DUST Search - [Discussion] Vehicles and their role

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Discussion] Vehicles and their role - Logi vehicles?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13578	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:18:00 - [1] - Quote So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Kain Spero Goonfeet 3933	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:28:00 - [2] - Quote Yes please. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 140	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:30:00 - [3] - Quote Infantry can wear militia swarm and try to get rid of vehicle, but if they can not do that due to heavily tanked vehicle there can be situation, when support vehicle can dominate the battlefield if there is no pilots in opposite team. Or they have no money to bring even militia tank. <[^_^]>
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13579	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:30:00 - [4] - Quote Skybladev2 wrote: Infantry can wear militia swarm and try to get rid of vehicle, but if they can not do that due to heavily tanked vehicle there can be situation, when support vehicle can dominate the battlefield if there is no pilots in opposite team. Or they have no money to bring even militia tank. How will the support vehicles dominate the battlefield? Rep them to death? Besides, I meant that they have a large enough buffer that enemy infantry can hunt down those who hurt their Logi vehicles. If you have strong enough AV power and enough infantry to cover them, you can take down the Logi vehicle after pounding it for a bit. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 140	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:36:00 - [5] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Skybladev2 wrote: Infantry can wear militia swarm and try to get rid of vehicle, but if they can not do that due to heavily tanked vehicle there can be situation, when support vehicle can dominate the battlefield if there is no pilots in opposite team. Or they have no money to bring even militia tank. How will the support vehicles dominate the battlefield? Rep them to death? Providing too much bonus to friendly infantry. I don't know how it should be properly balanced, but this could greatly shift the balance if not implemented properly. But, in general, I like this idea and always dream of it. <[^_^]>
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13579	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:36:00 - [6] - Quote Skybladev2 wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Skybladev2 wrote: Infantry can wear militia swarm and try to get rid of vehicle, but if they can not do that due to heavily tanked vehicle there can be situation, when support vehicle can dominate the battlefield if there is no pilots in opposite team. Or they have no money to bring even militia tank. How will the support vehicles dominate the battlefield? Rep them to death? Providing too much bonus to friendly infantry. I don't know how it should be properly balanced, but this could greatly shift the balance if not implemented properly. But, in general, I like this idea and always dream of it. "Besides, I meant that they have a large enough buffer that enemy infantry can hunt down those who hurt their Logi vehicles. If you have strong enough AV power and enough infantry to cover them, you can take down the Logi vehicle after pounding it for a bit." Edited the post Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 140	Posted - 2014.12.08 13:42:00 - [7] - Quote I wrote maybe a year ago about it: infantry just does not care about friendly vehicles. I wish vehicles provide more logistic support than now. Ammo resupply will be a good start point. <[^_^]>
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1084	Posted - 2014.12.08 14:52:00 - [8] - Quote Another addition could be infantry deployables that create artificial defences that vehicles are the best at removing. Enemies have forted up objective A? Bring in a HAV and blitz their defences while your infantry push the breach. But, I do agree with you on the Logi vehicle front. If I were to caution anything I'd say keep Logi vehicle rewards restrained: AoE buffs could reap insane rewards and should be kept low initially to make them useful but not required. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 112	Posted - 2014.12.08 14:59:00 - [9] - Quote HAV Hull that sported essentially a giant triage hive and Remote Shield Booster in an AOE instead of a big gun? Just put a couple of small guns on there maybe a few transport slots and sign me up! Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15595	Posted - 2014.12.08 19:13:00 - [10] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. As I see it niche roles in HAV are required to made the role enjoyable. We need the fundamentals to produce things like Light Scout Tanks Heavy Infantry Tanks Tank Destroyers APC and from EVE comparisons Ewar or Support HAV Look I appreciate you've now come to realise the horror of HAV first hand and to placate you Pokey Dravon and IWS have compiled massive suggestions, models, numbers for vehicle rebalances including how to define specific tank roles through bonuses, etc, and I have my suggestions about taking the AI out of blasters and making it primarilyy (that mean first and foremost not wholly) an AV weapon. Keep Calm and Carry on. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13593	Posted - 2014.12.08 19:36:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. As I see it niche roles in HAV are required to made the role enjoyable. We need the fundamentals to produce things like Light Scout Tanks Heavy Infantry Tanks Tank Destroyers APC and from EVE comparisons Ewar or Support HAV Look I appreciate you've now come to realise the horror of HAV first hand and to placate you Pokey Dravon and IWS have compiled massive suggestions, models, numbers for vehicle rebalances including how to define specific tank roles through bonuses, etc, and I have my suggestions about taking the AI out of blasters and making it primarilyy (that mean first and foremost not wholly) an AV weapon. Keep Calm and Carry on. It might be because it's late and I need to sleep, but I can't tell if you're for or against my suggestion? Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15597	Posted - 2014.12.08 20:49:00 - [12] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: True Adamance wrote: Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. As I see it niche roles in HAV are required to made the role enjoyable. We need the fundamentals to produce things like Light Scout Tanks Heavy Infantry Tanks Tank Destroyers APC and from EVE comparisons Ewar or Support HAV Look I appreciate you've now come to realise the horror of HAV first hand and to placate you Pokey Dravon and IWS have compiled massive suggestions, models, numbers for vehicle rebalances including how to define specific tank roles through bonuses, etc, and I have my suggestions about taking the AI out of blasters and making it primarilyy (that mean first and foremost not wholly) an AV weapon. Keep Calm and Carry on. It might be because it's late and I need to sleep, but I can't tell if you're for or against my suggestion? I honestly don't know yet. I am all for any suggestion that gives tanks a role but I do not like the idea that the role of the HAV is to destroy another kind of HAV that really just panders to infantry and makes them better. A given definition for a Tank is "A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat. Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret. They combine this with heavy vehicle armour providing protection for the crew of the weapon and operational mobility, which allows them to position on the battlefield in advantageous locations. These features enable the tank to have enormous capability to perform well in a tactical situation: the combination of strong weapons fire from their tank gun and their ability to resist enemy fire means the tank can take hold of and control an area of the battle and prevent other enemy vehicles from advancing, for example. In both offensive and defensive roles, they are powerful units able to perform all primary tasks required of armoured troops on the battlefield." I think at some point players need to accept that an HAV is an investment, not something disposable like a dropsuit, and should be treated as a such. It should not be economically viable to run vehicles without a form of supplementary income and as a result a tank, dropship, LAV should be able to function in its intended role to a respectable level. Now I am not saying I believe HAV should be able to massacre entire teams like they did in 1.7 but they should present a tactical challenge for squads if a player chooses to set up in an advantageous position. Few people whine half so much about that guy who uses a Dropship to access a roof top position and manages to utterly annihilate entire squads because apparently that guy "was thinking tactically" but if I set up an HAV on the flank of an enemy line, in cover, with clear lines of egress..... I'm OP. The issue we have to think about in Dust is what we want Tanks to do. The 3 core tenets of Tanks (arguably) are - Armour - Fire Power - Mobility Every tank ever designed has had these ideals in mind. - A tank needs to be able to penetrate the armour of another vehicle or bombard a position from range and with good effect. - A tank needs to be able to withstand the penetrative power of another vehicle and be able to function effectively. - A tank needs to be mobile enough to manoeuvre its armament to a position where its fire power will have good effect. What do we want tanks to do? - Carry Anti Tank guns on their primary/ main turret? - Support infantry directly? - Provide Long Range Support? - Should Tank guns have AoE explosions? - How armoured do we want them to be? - Is the role we are designing for HAV fun for the pilots? - Is it fun for AV? - How will it affect infantry enjoyment? Too many questions to shoe horn them into Anti- Infantry Rep Tanks...... which I can see abused by AVers to no end. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Gabriel Ceja OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 71	Posted - 2014.12.08 21:02:00 - [13] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. While your ideas do seem interesting and maybe tanks do need more defined roles but that's something to consider for variants(if they ever return) not the current ones available there is a reason you can't find a place for tanks That is because they are already performing their role in the simplest way possible by just being a tank. They can already support the team via destroying installations that are posing a threat to your team. The mere presence of the tank itself keeps the enemies cautious and at bay giving your team to a chance to gain some ground. Also the tank serves a role to support the team by drawing the enemies attention towards it making easier for friendlies to make a move on the objective. So you are wrong to say that tanks just "exist" and calling one out even if there is no enemy tank currently is more of a preemptive move just like how many people start off with having AV out even though there is no vehicles around yet that they know of. As for why no tanks come out to hunt other tanks well sometimes the players may not have the isk or the opposing tank is better than theirs so it is not the tanks fault that no one comes out to challenge it. So yeah that's pretty much it and sorry about this wall of text but it is necessary to shed a little light on someone's perspective who doesn't even use tanks and if you do well I have never seen you in one. Final note : Come on now tanks do not "massacre" as much as they use to, seriously how often does a tank go +40 and 0 these days. "Throw on the flux capacitor." activates fuel injector "WOOOOOO!!!"
