| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leadfoot10
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2849
   |
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Problem: As things are now LAVs enable too many scrubby playstyles.
Solution: LAVS should blow up when any two light weapons empty a clip into them.
Justification: LAVs are far too survivable, and we shouldn't have to bring out AV grenades or swarms or forges to destroy them.
Do you agree? |
Lac Nokomis
The Evil Geniuses
23
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lai Dai my friend, Lai Dai.
|
E-Rock
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
but i think AV and vehicles should be far more expensive. everyone and their mother used proto swams to take out vehicles. if both were expensive, you would see far less of both which i would like
The Japanese players call 'hate mail', 'fan mail'.pÇǵùѵ£¼F¬PsñºS+êsñ½
Founder of CKC and UCKC
Molon Labe
|
Lupus Wolf
Minmatar Republic
93
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tired of roadkill, I presume?
Redundant usernames FTW
Go home Damage Indicator, you're drunk
Good, good... let the nanites flow through you
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2471
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
The only way a LAV is a viable threat is a HMG drive by, and this is a matter of the lack of enter/exit animations, not the LAV itself.
They have literally zero presence in PC and you want them needed even more?
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Vicious Minotaur
1775
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
They need to be removed from the game entirely. I hate LAVs.
Replace them with a combat-ready vehicle, preferably one with a roof and armour to protect occupants.
I am a minotaur.
a+üa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa+üa¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça¦ça+üa+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+¦a+üa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa+üa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ëa¦ë
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2764
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lol, not even. If anything LAVs need a buff or at least a better, more survivable T2 variant.
My idea is this: all LAV BPOs are stripped of their slots and can only be used a paper thin transports (keeps turret for 3rd person). STD LAVs get slight bonuses to ehp/fitting including more slots. Also, new assault variant that isn't paper thin for actual combat.
Dust is there! I was real!
Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
|
Atiim
Titans of Phoenix
14949
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 07:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
LAVs should not be destroyable by conventional Light Weapons. On the other hand, it's Base HP is too strong, allowing it to take multiple hits without fitting anything.
However, LAVs (at least where the Saga is concerned) is honestly terrible outside of Murder Taxis. So, I would suggest reducing their Base HP but at the same time making their layouts 1/3 or 3/1, allowing them to fit a better tank than before, but being easily destroyed if they don't fit their vehicle.
The 1st Matari Commando
-HAND
|
Mossellia Delt
Militaires Sans Jeux
2129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 07:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lol....
LAV's are two shotted by a forge and three shotted when fully tanked. LAV's are a bloody joke.
Delt for CPM2
CPM1 MISSION : FAILED
Moss-delt on skype
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6239
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mossellia Delt wrote:Lol....
LAV's are two shotted by a forge and three shotted when fully tanked. LAV's are a bloody joke.
Spoken like someone who thinks they should have the EHP of an HAV.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2765
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 10:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Mossellia Delt wrote:Lol....
LAV's are two shotted by a forge and three shotted when fully tanked. LAV's are a bloody joke. Spoken like someone who thinks they should have the EHP of an HAV.
This is what I think is wrong with Dust's AV vs V layout.
There are only two types of AV, and both do tank level damage. As such, all the vehicles need tank-level defenses in order to survive.
The best (or at least easiest) way to curb this would be to give AV different damage profiles against the different tiers of vehicles (just as an example, swarms do 75% damage to LAVs, 85% damage to DSs, and 100% to tanks). From here, CCP could tailor the ehp of each vehicle and the damage of AV to come up with an individual balance for each one.
The only other options are to have all vehicles have similar ehp (and be too weak, too strong, or all the same) or to come up with different variants of weapons that are more effective on different targets (which I don't think AV would like too much).
Dust is there! I was real!
Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6239
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 10:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
One thing video games have generally stayed true to is when you shoot a jeep with an antitank weapon it explodes.
There is no justification for making light vehicles less vulnerable to heavy weapon attack.
Faster? Sure.
More maneuverable? Absolutely.
More able to weather heavy, incoming antitank battery fire?
Only DUST tries to do this.
