DUST Search - Why use an LAV over a tank?

Godin Thekiller wrote:

I'm right because I was told those vehicles were coming back, and was also told that if we were able to get proper development and assets, MAV's would eventually be done, and if we just chuck **** at basic ass LAV's, not only will that invalidate all those vehicles, it would give one hull tpe so many roles it's broken. And why do you keep on saying "these things don't exist" when you clearly don't know what they are (note: They aren't ******* fits, they are actual vehicles. Again, my Limbus is better than your entire existence).

If you actually think that, then you fail at understanding the basics of context. A word can mean man different things. Hell, Plex means three different things in EVE. you especially fail at it however, seeing as I explained how they are different, and you still say that. Oh, and tackling is considered EWAR for the most part in EVE. EWAR is skin to every other MMO's debuffing systems. Which is why it becomes separate. You're trying to put several different systems together and mold them into your own definitions. It just doesn't work like that.

I did say why, and I've said why similar **** should occur; I don't want another Commando situation. If you can't see, that's fine though.

Sure doesn't, everyone has an opinion of something. That doens't change the fact that it's an uneducated opinion. If you don't know ****, ask, or shut your bluedot mouth.

I'm not beggin for MAV's, I'm simply saying it'd work better simply as a MAV. That's clear by seeing the actual concept of a MAV.

That statement is fair. What does this have to do with this topic at all?

They cannot, those vehicles already exist, well except for the EDAV, that is simply a new hull I made up to fill the requirement of three T II items, and that naturally fit. The first two are real hulls. You might know that, doesn't change the fact that they are.

When people tend to say silly ****, they either are a child, trolling, or just in general don't know what the **** they are talking about (kinda like how you are now), especially if they don't explain themselves, which is why I respond with equally silly comments. want smart comments? Form and say smart ****. I mean, Breakin knows, I've given him both silly and smart comments about whatever he says.

Who says that I've always posted on this one single account? Also, I highly doubt it even saved every last posting I've done, as this character itself is ******* old. Also, if you show them, people will see them. I know that is arcane is ****, especailly since you typically don't know what in the holy **** you're talking about but you know, it actually works!

