agree with the person you're arguing with, HAVs can be soloed. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:46:00 - [87] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If you're taking more than one AV to kill a HAV now, you're still doing it wrong. The way to fix your argument is to present a balanced solution that works against tankers that aren't lousy, i.e. tanks that don't get chased down and cornered by a lone AV infantry. That isn't hard to do with like 90% of pilots it seems. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.

I am a minotaur.