The people who resist keeping jeeps fragile historically have been people using jeeps for easy bumper kills, HMG sentinel poptarts and jihad jeep drivers.
Everyone else views them as expendable and cheap transportation.
The exceptions to the last statement take the time to fit them properly and use them for mobile recon and fast attack truuet work.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
taxi bastard
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
288
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
i agree small arms should damage them also it should take no more than 3 launches of a basic swarms to kill a tanked LAV. |
Flint Beastgood III
Carbon 7
Iron Oxide.
1257
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
According to the description, Mass Drivers should be able to deal with them. Guess they nerfed that back when I didn't pay attention to the forums.
Skills - https://www.facebook.com/notes/flint-beastgood-iii/list-of-trained-skills/416505058477164
|
Flint Beastgood III
Carbon 7
Iron Oxide.
1257
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:One thing video games have generally stayed true to is when you shoot a jeep with an antitank weapon it explodes.
There is no justification for making light vehicles less vulnerable to heavy weapon attack.
Faster? Sure.
More maneuverable? Absolutely.
More able to weather heavy, incoming antitank battery fire?
Only DUST tries to do this.
The people who resist keeping jeeps fragile historically have been people using jeeps for easy bumper kills, HMG sentinel poptarts and jihad jeep drivers.
Everyone else views them as expendable and cheap transportation.
The exceptions to the last statement take the time to fit them properly and use them for mobile recon and fast attack turret work.
+1
Skills - https://www.facebook.com/notes/flint-beastgood-iii/list-of-trained-skills/416505058477164
|
Fizzer XCIV
Tal-Romon Legion
Amarr Empire
2104
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
inb4 Spkr
Home at Last <3
|
Jack McReady
DUST University
Ivy League
1738
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:One thing video games have generally stayed true to is when you shoot a jeep with an antitank weapon it explodes.
There is no justification for making light vehicles less vulnerable to heavy weapon attack.
Faster? Sure.
More maneuverable? Absolutely.
More able to weather heavy, incoming antitank battery fire?
Only DUST tries to do this.
The people who resist keeping jeeps fragile historically have been people using jeeps for easy bumper kills, HMG sentinel poptarts and jihad jeep drivers.
Everyone else views them as expendable and cheap transportation.
The exceptions to the last statement take the time to fit them properly and use them for mobile recon and fast attack turret work.
you are not driving a jeep.
you are driving a vehicle with heavy armor and shields designed to attack
and it is not even remotely as tough as the HAVs |
Fizzer XCIV
Tal-Romon Legion
Amarr Empire
2104
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Jack McReady wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:One thing video games have generally stayed true to is when you shoot a jeep with an antitank weapon it explodes.
There is no justification for making light vehicles less vulnerable to heavy weapon attack.
Faster? Sure.
More maneuverable? Absolutely.
More able to weather heavy, incoming antitank battery fire?
Only DUST tries to do this.
The people who resist keeping jeeps fragile historically have been people using jeeps for easy bumper kills, HMG sentinel poptarts and jihad jeep drivers.
Everyone else views them as expendable and cheap transportation.
The exceptions to the last statement take the time to fit them properly and use them for mobile recon and fast attack turret work. you are not driving a jeep. you are driving a vehicle with heavy armor and shields designed to attack and it is not even remotely as tough as the HAVs
Its a jeep.
Home at Last <3
|
MetalWolf-Cell
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Can we just agree that the reason lav's are murder taxi's is the poor execution of the turret?
I mean, You can't do drive by's due to bad hit detection and the wonky turret mechanics. The only time it can work is if your motionless, but then you are vulnerable to all types of attacks.
I say due what Atiim said and reduce base HP. So they are not Tanks and actual LIGHT attack vehicles. and fix the turret so it can actually hit enemies while still moving at a REASONABLE speed, not flying through everybody.
Or make it a drone turret to where you can fit modules on it for it be to effective. leaving the LAV unfitted will make the turret respond to threats slow and unreliably.
