DUST Search - The basic HAV goal

True Adamance wrote:

Scheneighnay McBob wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Scheneighnay McBob wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly.

I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down...........

That was absolutely ********

Is that a good or bad thing.... I just remember the kill being so sweet, so much work for 1 million + ISK kill...and to me back then as a newbie it was amazing.

I'd rather HAV keep durability, loose some speed, keep their firepower....although in a more Anti Vehicle kind of way, and require gunners and infantry to protect them from enemy infantry.

In a bad way- a basic frame type (that's essentially what HAVs are) should NEVER be vet-exclusive.
And especially not that tough.

Forgot to mention this, but a high price essentially breaks the game.
Everything, no matter how expensive, is meant to be killable
If something is killable, it can be killed at any battle
The old HAVs could never be replaced on the profits of a single battle
If you lost one every battle, you would go bankrupt
Trying to balance things so that you only run into something that can kill you every x battles is too much of a gamble on the player-base

It's far more simple just to make them killable and replaceable. The best HAV fit should be expected to get destroyed once every battle, and should be cheap enough for 1 per battle to be replaced.

If cutting costs means cutting teirs, I'm all for it. Standard vehicles shouldn't be able to fit prototype turrets anyway.

Agreed. But I want to feel like the SP I put into my machine is worth it....currently I can do as well as a STD HAV with a MLT variant......I barely even notice the difference.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4144	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:02:00 - [1] - Quote Over the entirety of my time playing Dust, HAVs were ALWAYS broken. However, it wasn't always the same problem. HAVs have been broken in several different ways, which we need to remember and avoid. The first HAV issue I encountered on Dust was that HAVs were very expensive and difficult to skill into, but very difficult to destroy The issue with this was that tanking was for the elite vets only; AVers couldn't take them down, noobs couldn't skill into or afford a decent HAV, and only another vet could afford the means to take one down (another HAV) Later, they were easier to skill into, reasonably easy for AV to destroy them, but expensive. The problem with this is that nobody really used HAVs except pubstompers. The reason behind this being that any AV coordination (or proto AV) could set you back hundreds of thousands of ISK just by destroying one fit. On top of that, AVers didn't get much as far as WPs (Vehicles were rare), so it was a lose-lose situation. Currently, the problem is that HAVs are relatively cheap, but very difficult for anything but another HAV to destroy (well, if they have hardeners) It's incredibly easy for a tanker to make a profit (they've always been WP cows), and now they don't really have to worry about losing much. The goal we should all be aiming towards as far as balance is an HAV that is both easy to destroy AND won't burn a hole in your pocket if you lose one. If HAVs are cheap and easy to destroy: Noobs can get into them It's viable to be a full-time tanker because of cost It's viable to be a full-time AVer because there are plenty of targets The average infantry aren't completely screwed over, because AVers will do population control AVers will make for easy targets, encouraging snipers to aim for them. If snipers kill AVers, they're actually contributing to their team I am your scan error.
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 710	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:05:00 - [2] - Quote Need to make MLT HAV much easier to kill STD HAV Need a cycle nerf which progressely is reduced to zero at rank 4 then slight boost to rank 5 Everybody wins over the whole spectrum Nemo me impune lacessit
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7565	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:07:00 - [3] - Quote I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 250	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:10:00 - [4] - Quote Slow them - They are not tanks, but basicaly heavy armored formula 1. Give them a proper role - Driving around for kills, its too dumb. Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter Buff light infantry AA - Make rocketpropelled nades faster. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4144	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:12:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... That was absolutely ******** I am your scan error.