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15597	Posted - 2014.12.08 21:12:00 - [14] - Quote Gabriel Ceja wrote: Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. While your ideas do seem interesting and maybe tanks do need more defined roles but that's something to consider for variants(if they ever return) not the current ones available there is a reason you can't find a place for tanks That is because they are already performing their role in the simplest way possible by just being a tank. They can already support the team via destroying installations that are posing a threat to your team. The mere presence of the tank itself keeps the enemies cautious and at bay giving your team to a chance to gain some ground. Also the tank serves a role to support the team by drawing the enemies attention towards it making easier for friendlies to make a move on the objective. So you are wrong to say that tanks just "exist" and calling one out even if there is no enemy tank currently is more of a preemptive move just like how many people start off with having AV out even though there is no vehicles around yet that they know of. As for why no tanks come out to hunt other tanks well sometimes the players may not have the isk or the opposing tank is better than theirs so it is not the tanks fault that no one comes out to challenge it. So yeah that's pretty much it and sorry about this wall of text but it is necessary to shed a little light on someone's perspective who doesn't even use tanks and if you do well I have never seen you in one. Final note : Come on now tanks do not "massacre" as much as they use to, seriously how often does a tank go +40 and 0 these days. Since 1.7 (and we know they were broken then) I've never scored more than 20 kills but never will 0 deaths....... back pre 1.7 though when AV decimated tanks I was so much better at tanking. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1746	Posted - 2014.12.08 21:26:00 - [15] - Quote I'd like to see logi LAV's be direct infantry support with an activateable triage nanohive type effect that supports infantry actions. I'd like to see Logi dropships be slightly more subtle support, with an activateable 'bubble shield' (one direction only - so something like the frontal area of a dropship) that allows really close ground actions like hotdrops into enemy fire, or the ability to cover a tank from enemy fire. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3849	Posted - 2014.12.08 21:53:00 - [16] - Quote I think in general vehicles need to thought of providing "Large Scale Support Functions" in that they effectively are able to perform similar support functions that infantry have, but on a larger scale. So as you pointed out, a vehicle could have a module it uses repair infantry in a wide radius around it, or very long range omnidirectional active scanning. Vehicles represent role where you wan to support your team but on a big scale (though not necessarily better). So for example you could use an infantry Repair Module to throw up a bubble around your LAV which reps any friendly infantry within its area of effect, but the HP/s is lower than a handheld repair tool that focuses on 1-2 people instead of 4-8 like the vehicle module does. Or an active scanner that scans in all directions at once but with a lower range or precision that a handheld Active Scanner would. Now you mentioned something that I've always felt isn't being discussed. Should Support Vehicles be tankier or less tanky than direct assault vehicles? People tend to lean towards "Support Vehicles should be harder to kill" yet when we look at infantry and the Logistics, people will tend to lean towards "Logis need to be less tanky than Assaults", and I think this difference is rather interesting so I'd like to get people's opinion on that matter. "That little shit Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17994	Posted - 2014.12.08 22:27:00 - [17] - Quote Tagged. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15599	Posted - 2014.12.08 22:38:00 - [18] - Quote Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner. Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1377	Posted - 2014.12.09 00:26:00 - [19] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. I would exchange high eHP for very high resistances. And make all turrets become rep turrets. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1377	Posted - 2014.12.09 00:32:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I think in general vehicles need to thought of providing "Large Scale Support Functions" in that they effectively are able to perform similar support functions that infantry have, but on a larger scale. So as you pointed out, a vehicle could have a module it uses repair infantry in a wide radius around it, or very long range omnidirectional active scanning. Vehicles represent role where you wan to support your team but on a big scale (though not necessarily better). So for example you could use an infantry Repair Module to throw up a bubble around your LAV which reps any friendly infantry within its area of effect, but the HP/s is lower than a handheld repair tool that focuses on 1-2 people instead of 4-8 like the vehicle module does. Or an active scanner that scans in all directions at once but with a lower range or precision that a handheld Active Scanner would. Now you mentioned something that I've always felt isn't being discussed. Should Support Vehicles be tankier or less tanky than direct assault vehicles? People tend to lean towards "Support Vehicles should be harder to kill" yet when we look at infantry and the Logistics, people will tend to lean towards "Logis need to be less tanky than Assaults", and I think this difference is rather interesting so I'd like to get people's opinion on that matter. Meee One wrote: Meee One wrote: i have mentioned this idea before but... Is it possible to have a non-combat variety of logistics? Drawbacks: -no weapon -no grenade -no res or proxies -no melee But its draws would be: -sent eHP -scout regen -scout stamina -scout speed -scout stamina regen Purely defense oriented,this suit would offer the greatest defense at the cost of all offense. Logistics bonuses would apply of course,and it would have 25% blast resistance built in. This pure logistics suit would enable the rep tool to be equipped instead of a light weapon,freeing up an equipment slot. Cpu and pg would of course be bountiful,to allow any fitting the user desires. I still like this idea. Actually i proposed something like that before (as a variant). And everyone in that thread exploded with retardation. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.

Sinboto Simmons Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 6623	Posted - 2014.12.09 01:15:00 - [21] - Quote A while ago LAV drivers wished the logi LAV to have an AOE shied/armor rep for infantry, and lock on for vehicles, without being able to do both at once. (as activating one would shut down the other) Always liked that one. Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 5 Prof 1 Born of the Brutor tribe
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13610	Posted - 2014.12.09 04:43:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner. Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much. I would say no. When a tank wants to, turrets disappear quite quickly. They're supposed to be a roadblock. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
The-Errorist SVER True Blood 917	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:49:00 - [23] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something. Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?" And then I realized: "Support vehicles" If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place. That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots. So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV. Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down. Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'. You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles. You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity. This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of. This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles. This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. I like MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill. http://vimeo.com/93181621
The-Errorist SVER True Blood 917	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:04:00 - [24] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: True Adamance wrote: Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner. Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much. I would say no. When a tank wants to, turrets disappear quite quickly. They're supposed to be a roadblock. I agree. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill. http://vimeo.com/93181621
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15635	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:05:00 - [25] - Quote Honestly the way I see a Logi Vehicle is a simple Low EHP hull with 3-4 remote rep units..... skulking around behind bigger and badder tanks or infantry squads. Something like..... Shield Logi HAV Thingy 3x Remote Shield Reppers 1x Complex Extender 1x Passive Shield Ward Field 1x PDU 1x Remote Armour Repper *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15635	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:07:00 - [26] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Cat Merc wrote: True Adamance wrote: Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner. Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much. I would say no. When a tank wants to, turrets disappear quite quickly. They're supposed to be a roadblock. I agree. Which is why I've thrown down a suggestion for consideration about Reinforcement Timer so that turrets are never truly destructible. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14239	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:22:00 - [27] - Quote Some other positive outcomes I noted: 1. AVers become an increased necessity. While AVers would have a relatively difficult time destroying LLAVs, they would also be needed to protect the LLAV from HAVs as they cannot fight the HAVs themselves due to the lack of turrets. In some cases the Commando would be an even greater necessity as they can combat both hostile HAVs and AVers. This would give them more things to do, and depending on the popularity / need of LLAVs might also cause them to exceed Logistics in terms of average WP per match. 2. Snipers will have a target Simply put, while HAVs and AVers may not be able to defeat a heavily guarded LLAV, a Sniper with a good aim can shoot the player out of the LLAV, which means the hostile Infantry's support would be delayed and they'd have to guard the LLAV until the pilot gets back. 3. JLAV vs... LAV? You may end up seeing people using Jihad Jeeps against LLAVs, which wouldn't effect much would be hilarious. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 8771	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:12:00 - [28] - Quote No love for the LAVs meant to kill/support infantry I see. CCP holds the Caldari's hand so this doesn't happen again.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 464	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:06:00 - [29] - Quote so back to pre-chromosome then? *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Spectral Clone Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3299	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:49:00 - [30] - Quote Atiim [b wrote: 3. JLAV vs... LAV?[/b] You may end up seeing people using Jihad Jeeps against LLAVs, which wouldn't effect much would be hilarious. Allah's snackbar. EVE: Legion, also known as: Schroedinger's Game, EVE: Limbo, or just "Not-a-game-yet". My PS3: http://imgur.com/a/5O8ok



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.