It does when they try and argue facts about basic **** that everyone who knows gets.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.05.14 22:02:00 - [1] - Quote I agree with the OP, currently Light Attack Vehicles see little use because they are massively overshadowed by the heavy vehicles. As he says, they can do everything an LAV can do and better. They're also hardly slouches in the speed department when they want to make a quick getaway. Making them tougher isn't really the answer as then they're just Heavy attack vehicles with a smaller profile, but turning them into something else than an attack vehicle is an excellent idea. 1: You could have truly mobile spawn points with the vehicle acting as a spawn point. A way to co-ordinate an attack and quickly flank an enemy that had pushed you back to limited spawn locations. 2: Mobile cover generation - Vehicles that could enter a hardened mode where they become completely immobile but are virtually indestructible as cover for people behind them and providing resupply. 3: Counter-measure deployment - support for larger tanks where the LAV has Chaff or some other form of countermeasure to neutralise tank-buster weapons. Allow them to act in concert with the bigger tanks. 4: Mobile e-war - Semi-Permanent active scanning/scanning protection etc. There are probably other uses that could be found for them, but there are four. Obviously care would need to be taken to ensure that you couldn't use them to block off objectives and the like, but as the OP says, they are currently just not worth taking if you can take a tank instead.
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.05.14 23:10:00 - [2] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Krias Thracian wrote: I agree with the OP, currently Light Attack Vehicles see little use because they are massively overshadowed by the heavy vehicles. As he says, they can do everything an LAV can do and better. They're also hardly slouches in the speed department when they want to make a quick getaway. Making them tougher isn't really the answer as then they're just Heavy attack vehicles with a smaller profile, but turning them into something else than an attack vehicle is an excellent idea. 1: You could have truly mobile spawn points with the vehicle acting as a spawn point. A way to co-ordinate an attack and quickly flank an enemy that had pushed you back to limited spawn locations. 2: Mobile cover generation - Vehicles that could enter a hardened mode where they become completely immobile but are virtually indestructible as cover for people behind them and providing resupply. 3: Counter-measure deployment - support for larger tanks where the LAV has Chaff or some other form of countermeasure to neutralise tank-buster weapons. Allow them to act in concert with the bigger tanks. 4: Mobile e-war - Semi-Permanent active scanning/scanning protection etc. There are probably other uses that could be found for them, but there are four. Obviously care would need to be taken to ensure that you couldn't use them to block off objectives and the like, but as the OP says, they are currently just not worth taking if you can take a tank instead. The first one is the LDS's role. the second one is something Marauders will be doing, and the resupply would be something more for MAV's, particularrly a Logistic one. That's something the HAV itself could have, although being able to jam signals out or straight up being a mobile force field would be kinda sweet. The last one isn't EWAR, its scanning. Actual vehicle EWAR would be a role of SLAV's though. LLV's were great for repping vehicles, their remote reps were just great. it becoming a thing again would be just wonderful. Bottom line is that they need to do things that HAV's won't be good at, but LAV's as a platform will be. Just giving them anything and everything is not the thing to do. The MAV doesn't exist in the game at present and nor do SLAV's or LLV's in terms of game UI separation. Why create new classifications when they could be done under the LAV and Advanced LAV banner. I'm not suggesting giving them everything and anything, much like a medium suit that comes in Assault and Logistics flavours doesn't suddenly get everything. They are discrete roles under the medium suit banner. Nor am I making any concrete "this is how you must fix them" statements. They were suggestions of possibilities and rather than add anything constructive, you decided it would be better to suggest one is added to HAV's, thus further marginalising LAV's, and stating that the rest would be the roles of vehicle classifications that currently don't exist in the game that I can find, or to argue nomenclature and terminology minutiae. Scanning IS electronic warfare. It's using electronics and the EM spectrum (in this case electronic scanning) to gain an advantage on the battlefield. That's pretty much a textbook example of e-war. The problem is, as the OP stated, that there is nothing that the LAV can currently do that the HAV cannot do better and with more staying power, which renders LAV's obsolete. This is the problem, I was just suggesting some roles that LAV's could do that HAV's currently don't. In another vein, what the hell is with the use of all the Acronyms, not everyone understands every acronym used, MAV is fairly obvious, but what the hell is an LDS? What the hell is an LLV?
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.05.15 09:09:00 - [3] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: The MAV however is very possible to exist in the future (especially since devs like Ratatti wants to move and improve dust on better platforms), and tying down roles to other vehicles is a bad idea. I seriously don't want another commando to happen. SLAV and LLV's are T II LAV's, so wtf are you getting at? You pretty much did do just that. You gave them roles that other already made (and are awaiting glorious return) vehicles have and wanted to give them to basic LAV's. And at current medium sized suits have issues with just this as far as I understand, so again, wtf are you getting at? I've already given several threads (I think 17 at this point), and a couple google docs over the course of Dust history suggesting what should be done about LAV's. I've been at this for a minute. What have you done? And scanning =/= EWAR. Scanning has to