DUST Search - New LAVs are Old LAV of days long past.

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Sgt Kirk wrote:

The Circle of vehicle balance continues and this time we return to the topic of LAVs.

In the Past, LAVs had very little eHP but made up for that with mobility and versatility; they also cost a good amount of ISK, a little too much for what it was worth honestly.

Then the ~~Great Destruction~~ Rebalance of vehicles happened and around that time LAVs no were no longer lightly armored vehicles but they received a large sized HP increase but with the sacrifice of fitting space and slot load out. They also greatly reduced ISK amount which was great.

Now, we see ourselves returning back to the old ways with LAVs being lightly armored as seen in the Hotfix Echo Spreadsheet. This is just like how LAVs performed before with low HP, and nice CPU/PG capacity but CCP seems to have forgotten that LAVs actually need our extra low and highslot back that were sacrificed when we were given the HP increase. I greatly welcome this change however; reducing the amount of low Risk free transport and low risk hit and run drivers.

We just need our exrta high and lowslot back.

Or at least add in the Methana II and have the Methana II and Saga II have the extra low and high slot with proper fitting resources.

That first statement isn't really correct, seeing as I could get normal LAV's around 4.5k eHP, and LLV's 5-6k.

EDIT: Also, such would make the Methana II and Saga II pretty much in every way outperform the regular ones.

