DUST Search - Why Are HAVs In DUST?

Martyr Saboteur wrote:

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

To breach defences

To **** up infantry if its built like that

To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that

To pin down the enemy

To provide a distraction

To assault objectives

To support ground troops

I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them.

If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno

So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days

I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners?

Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5432	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:09:00 - [1] - Quote Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Archbot W a r F o r g e d 71	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:10:00 - [2] - Quote Their role is obstructed by their versatility. Ya¦Åu-Å Å-ÅGèéGäîGä¦Gä¦Gä¦-ìY
darkiller240 WarRavens League of Infamy 539	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:20:00 - [3] - Quote Becuase this is not COD, in real warfare tanks egsist and so does in Dust "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
ads alt 124	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:21:00 - [4] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Support infantry, kill, deatroy installations, lock down an objective/defend it... 1.8 will release...
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 310	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:22:00 - [5] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. I think there will be something like strategic use for them in future, imagine against drones Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator BHD since MAG
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5432	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:31:00 - [6] - Quote darkiller240 wrote: Becuase this is not COD, in real warfare tanks egsist and so does in Dust No they don't. Exist? Yes. But not egsist. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
darkiller240 WarRavens League of Infamy 539	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:38:00 - [7] - Quote Atiim wrote: darkiller240 wrote: Becuase this is not COD, in real warfare tanks egsist and so does in Dust No they don't. Exist? Yes. But not egsist. yer i know i cant spell "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5432	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:42:00 - [8] - Quote ads alt wrote: Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Support infantry, kill, deatroy installations, lock down an objective/defend it... So basically it's a Slayer Logi with 4 wheels and an 80GJ Turret? I ~~think~~ hope CCP could do better. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8019	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:46:00 - [9] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Agreed......but for the most part I feel like aspects in game that would benefit from the use of HAV simply aren't there.... In many historical conflicts HAV have been able to clear that's through urban terrain....yet dust 514 HAV cannot even get past small hand rails.... They also mounted large cannon for anti vehicle and positional fire power and an armoured frame. My personal interpretation of what HAV should be is durable platforms for ground based anti vehicle fire power and anti position fire power. As such these HAV would be susceptible to infantry units closing the distance and making use of AV grenades, RE, or at longer ranges simply making use of cover to launch AV projectiles and would require gunners in their seats, and on ground infantry support to last out engagements. HAV need to be less of a sledge hammer and more of a spear. Also remove and an all blaster turrets. I hate them and they need to die a terrible death. LONG LIVE THE 80GJ HEAVY PLASMA CANNON! "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 185	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:50:00 - [10] - Quote I don't remember the last time a slayer logi took out an installation.... anyways, to add my 2 isk, I hate tanks. I fly a dropships, and I get destroyed by them all the time. But when I sit back, and stop raging, I realize that tanks are an integral part of this game. Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5436	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:51:00 - [11] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: I don't remember the last time a slayer logi took out an installation.... anyways, to add my 2 isk, I hate tanks. I fly a dropships, and I get destroyed by them all the time. But when I sit back, and stop raging, I realize that tanks are an integral part of this game. Remote Explosives. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2863	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:08:00 - [12] - Quote To breach defences To **** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops Intelligence is OP
Patrick57 5849	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:10:00 - [13] - Quote Because variety. Without tanks, there'd be sixteen people using Rail Rifles instead of ten!
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 185	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:10:00 - [14] - Quote I believe what were getting at here is that tanks, right now, are doing their role.... they are just too good at it Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:10:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Agreed......but for the most part I feel like aspects in game that would benefit from the use of HAV simply aren't there.... In many historical conflicts HAV have been able to clear that's through urban terrain....yet dust 514 HAV cannot even get past small hand rails.... They also mounted large cannon for anti vehicle and positional fire power and an armoured frame. My personal interpretation of what HAV should be is durable platforms for ground based anti vehicle fire power and anti position fire power. As such these HAV would be susceptible to infantry units closing the distance and making use of AV grenades, RE, or at longer ranges simply making use of cover to launch AV projectiles and would require gunners in their seats, and on ground infantry support to last out engagements. HAV need to be less of a sledge hammer and more of a spear. Also remove and an all blaster turrets. I hate them and they need to die a terrible death. LONG LIVE THE 80GJ HEAVY PLASMA CANNON! My idea for what an HAV should be is basically a Missile or Railgun turret with a Mobile CRU, kind of like an APC I'm not too sure how CCP would create an 80GJ Plasma Cannon though. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:11:00 - [16] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to ** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1485	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:13:00 - [17] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. The whole flow of battle in this game is circular, as in merry-go-round. Why do carnivals have rigged games? Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:13:00 - [18] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: I believe what were getting at here is that tanks, right now, are doing their role.... they are just too good at it Not quite. HAVs don't really have a unique role, and from the responses I've gathered they are either: 1. A Mega Dropsuit 2. A Slayer Logi with 4 Wheels and an 80GJ Turret 3. Cosmetic. At first I thought it was just me, but I'm glad to see that others believe that the HAV needs a role change. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2863	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:14:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Intelligence is OP
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:18:00 - [20] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: The whole flow of battle in this game is circular, as in merry-go-round. Why do carnivals have rigged games? Actually, the flow of battle in this game is a set of different roles and niches which revolve around each-other. It's not circular, it's spherical. Carnivals have rigged games because they are cheap and allow for profit and success with theoretically no risk whatsoever. While that does describe HAVs in it's current state, that should not be present in any role. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND

Martyr Saboteur Amarrtyrs 209	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:22:00 - [21] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away. Totally not Fizzer94's forum alt. Definitely just a random dude.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:24:00 - [22] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Scheneighnay McBob Hammerhead i Eagle Thrust 4238	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:25:00 - [23] - Quote ads alt wrote: Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Support infantry, kill, deatroy installations, lock down an objective/defend it... AKA area-denial The only role that players consistently have called overpowered, no matter what it comes from. I am your scan error.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:34:00 - [24] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Admonishment The Enclave Syndicate Dark Taboo 142	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:35:00 - [25] - Quote It is because Stone Cold said so, and that's the bottom line! I don't always win 1v1 but... when I don't, I cry for nerfs. Stay nerfing my friends.
THEAMAZING POTHEAD Nyain San Renegade Alliance 1038	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:39:00 - [26] - Quote Just need to nerf turning speed and damage for large blaster turrets, then bring in MAVs that get bonuses to blasters. Making Anti Vehicle a tanks job and anti infantry doable with a tank but not nearly as effective as with an MAV. Your post is making me facepalm very hard right now.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:42:00 - [27] - Quote THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Just need to nerf turning speed and damage for large blaster turrets, then bring in MAVs that get bonuses to blasters. Making Anti Vehicle a tanks job and anti infantry doable with a tank but not nearly as effective as with an MAV. Do we ever have to keep anti infantry tanks at all when you could consider the MAV an APC and designed to support infantry units with either logistical module options or anti infantry turret options? "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 321	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:56:00 - [28] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. You know there is a turret called large blaster and is still used by few loyal tankers. The large blaster is used to engage enemy infantry and push objectives. The terribly broken railgun is used to prevent blaster tanks to do that. Missiles are supposed to be used in the purpose destroying tanks in no time but never see them anymore... WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2865	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:56:00 - [29] - Quote Martyr Saboteur wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away. u mad bro? Intelligence is OP
ads alt 126	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:56:00 - [30] - Quote Admonishment wrote: It is because Stone Cold said so, and that's the bottom line! Ha, nice sig, I get it. Also, from now on im reporting every fotm remote after death scrub, already reported one from fa and he's a kid. 1.8 will release...



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