DUST 514/LEGION
|
Skullmiser Vulcansu
233
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
Before grenade count was reduced, I could take out an LAV with all of my AV grenades. Now... If I am lucky, High tier packed AV grenades will work, but I usually also need a nanohive to destroy one.
I don't think it's that bad. The ones I can't destroy instantly are the ones who fit hit point modules, and I think they deserve to survive... unless they don't leave in time for my grenades to come back.
If this game was fun, I wouldn't be playing it.
|
|
|
Bremen van Equis
BASTARDS OF BEDLAM
113
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
I think LAVs are in a good place, that place being the crosshairs of my plasma cannon. One shot in the front, one when they're trying to make a getawayGǪ
Buckle up, boysGǪthis ramp leads to space. -Axe Cop
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
382
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
1. LAV are fine - I fit mine up and it costs the best part of at least 70k
|
Colossus of Sardia
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 15:23:00 -
[23] - Quote
lavs are crap as hell.
driving them turns you into a handicapped child. every small rock will let you flip over. i had a game a week before were i tried to hunt a tank with a proto forge. then i tried to drive down a small hill only to suddenly roll sideways and causing to explode my lav in a blink of an eye -.-''
thank god i changed my mind and didnt used an officer forge... |
Fizzer XCIV
Tal-Romon Legion
Amarr Empire
2106
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 15:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. LAV are fine - I fit mine up and it costs the best part of at least 70k
Fitted LAVs aren't the problem.
Its that an Unfitted MLT LAV is still very viable at road killing, transport, and LAVHeavies(which are a problem by themselves)...
My idea is to reduce base stats, but give them higher fitting resources. That way an unfitted MLT LAV is a deathtrap, but a fitted LAV will get the job done fine.
Home at Last <3
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6245
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 15:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. LAV are fine - I fit mine up and it costs the best part of at least 70k
You are not the intended target of my commentary this time, or the OP's if I understand correctly.
A properly fitted HAV by someone who isn't a lazy git looking for a cheap ride should be rewarded with durability and survivability.
The tourist driver who runs empty slots should not.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5686
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Lol, not even. If anything LAVs need a buff or at least a better, more survivable T2 variant.
My idea is this: all LAV BPOs are stripped of their slots and can only be used a paper thin transports (keeps turret for 3rd person). STD LAVs get slight bonuses to ehp/fitting including more slots. Also, new assault variant that isn't paper thin for actual combat.
But wait until I can sell mine
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
151
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:35:00 -
[27] - Quote
Leadfoot10 wrote:Problem: As things are now LAVs enable too many scrubby playstyles.
Solution: LAVS should blow up when any two light weapons empty a clip into them.
Justification: LAVs are far too survivable, and we shouldn't have to bring out AV grenades or swarms or forges to destroy them.
Do you agree?
Your ***** needs a nerf.
you say it's been nerfed already? No wonder you made this thread.
Choo Choo
|
Cat Merc
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
14372
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:56:00 -
[28] - Quote
Remember when AV grenades could pop them without anything having to finish them off?
That was great.
Feline overlord of all humans
Assault Conglomerate: Because we don't shave
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6246
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Remember when AV grenades could pop them without anything having to finish them off?
That was great.
there were exceptions, you know, the weirdos who put actual SP into them and actually put proper fittings on?
Fortunately they were in the minority. Most LAV drivers were stupid bumper kill farmers.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
SoTa PoP
Titans of Phoenix
5556
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Remember when AV grenades could pop them without anything having to finish them off?
That was great.
Are you talking when AV nades worked like AV Land mines? You'd just toss them and they'd sit there on the floor waiting for a vehicle to drive ontop of them, lol.
This was before they homed in on vehicles - instead of heat seekers, we used to get proximity AV grenades, lol.
All LAV's would die to any AV nade OHK back then, lol.
As for now - I do think it's unbalanced, but not for the people suffering from murder taxi's - It needs a drastic HP reduction and more slots with higher PG/CPU - make it a true skeleton vehicle that requires SP to do anything with.
and btw - LAV's murder taxi's suck. Anyone crying about them is absolutely just refusing to put an AV grenade on there suit that completely counters it.
n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |