DUST Search - [Ideas] Making LAVs Battle Worthy

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Chosokabe Ite wrote:

Its when someone tries to hijack a thread so he doesn't have to make one(for whatever reason they have), dismiss everything posted beforehand and try to replace it with what suggestions he thinks "should" be listed in the first place. That's what I'm complaining about. It's like they wait for a certain subject to pop up and try to cram whatever they can think of into it, hoping someone important stumbles upon it.

if it's on-topic it's not a hijack, and I've made a lot of threads along this bent, specifically in the opposite direction, because LAVs naked (no fittings) were entirely too tanky.

Guess what? I reserve the right to present alternative views and solutions to your ideas. I also reserve the right to contradict, break down and rip apart, and/or dismantle any idea presented down to the fundamentals of what makes it up.

You think I'm wrong? Say why.

Again. Get over yourself. Don't post if someone coming in and disagreeing and presenting an alternative view is going to make you get mad and stamp your feet.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 80	Posted - 2015.05.04 05:03:00 - [1] - Quote To do this, we're going to have to work on rail turrets, the gunner's seat, and the owner's control over the vehicle. Let's tackle control. Each LAV is an investment as is everything in this game. The last thing you want is some ass hat driving off with it after you park it in a what you see is a prime position where that turret can be put to use. I suggest a built-in Sentry Mode that locks the vehicle in place when activated via module selection wheel. Nobody can enter the driver's seat besides you, the mode automatically switches off once you enter that seat. The vehicle should remain bound to you even after death but unbinds when you call for another vehicle or leave the battle, making it claimable to allies. This mode also diverts unused power from the engine to the shield for extra HP while stationary, giving it a slight defensive role. To further add to this role, the gunner needs a little more protection. I suggest a faint shield that instead of absorbing damage, dampens incoming damage from ONLY the direction the gunner is facing. The gunner still relys on his suit for protection, but has an advantage when taking fire from the front. Then we have small railguns. Until other turrets become available, these need to be the anti-vehicle weapon of choice(for small turrests that is). I really don't need to suggest how to make them a better AV weapon, but it should be enough to make them a threat no HAV driver can ignore for too long. This will give it an offensive use too (because standing still against an HAV while in a LAV isn't very smart) thoughts?
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 80	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:52:00 - [2] - Quote Figures. If you folks have such grand ideas, voice them in your own damn threads. Don't wait for someone else to bring up a subject for you. It's not like we're competing for who's idea CCP will listen to.
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 80	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:53:00 - [3] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Chosokabe Ite wrote: Figures. If you folks have such grand ideas, voice them in your own damn threads. Don't wait for someone else to bring up a subject for you. It's not like we're competing for who's idea CCP will listen to. People will disagree with your assessment. They will say so. There are actual forum rules about crapping the forums up with multiple threads on the same topic. Get over yourself. Don't pull that high horse crap, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. The problem is there are too many people here struggling to contradict each other.
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 80	Posted - 2015.05.04 20:53:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Chosokabe Ite wrote: Figures. If you folks have such grand ideas, voice them in your own damn threads. Don't wait for someone else to bring up a subject for you. It's not like we're competing for who's idea CCP will listen to. You're in the wrong place if you think that if you make a thread, everyone on the forum will either shut the ** up or suck your ** praising your silliness. Oh, and I'm pretty sure most here, and many others has made threads trying to say how LAV's should be. I've made 11 so far. Never said this is the way it "should" be fixed, these are just my suggestions and I asked for thoughts(not praise) on said suggestions. If I used the word "should" then it's a bad on my part. And I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me at all. If they dont like these suggestions then they just don't and it's no skin off my back if they tell me so. Its when someone tries to hijack a thread so he doesn't have to make one(for whatever reason they have), dismiss everything posted beforehand and try to replace it with what suggestions he thinks "should" be listed in the first place. That's what I'm complaining about. It's like they wait for a certain subject to pop up and try to cram whatever they can think of into it, hoping someone important stumbles upon it.
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 80	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:36:00 - [5] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I like your shield idea, but the rest is flawed. LAVs, along with most other vehicles, are -meant- for teamwork. Granted, they're rarely used that way, but it's intended that there's at least a driver and a gunner: not just a driver jumping seats. Small railguns are also tricky: you want them to be effective AV, but not capable of easily OHK-ing infantry at any tier. Until you can come up with a way to solve that, they'll just be a hybrid of AV/AI, like plasma cannons are. Sentry Mode kinda depended on the owner's willingness to work with a team. But yeah, I can see how the idea recreates the problem. As for railguns, I dunno, maybe a longer charge time before each shot to balance higher dmg? We don't want to make them more mobile versions of forge guns. Like you said, tricky.
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 80	Posted - 2015.05.05 02:44:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Chosokabe Ite wrote: Its when someone tries to hijack a thread so he doesn't have to make one(for whatever reason they have), dismiss everything posted beforehand and try to replace it with what suggestions he thinks "should" be listed in the first place. That's what I'm complaining about. It's like they wait for a certain subject to pop up and try to cram whatever they can think of into it, hoping someone important stumbles upon it. if it's on-topic it's not a hijack, and I've made a lot of threads along this bent, specifically in the opposite direction, because LAVs naked (no fittings) were entirely too tanky. Guess what? I reserve the right to present alternative views and solutions to your ideas. I also reserve the right to contradict, break down and rip apart, and/or dismantle any idea presented down to the fundamentals of what makes it up. You think I'm wrong? Say why. Again. Get over yourself. Don't post if someone coming in and disagreeing and presenting an alternative view is going to make you get mad and stamp your feet. You big silly, I was in bed when started on about the hijacking. Foot stomping isn't a very effective expression of anger when you're laying down. I could have kicked my feet but that would have woken the kitten who likes to sleep at the foot of my bed. Though looking back, I could have waited until after I had a few cup a coffee and a bowl of Reeses Puffs. I admit, I'm none too pleased with how competitive people get with their ideas. You sound like quite the gladiator yourself. But I'd say I reserve the right to be displeased.