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4144	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:15:00 - [6] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Slow them - They are not tanks, but basicaly heavy armored formula 1. Give them a proper role - Driving around for kills, its too dumb. Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter Buff light infantry AA - Make rocketpropelled nades faster. Slowing them- acceleration, yes; top speed, no. We don't want it to take them a half hour to get anywhere once the maps expand. A role- right now they're area-denial for open (tank-accessible) areas. Squad based- I agree, but this had been suggested for as long as I can remember; CCP seems hellbent on keeping them solo AV buff- http://i2.wp.com/allthingsd.com/files/2012/02/YOU_DONT_SAY.png But still, remember that we don't want AV insta-popping the other vehicles either. I am your scan error.
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 712	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:27:00 - [7] - Quote I wouldnt lose sleep if LAVs go down to packed explosives/grenades Nemo me impune lacessit
Tupni Capital Acquisitions LLC Renegade Alliance 68	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:31:00 - [8] - Quote No. De-nerf AV range, double or triple the ISK cost of tanks/tank accessories, make AV also AP (anti personnel, IE make swarms more than just a pathetic situational weapon or at least make them USEFUL and CAPABLE OF DESTROYING THE THINGS THEY'RE ALLEGEDLY MADE TO DESTROY, same with AV grenades why wouldn't they blow up on personnel? Even with a damage nerf just have them make more SENSE), no less than TRIPLE the WP reward for a tank destruction, at least double general vehicle destructions, don't make dropships immortal flying boxes, GIVE US THE DAMN INSTALLATION TURRETS CCP, block instantaneous stealth recall of vehicles because that's such bullshit that you can get a tank within an inch of its life just to have it magic itself away. Nerfing aiming mobility and speed might not be a bad idea for tanks either, the things are like jackrabbits right now, but I not too much. Piloting a tank SHOULD take SKILL, SCALE IN TERMS OF MONETARY COST and be a CHALLENGE to kill, but also killing it should be FAIRLY REWARDED and ENCOURAGED with FAIR EQUIPMENT.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7576	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:31:00 - [9] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: True Adamance wrote: I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... That was absolutely ******** Is that a good or bad thing.... I just remember the kill being so sweet, so much work for 1 million + ISK kill...and to me back then as a newbie it was amazing. I'd rather HAV keep durability, loose some speed, keep their firepower....although in a more Anti Vehicle kind of way, and require gunners and infantry to protect them from enemy infantry. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4145	Posted - 2014.02.26 00:57:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: True Adamance wrote: I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... That was absolutely ******** Is that a good or bad thing.... I just remember the kill being so sweet, so much work for 1 million + ISK kill...and to me back then as a newbie it was amazing. I'd rather HAV keep durability, loose some speed, keep their firepower....although in a more Anti Vehicle kind of way, and require gunners and infantry to protect them from enemy infantry. In a bad way- a basic frame type (that's essentially what HAVs are) should NEVER be vet-exclusive. And especially not that tough. Forgot to mention this, but a high price essentially breaks the game. Everything, no matter how expensive, is meant to be killable If something is killable, it can be killed at any battle The old HAVs could never be replaced on the profits of a single battle If you lost one every battle, you would go bankrupt Trying to balance things so that you only run into something that can kill you every x battles is too much of a gamble on the player-base It's far more simple just to make them killable and replaceable. The best HAV fit should be expected to get destroyed once every battle, and should be cheap enough for 1 per battle to be replaced. If cutting costs means cutting teirs, I'm all for it. Standard vehicles shouldn't be able to fit prototype turrets anyway. I am your scan error.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7578	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:00:00 - [11] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: True Adamance wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: True Adamance wrote: I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... That was absolutely ******** Is that a good or bad thing.... I just remember the kill being so sweet, so much work for 1 million + ISK kill...and to me back then as a newbie it was amazing. I'd rather HAV keep durability, loose some speed, keep their firepower....although in a more Anti Vehicle kind of way, and require gunners and infantry to protect them from enemy infantry. In a bad way- a basic frame type (that's essentially what HAVs are) should NEVER be vet-exclusive. And especially not that tough. Forgot to mention this, but a high price essentially breaks the game. Everything, no matter how expensive, is meant to be killable If something is killable, it can be killed at any battle The old HAVs could never be replaced on the profits of a single battle If you lost one every battle, you would go bankrupt Trying to balance things so that you only run into something that can kill you every x battles is too much of a gamble on the player-base It's far more simple just to make them killable and replaceable. The best HAV fit should be expected to get destroyed once every battle, and should be cheap enough for 1 per battle to be replaced. If cutting costs means cutting teirs, I'm all for it. Standard vehicles shouldn't be able to fit prototype turrets anyway. Agreed. But I want to feel like the SP I put into my machine is worth it....currently I can do as well as a STD HAV with a MLT variant......I barely even notice the difference. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4146	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:03:00 - [12] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: True Adamance wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: True Adamance wrote: I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... That was absolutely ******** Is that a good or bad thing.... I just remember the kill being so sweet, so much work for 1 million + ISK kill...and to me back then as a newbie it was amazing. I'd rather HAV keep durability, loose some speed, keep their firepower....although in a more Anti Vehicle kind of way, and require gunners and infantry to protect them from enemy infantry. In a bad way- a basic frame type (that's essentially what HAVs are) should NEVER be vet-exclusive. And especially not that tough. Forgot to mention this, but a high price essentially breaks the game. Everything, no matter how expensive, is meant to be killable If something is killable, it can be killed at any battle The old HAVs could never be replaced on the profits of a single battle If you lost one every battle, you would go bankrupt Trying to balance things so that you only run into something that can kill you every x battles is too much of a gamble on the player-base It's far more simple just to make them killable and replaceable. The best HAV fit should be expected to get destroyed once every battle, and should be cheap enough for 1 per battle to be replaced. If cutting costs means cutting teirs, I'm all for it. Standard vehicles shouldn't be able to fit prototype turrets anyway. Agreed. But I want to feel like the SP I put into my machine is worth it....currently I can do as well as a STD HAV with a MLT variant......I barely even notice the difference. That's why we need to start getting higher tech levels involved. We've seen marauders, enforcers, and black ops HAVs in the past. I don't see why we can't have all 3 back at once. I am your scan error.
Turtle Hermit Roshi D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 176	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:05:00 - [13] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter THIS this would be beautiful to bad itll never hapen Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for, welcome to New Eden -ill b there SoonGäó KAMEHAMEHA TANK KILLA
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 714	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:05:00 - [14] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Forgot to mention this, but a high price essentially breaks the game. Everything, no matter how expensive, is meant to be killable If something is killable, it can be killed at any battle The old HAVs could never be replaced on the profits of a single battle If you lost one every battle, you would go bankrupt Trying to balance things so that you only run into something that can kill you every x battles is too much of a gamble on the player-base In that respect then HAV are already sitting pretty sweet, a well fit STD costs more than what can be earned in a reasonably good game, unkillable HAV do exist though, dual rep high skilled maddys The problem with HAV I believe is the swarm launcher is useless unless your in a pair and you got high prociency and your feeling quite dangerous, or your highly skilled with a forge gun and you have a great overlook position. The rabble on the forums cant accept thats what it takes to compete with top tankers, and I for one think the swarm launcher needs 300m-400m lock range back anyway. Also if the HAV gets nerfed again at this point outside of skills its just going to unnecessarily **** a lot of people off. Nemo me impune lacessit
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4147	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:11:00 - [15] - Quote Obodiah Garro wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Forgot to mention this, but a high price essentially breaks the game. Everything, no matter how expensive, is meant to be killable If something is killable, it can be killed at any battle The old HAVs could never be replaced on the profits of a single battle If you lost one every battle, you would go bankrupt Trying to balance things so that you only run into something that can kill you every x battles is too much of a gamble on the player-base In that respect then HAV are already sitting pretty sweet, a well fit STD costs more than what can be earned in a reasonably good game, unkillable HAV do exist though, dual rep high skilled maddys The problem with HAV I believe is the swarm launcher is useless unless your in a pair and you got high prociency and your feeling quite dangerous, or your highly skilled with a forge gun and you have a great overlook position. The rabble on the forums cant accept thats what it takes to compete with top tankers, and I for one think the swarm launcher needs 300m-400m lock range back anyway. Also if the HAV gets nerfed again at this point outside of skills its just going to unnecessarily **** a lot of people off. The rabble on the forums also doesn't understand how key hardeners and speed mods are in making a viable vehicle fit. HAVs and ADSes are probably easily killable, unless they have hardeners, nitrous, or afterburners going. I would like to see how balanced everything would get if those were temporarily removed or nerfed. I am your scan error.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2067	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:23:00 - [16] - Quote I'd say an AV buff would be a good thing. FGs should be able to pop a MLT tank. Right now my soma (decked out with BPO mods too) is really only killed by unmanned turrets... Try to kill it all you want CCP, I still <3 my laser.
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4148	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:26:00 - [17] - Quote Talos Alomar wrote: I'd say an AV buff would be a good thing. FGs should be able to pop a MLT tank. Right now my soma (decked out with BPO mods too) is really only killed by unmanned turrets... Once again, there's still the issue of AV insta-popping the rest of the current vehicles. I am your scan error.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1771	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:37:00 - [18] - Quote Tupni wrote: No. De-nerf AV range, double or triple the ISK cost of tanks/tank accessories, make AV also AP (anti personnel, IE make swarms more than just a pathetic situational weapon or at least make them USEFUL and CAPABLE OF DESTROYING THE THINGS THEY'RE ALLEGEDLY MADE TO DESTROY, same with AV grenades why wouldn't they blow up on personnel? Even with a damage nerf just have them make more SENSE), no less than TRIPLE the WP reward for a tank destruction, at least double general vehicle destructions, don't make dropships immortal flying boxes, GIVE US THE DAMN INSTALLATION TURRETS CCP, block instantaneous stealth recall of vehicles because that's such bullshit that you can get a tank within an inch of its life just to have it magic itself away. Nerfing aiming mobility and speed might not be a bad idea for tanks either, the things are like jackrabbits right now, but I not too much. Piloting a tank SHOULD take SKILL, SCALE IN TERMS OF MONETARY COST and be a CHALLENGE to kill, but also killing it should be FAIRLY REWARDED and ENCOURAGED with FAIR EQUIPMENT. Why not have all of the homing/locking things be linked to Sig Profile? Things with small profiles like infantry should be able to easily break LOS in time to avoid the Swarm lock, slower things (or things with large profiles like Heavies/Vehicles) would have a rougher time of it though it would still be possible. Connect homing distances/lock times to Sig Profiles, with a high enough Sig Profile, AV grenades would home in on dropsuits (same with Prox Mines). I still don't understand why it wasn't set up like this for locks. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1771	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:39:00 - [19] - Quote Turtle Hermit Roshi wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter THIS this would be beautiful to bad itll never hapen Crew Service is the true solution to all vehicle problems. Why can't CCP see that? Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 625	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:39:00 - [20] - Quote Webifiers. Does anyone reading this thread know what they are? But seriously, just keep things with tanks as-is. Add Webifiers. Increase Swarm Lock range by +50m and improve STD and ADV damage Then give DS resist VS Tank Railgun fire (20% ADS, 50% STD) Vehicles would be very close to balanced then. Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Standard vehicles shouldn't be able to fit prototype turrets anyway. Standard vehicles are all we're getting... You sure you're awake there? Also, I see someone complaining that the supplementary damage system..Swarm Launchers, are not primary damage dealers? They lock-on for you, are a Light weapon, and are intended to be a supplement, not a main venue. Alaika Arbosa wrote: Crew Service is the true solution to all vehicle problems. Why can't CCP see that? You want tanks to have 3x the health and 2x the firepower?.... If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming

Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4148	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:39:00 - [21] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Tupni wrote: No. De-nerf AV range, double or triple the ISK cost of tanks/tank accessories, make AV also AP (anti personnel, IE make swarms more than just a pathetic situational weapon or at least make them USEFUL and CAPABLE OF DESTROYING THE THINGS THEY'RE ALLEGEDLY MADE TO DESTROY, same with AV grenades why wouldn't they blow up on personnel? Even with a damage nerf just have them make more SENSE), no less than TRIPLE the WP reward for a tank destruction, at least double general vehicle destructions, don't make dropships immortal flying boxes, GIVE US THE DAMN INSTALLATION TURRETS CCP, block instantaneous stealth recall of vehicles because that's such bullshit that you can get a tank within an inch of its life just to have it magic itself away. Nerfing aiming mobility and speed might not be a bad idea for tanks either, the things are like jackrabbits right now, but I not too much. Piloting a tank SHOULD take SKILL, SCALE IN TERMS OF MONETARY COST and be a CHALLENGE to kill, but also killing it should be FAIRLY REWARDED and ENCOURAGED with FAIR EQUIPMENT. Why not have all of the homing/locking things be linked to Sig Profile? Things with small profiles like infantry should be able to easily break LOS in time to avoid the Swarm lock, slower things (or things with large profiles like Heavies/Vehicles) would have a rougher time of it though it would still be possible. Connect homing distances/lock times to Sig Profiles, with a high enough Sig Profile, AV grenades would home in on dropsuits (same with Prox Mines). I still don't understand why it wasn't set up like this for locks. I believe what they're talking about is lack of swarm dumbfire, and how AV grenades only explode on contact with vehicles. Everyone who was around for dumbfire swarms is probably still afraid of suicide-swarms I am your scan error.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2067	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:50:00 - [22] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I believe what they're talking about is lack of swarm dumbfire, and how AV grenades only explode on contact with vehicles. Everyone who was around for dumbfire swarms is probably still afraid of suicide-swarms ugh, don't remind me. Those were some dark days. Remember the 'invalid fitting' error? Try to kill it all you want CCP, I still <3 my laser.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 625	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:53:00 - [23] - Quote Talos Alomar wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I believe what they're talking about is lack of swarm dumbfire, and how AV grenades only explode on contact with vehicles. Everyone who was around for dumbfire swarms is probably still afraid of suicide-swarms ugh, don't remind me. Those were some dark days. Remember the 'invalid fitting' error? No... but I do remember the RDV bringing "FREE TANKS FOR EVERYONE!!!" and a pile of about 20 tanks just spawning at the start base. sigh If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4148	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:54:00 - [24] - Quote Talos Alomar wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I believe what they're talking about is lack of swarm dumbfire, and how AV grenades only explode on contact with vehicles. Everyone who was around for dumbfire swarms is probably still afraid of suicide-swarms ugh, don't remind me. Those were some dark days. Remember the 'invalid fitting' error? Forgot about that damn thing until now. I am your scan error.
wait reloading Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1	Posted - 2014.02.26 01:59:00 - [25] - Quote just increase base hull hp per tier, and limit hardners to 1 or 2 modules per vehicle. If you want survivability get a better tank, and you wouldn't have to use plates or extenders. Unsure how module layout should be though. When higher tier tanks enter the game they just have to give them even higher hull hp Could also use a damage reduction to large blaster turrets - they are only for antiinfantry? Would mean a better distinction between blaster and rail.
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4148	Posted - 2014.02.26 02:04:00 - [26] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Talos Alomar wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I believe what they're talking about is lack of swarm dumbfire, and how AV grenades only explode on contact with vehicles. Everyone who was around for dumbfire swarms is probably still afraid of suicide-swarms ugh, don't remind me. Those were some dark days. Remember the 'invalid fitting' error? No... but I do remember the RDV bringing "FREE TANKS FOR EVERYONE!!!" and a pile of about 20 tanks just spawning at the start base. sigh Never saw it, but I imagine that would be a massive bomb just waiting to explode on the spawn I am your scan error.
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 330	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:00:00 - [27] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter This is a terrible idea for a couple reasons. First: It completely alienates lone-wolf players. Second: Communication, not everyone has a mic. You can't tell me that one person can drive and one person can man the main turret effectively without verbal communication between them. So it also alienates those without a mic. *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4151	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:04:00 - [28] - Quote Supernus Gigas wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter This is a terrible idea for a couple reasons. First: It completely alienates lone-wolf players. Second: Communication, not everyone has a mic. You can't tell me that one person can drive and one person can man the main turret effectively without verbal communication between them. So it also alienates those without a mic. The rest of the vehicles already alienate lone players. Why should HAVs be any different. We're waiting on fighters, you guys can wait on MTACs I am your scan error.
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 330	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:19:00 - [29] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter This is a terrible idea for a couple reasons. First: It completely alienates lone-wolf players. Second: Communication, not everyone has a mic. You can't tell me that one person can drive and one person can man the main turret effectively without verbal communication between them. So it also alienates those without a mic. The rest of the vehicles already alienate lone players. Why should HAVs be any different. We're waiting on fighters, you guys can wait on MTACs How do vehicles alienate lone-wolfers? Because I don't see it that way. *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 719	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:21:00 - [30] - Quote Namely because in the Eve universe, a clone is able to handle the operation of a moon sized star ship which normally would take hundreds of thousands of people to man. Yea swing around the lore on how 1 clone cant handle a vehicle. Also LAVs were designed for multiple users, same with DS, who actually knows what the insides of a HAV look like? Nemo me impune lacessit



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