As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9786	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:47:00 - [1] - Quote The Circle of vehicle balance continues and this time we return to the topic of LAVs. In the Past, LAVs had very little eHP but made up for that with mobility and versatility; they also cost a good amount of ISK, a little too much for what it was worth honestly. Then the ~~Great Destruction~~ Rebalance of vehicles happened and around that time LAVs no were no longer lightly armored vehicles but they received a large sized HP increase but with the sacrifice of fitting space and slot load out. They also greatly reduced ISK amount which was great. Now, we see ourselves returning back to the old ways with LAVs being lightly armored as seen in the Hotfix Echo Spreadsheet. This is just like how LAVs performed before with low HP, and nice CPU/PG capacity but CCP seems to have forgotten that LAVs actually need our extra low and highslot back that were sacrificed when we were given the HP increase. I greatly welcome this change however; reducing the amount of low Risk free transport and low risk hit and run drivers. We just need our exrta high and lowslot back. Or at least add in the Methana II and have the Methana II and Saga II have the extra low and high slot and fitting resources. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1028	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:51:00 - [2] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: We just need our exrta high and lowslot back. I'd like to wait-and-see first. Generally, more slots is better for fitting variety - on the other hand I don't think LAVs need to be much more powerful than they are now (if fitted correctly). Maybe the current hotfix echo proposal could use a bit a minor CPU/PG to make skilling into them worthwhile, but I'm not sure because I haven't gotten around to actually play with the numbers - I only did some quick spreadsheet calculations.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9788	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:57:00 - [3] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: We just need our exrta high and lowslot back. I'd like to wait-and-see first. Generally, more slots is better for fitting variety - on the other hand I don't think LAVs need to be much more powerful than they are now (if fitted correctly). Maybe the current hotfix echo proposal could use a bit a minor CPU/PG to make skilling into them worthwhile, but I'm not sure because I haven't gotten around to actually play with the numbers - I only did some quick spreadsheet calculations. I agree. What LAVs can have now is a bit ridiculous out of what you can do with it. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1028	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:16:00 - [4] - Quote One way of going about it would be to add that additional racial slot but keeping CPU/PG per slot at a very low value. That way even at very good fitting skills an LAV will only ever run mostly basic or enhanced modules and turrets, thus limiting power. I just don't want to see a Methana with a pro railgun, pro damage mod and respectable tank. 900 dps of raildamage need to come with a downside. (Did you ever try that combo? It's a glass cannon, but ADS die really fast. )
Nocturnal Soul Primordial Threat 5772	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:11:00 - [5] - Quote I want my damn slots back and my burst missile launcher!!!! (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! The Incursions are back... and they're golden baby!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5276	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:28:00 - [6] - Quote I pretty much see the LAV Echo change as a quick fix to make fitting more important to the survivability of the LAV. However, like the HAV rebalance, it needs to regain some slots to make it properly work. I think Rattati just wanted to fart out some sort of change for Echo, even if it needs further work in the future. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2961	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:34:00 - [7] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: The Circle of vehicle balance continues and this time we return to the topic of LAVs. In the Past, LAVs had very little eHP but made up for that with mobility and versatility; they also cost a good amount of ISK, a little too much for what it was worth honestly. Then the ~~Great Destruction~~ Rebalance of vehicles happened and around that time LAVs no were no longer lightly armored vehicles but they received a large sized HP increase but with the sacrifice of fitting space and slot load out. They also greatly reduced ISK amount which was great. Now, we see ourselves returning back to the old ways with LAVs being lightly armored as seen in the Hotfix Echo Spreadsheet. This is just like how LAVs performed before with low HP, and nice CPU/PG capacity but CCP seems to have forgotten that LAVs actually need our extra low and highslot back that were sacrificed when we were given the HP increase. I greatly welcome this change however; reducing the amount of low Risk free transport and low risk hit and run drivers. We just need our exrta high and lowslot back. Or at least add in the Methana II and have the Methana II and Saga II have the extra low and high slot with proper fitting resources. That first statement isn't really correct, seeing as I could get normal LAV's around 4.5k eHP, and LLV's 5-6k. EDIT: Also, such would make the Methana II and Saga II pretty much in every way outperform the regular ones. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9790	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:43:00 - [8] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: The Circle of vehicle balance continues and this time we return to the topic of LAVs. In the Past, LAVs had very little eHP but made up for that with mobility and versatility; they also cost a good amount of ISK, a little too much for what it was worth honestly. Then the ~~Great Destruction~~ Rebalance of vehicles happened and around that time LAVs no were no longer lightly armored vehicles but they received a large sized HP increase but with the sacrifice of fitting space and slot load out. They also greatly reduced ISK amount which was great. Now, we see ourselves returning back to the old ways with LAVs being lightly armored as seen in the Hotfix Echo Spreadsheet. This is just like how LAVs performed before with low HP, and nice CPU/PG capacity but CCP seems to have forgotten that LAVs actually need our extra low and highslot back that were sacrificed when we were given the HP increase. I greatly welcome this change however; reducing the amount of low Risk free transport and low risk hit and run drivers. We just need our exrta high and lowslot back. Or at least add in the Methana II and have the Methana II and Saga II have the extra low and high slot with proper fitting resources. That first statement isn't really correct, seeing as I could get normal LAV's around 4.5k eHP, and LLV's 5-6k. EDIT: Also, such would make the Methana II and Saga II pretty much in every way outperform the regular ones. That's 2 generations from what I'm talking about but yes those LAVs could get very high ehp. That's why I said is was a circle with all vehicles, we literally do the same thing every 6-7 months now with vehicles. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 853	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:47:00 - [9] - Quote The "new" LAV's are just going to be rolling coffins. Even if you fit them properly they will just die way too easy. A increase in module slots is required. Cause according to rattati only the "unfitted disposable LAV's" are too hard to kill. If thats the case then we surely wouldnt have a issue to give the methana 3 lows and 1 high and the Saga 3 high and 1 low slot. That way we actually could make use of the PG+CPU buff and the vehicles wouldnt be unfitted. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 78	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:16:00 - [10] - Quote How old are we talking about? If we're talking about 1.7 - Now, even though they're nowhere near what they used to be, I've still been able to do incredibly well actually soloing in the LAV with a particle cannon, even though it's somewhat easy to pop, I usually would only die to friendly HAV's running me over... However this is just my personal experiences so it doesn't account for much... I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.

PLAYSTTION Corrosive Synergy RISE of LEGION 649	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:00:00 - [11] - Quote If they fix how vehicle take damage when ramming and hitting buildings ill be ok with any changes. Right now its crazy, if you rub against another LAV you lose a ton of HP. And in an ADS if you hit anything even lightly your down to 0HP. Gassault Calogi and more. Respec Pending. `- Open Beta Vet - 38 mil sp - - Director of Corrosive Synergy -`
Nocturnal Soul Primordial Threat 5778	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:08:00 - [12] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: The "new" LAV's are just going to be rolling coffins. Even if you fit them properly they will just die way too easy. A increase in module slots is required. Cause according to rattati only the "unfitted disposable LAV's" are too hard to kill. If thats the case then we surely wouldnt have a issue to give the methana 3 lows and 1 high and the Saga 3 high and 1 low slot. That way we actually could make use of the PG+CPU buff and the vehicles wouldnt be unfitted. I want the 3/2 and vice versa slots back (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! The Incursions are back... and they're golden baby!
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9793	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:35:00 - [13] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: The "new" LAV's are just going to be rolling coffins. Even if you fit them properly they will just die way too easy. A increase in module slots is required. Cause according to rattati only the "unfitted disposable LAV's" are too hard to kill. If thats the case then we surely wouldnt have a issue to give the methana 3 lows and 1 high and the Saga 3 high and 1 low slot. That way we actually could make use of the PG+CPU buff and the vehicles wouldnt be unfitted. I want the 3/2 and vice versa slots back That's what I was talking about. I should have specified better. 3-2 for Caldari 2-3 for Gallente Although if they give tanks placeholder hulls for Amarr and minmatar why not do the same for other vehicles. Gallente would still be 2-3 Caldari would change to 4-1 Amarr would be 1-4 Minmatar would be 3-2 *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5277	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:36:00 - [14] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: The "new" LAV's are just going to be rolling coffins. Even if you fit them properly they will just die way too easy. A increase in module slots is required. Cause according to rattati only the "unfitted disposable LAV's" are too hard to kill. If thats the case then we surely wouldnt have a issue to give the methana 3 lows and 1 high and the Saga 3 high and 1 low slot. That way we actually could make use of the PG+CPU buff and the vehicles wouldnt be unfitted. I want the 3/2 and vice versa slots back That's what I was talking about. I should have specified better. 3-2 for Caldari 2-3 for Gallente Although if they give tanks placeholder hulls for Amarr and minmatar why not do the same for other vehicles. Gallente would still be 2-3 Caldari would change to 4-1 Amarr would be 1-4 Minmatar would be 3-2 I have the same slot layout for what I'm currently working on, so +1 from me. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
LOOKMOM NOHANDS Warpoint Sharx 152	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:51:00 - [15] - Quote Hyper aggressive, super accurate blaster turrets are going to make LAVs 100% useless. I find it kind of funny that this crazy nerf comes right after they pumped everyone up with 2 BPO Lavs.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9793	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:02:00 - [16] - Quote Just wait until they hit you with the BPO surprise later on if my hypothesis is correct. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15444	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:18:00 - [17] - Quote Actually I remember the hotfix where the LAV's recieved those buffs. It was a straight 60% HP buff, no CPU/PG reduction, no slot reduction. It was like the second hotfix after Uprising 1.0, maybe even the first. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5278	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:24:00 - [18] - Quote Just threw together some preliminary numbers. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jofxFZiz1wV9ju1qvXiPWrcoXDsrzejKjUDzYRPdEb4/edit?usp=sharing Have not really done much in terms of balancing against current AV (which is likely changing anyways) but I included some reference values of current light modules if you want to do some mental math. Again just threw some stuff together so don't freak out if something weird pops up. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17538	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:25:00 - [19] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Hyper aggressive, super accurate blaster turrets are going to make LAVs 100% useless. I find it kind of funny that this crazy nerf comes right after they pumped everyone up with 2 BPO Lavs. Not really sure about that I mean this is a short duration active module that is required to achieve accuracy. All it means is that LAV drivers will have to be more careful how they drive. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Nocturnal Soul Primordial Threat 5779	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:28:00 - [20] - Quote Native reps needs to die.... I really hate the idea of it (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! The Incursions are back... and they're golden baby!

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5279	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:32:00 - [21] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Native reps needs to die.... I really hate the idea of it Not a huge fan either but Rattati seems married to the idea so I'm just going with the flow. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9793	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:38:00 - [22] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Native reps needs to die.... I really hate the idea of it Agreed, can't stand the damned idea but as pokey said, Rattati is married to it. New scrubs crying that armor couldn't regen. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17541	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:36:00 - [23] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: Native reps needs to die.... I really hate the idea of it Agreed, can't stand the damned idea but as pokey said, Rattati is married to it. New scrubs crying that armor couldn't regen. I know the feeling. Really cannot stand this silly mechanics that basically stemmed from the issue "I don't want to fit an Armour Repairer but I want Armour Repairs......". "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 163	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:40:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: Native reps needs to die.... I really hate the idea of it Agreed, can't stand the damned idea but as pokey said, Rattati is married to it. New scrubs crying that armor couldn't regen. I know the feeling. Really cannot stand this silly mechanics that basically stemmed from the issue "I don't want to fit an Armour Repairer but I want Armour Repairs......". Hey I don't like it but meh... Pushes me over the 300 rep inky barrier. Slightly longer TTK for vehicles, too? "Half full? Or, half empty?" Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17542	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:59:00 - [25] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: Native reps needs to die.... I really hate the idea of it Agreed, can't stand the damned idea but as pokey said, Rattati is married to it. New scrubs crying that armor couldn't regen. I know the feeling. Really cannot stand this silly mechanics that basically stemmed from the issue "I don't want to fit an Armour Repairer but I want Armour Repairs......". Hey I don't like it but meh... Pushes me over the 300 rep inky barrier. Slightly longer TTK for vehicles, too? "Half full? Or, half empty?" Empty Armour Ships and I suppose vehicles should never passively repair EVER. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3103	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:14:00 - [26] - Quote The new LAVs are going to be more like unbonused, slow Scout LAVs of oldGÇª with lower health. I really can't fathom how some people see these changes as "good" or even "acceptable." Even the best fitted, all 5's fits barely make it back to even the base stats of current LAVs, and that's without a proto turret and in the Methana's case forgoing a module. Don't believe me? Try and come up with better fits: Saga (EHP: 1607/450) Methana (EHP: 325/2240) And while we're on the subjectGÇª who the heck has been complaining about LAVs? I mean seriously, I can't think of one QQ thread in the last three months outside of complaint about heavies driving around. Heck, even THAT isn't a huge problem. Yet now somehow LAVs need more attention than logi rebalance and other ACTUAL ISSUES that plague this game. Shall I count the ways LAVs can be countered? Gëñ3 swarms, Gëñ2 forge shots, Gëñ2 large rail shots, ADSs, proxy mines, snipers (when shooting), literally any tank, another LAV with rail and gunner. It's not hard if you actually try guys. Oh, and until there is a safe, accessible supply depot in every redline, I support giving vehicle small native repairs. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5284	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:37:00 - [27] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: The new LAVs are going to be more like unbonused, slow Scout LAVs of oldGÇª with lower health. I really can't fathom how some people see these changes as "good" or even "acceptable." Even the best fitted, all 5's fits barely make it back to even the base stats of current LAVs, and that's without a proto turret and in the Methana's case forgoing a module. Don't believe me? Try and come up with better fits: Saga (EHP: 1607/450) Methana (EHP: 325/2240) And while we're on the subjectGÇª who the heck has been complaining about LAVs? I mean seriously, I can't think of one QQ thread in the last three months outside of complaint about heavies driving around. Heck, even THAT isn't a huge problem. Yet now somehow LAVs need more attention than logi rebalance and other ACTUAL ISSUES that plague this game. Shall I count the ways LAVs can be countered? Gëñ3 swarms, Gëñ2 forge shots, Gëñ2 large rail shots, ADSs, proxy mines, snipers (when shooting), literally any tank, another LAV with rail and gunner. It's not hard if you actually try guys. Oh, and until there is a safe, accessible supply depot in every redline, I support giving vehicle small native repairs. I don't have a problem with LAVs. I have an issue with unfit LAVs being as tanky as they are. When properly fit, LAVs should kick ass, but an unfit LAV should pop as easily as an unfit dropsuit in comparison. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3103	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:14:00 - [28] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: The new LAVs are going to be more like unbonused, slow Scout LAVs of oldGÇª with lower health. I really can't fathom how some people see these changes as "good" or even "acceptable." Even the best fitted, all 5's fits barely make it back to even the base stats of current LAVs, and that's without a proto turret and in the Methana's case forgoing a module. Don't believe me? Try and come up with better fits: Saga (EHP: 1607/450) Methana (EHP: 325/2240) And while we're on the subjectGÇª who the heck has been complaining about LAVs? I mean seriously, I can't think of one QQ thread in the last three months outside of complaint about heavies driving around. Heck, even THAT isn't a huge problem. Yet now somehow LAVs need more attention than logi rebalance and other ACTUAL ISSUES that plague this game. Shall I count the ways LAVs can be countered? Gëñ3 swarms, Gëñ2 forge shots, Gëñ2 large rail shots, ADSs, proxy mines, snipers (when shooting), literally any tank, another LAV with rail and gunner. It's not hard if you actually try guys. Oh, and until there is a safe, accessible supply depot in every redline, I support giving vehicle small native repairs. I don't have a problem with LAVs. I have an issue with unfit LAVs being as tanky as they are. When properly fit, LAVs should kick ass, but an unfit LAV should pop as easily as an unfit dropsuit in comparison. I really don't think the problem is with "unfitted LAVs" but more with the BPO LAVs. I do think BPO LAVs should be fragile and, imo, unfit-able throwaway transport. But STD LAVs (and beyond hopefully) should be considered a different class and far more defensive. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5286	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:28:00 - [29] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: I really don't think the problem is with "unfitted LAVs" but more with the BPO LAVs. I do think BPO LAVs should be fragile and, imo, unfit-able throwaway transport. But STD LAVs (and beyond hopefully) should be considered a different class and far more defensive. BPO LAVs are Standard LAVs "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3103	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:34:00 - [30] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: I really don't think the problem is with "unfitted LAVs" but more with the BPO LAVs. I do think BPO LAVs should be fragile and, imo, unfit-able throwaway transport. But STD LAVs (and beyond hopefully) should be considered a different class and far more defensive. BPO LAVs are Standard LAVs Which is why I'd like to change that: BPO LAV: Free, throwaway transport; fragile. STD LAV: Costs ISK but is more tanky/ customizable. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5286	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:51:00 - [31] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: I really don't think the problem is with "unfitted LAVs" but more with the BPO LAVs. I do think BPO LAVs should be fragile and, imo, unfit-able throwaway transport. But STD LAVs (and beyond hopefully) should be considered a different class and far more defensive. BPO LAVs are Standard LAVs Which is why I'd like to change that: BPO LAV: Free, throwaway transport; fragile. STD LAV: Costs ISK but is more tanky/ customizable. Except I purchased my BPO LAV because it was standard. Can I expect a cash refund of the pack that included the LAV in it since I purchased it directly with cash and not with AUR? I mean the same thing can be said for dropsuits. Should all BPO dropsuits be downgraded to below Standard? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7606	Posted - 2015.03.10 07:09:00 - [32] - Quote I think that giving the fourth slot back would be an incredibly good idea for the people who actually use LAVs as light attack for driver/gunner teams. People are about to get an extremely RUDE shock. AV


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]