do with target finding (basically D-scan and things of that nature for Dust), and EWAR has to do with suppressing that said target (webs, sensor damps, ECM, etc.). They often work hand in hand, but they are not the same thing. You can't use irl ** to cover specific game terms, that's silly. That changes the fact that trying to make them either vastly superior at in general being useful or trying to make them do the exact same won't work and is just silly? If you don't know what a LDS or a LLV is, you're too young to try and tell me isn't real. My Limbus is better than your entire collective existence. EDIT: Let this be a warning to all you scrubs out there trying to roast people: If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try and talk like you're all mighty. It won't work. At most, you'll look like a fool. No, you look like a pompous jack ass. Your initial post came across as you automatically being right, & you still do. There is no category for the roles you are assigning, they are done under the LAV banner. The fact that people have compartmentalised specific fits to be able to accomplish those roles doesn't mean they can't be given bonuses to it to make LAV's actually useful. I wasn't suggesting they be given "all the roles", I was making some suggestions for niches that LAV's could be moved into. Not all, but suggestions to work with as I already explained. You absolutely can use "irl " to cover specific game terms, that's the whole basis of human culture, using a common frame of reference to explain concepts and ideas. CCP used "IRL **" when they created e-war/scanning. Otherwise they could have just called it rainbow painting & pixies paint the enemy for you to see. E-War is any form of electronic warfare to gain a battlefield advantage. That includes RADAR/Scanning. In Eve it's not webbing at all. Webbing comes under tackling, & Sensor Damps/ECM prevent targeting, which falls under scanning. Hence scanning and scanning counter-measures falling under e-war. Not knowing specific acronyms doesn't mean anything & certainly doesn't prevent me from having & voicing a cogent opinion on a specific section that clearly needs work. Once again, I provided some suggestions on different roles they could fill, as their intended role is taken by HAV's & better at it, & your counter-point is to say it won't work with no specific reason why, just that it's silly & that your greater experience is "better than my entire collective existence". You arrogant individual. Having just worked out that DS is dropship and LLV is Logistics Light Vehicle..... again, not knowing a specific acronym doesn't mean squat, other than I don't know the acronym. I don't know every specific named gun & module & their stats either, what's your point? It means that I haven't been exposed to that acronym/specific item in question, it doesn't prevent me having an opinion & doesn't automatically invalidate said opinion. One of your earlier posts was bringing someone to task for not providing a cogent argument. Well, guess what you just did? Try giving actual reasons. Your previous posts mostly seem to be begging for basically the same things or asking for MAV's to be a thing: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2757138#post2757138 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2683445#post2683445 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=189357 - This one critiques the handling of LAV's, not the usage to which they are put. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2611547#post2611547 - This one is you asking for a tech II set of roles for LAV's. I like the ideas but the current Tech I roles for LAV's just don't work as previously discussed & some of these roles could easily be subsumed into. Also, you seem to coin the Acronym for SLAV here, yet it's not okay for me not to know a specific piece of minutiae that you appear to have invented in one of your posts? Again, I would point out that there are no such things as Tech II LAV's except that you want them. If we go down the Tech II route to give LAV's a discrete role then fine, we agree; but currently Tech II doesn't exist in LAV's, nor do MAV's. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2594117#post2594117 - In this one someone puts up a rebuttal of your initial comments on their post where you disagreed & you immediately went ad hominem & insulting because they didn't instantly agree with you, & treated them like they were a naughty child, much like what you just tried to do to me. So having gone through 50 pages of your posts, you haven't started anywhere near 17 threads on LAV's & haven't even contributed to 17 threads. As for google docs, they don't mean anything if no-one sees them. I have lots of google docs, but throwing them in as evidence doesn't mean jack if people don't see th...
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.05.15 21:15:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I'm right because I was told those vehicles were coming back, and was also told that if we were able to get proper development and assets, MAV's would eventually be done, and if we just chuck ** at basic ass LAV's, not only will that invalidate all those vehicles, it would give one hull tpe so many roles it's broken. And why do you keep on saying "these things don't exist" when you clearly don't know what they are (note: They aren't *** fits, they are actual vehicles. Again, my Limbus is better than your entire existence). If you actually think that, then you fail at understanding the basics of context. A word can mean man different things. Hell, Plex means three different things in EVE. you especially fail at it however, seeing as I explained how they are different, and you still say that. Oh, and tackling is considered EWAR for the most part in EVE. EWAR is skin to every other MMO's debuffing systems. Which is why it becomes separate. You're trying to put several different systems together and mold them into your own definitions. It just doesn't work like that. I did say why, and I've said why similar should occur; I don't want another Commando situation. If you can't see, that's fine though. Sure doesn't, everyone has an opinion of something. That doens't change the fact that it's an uneducated opinion. If you don't know , ask, or shut your bluedot mouth. I'm not beggin for MAV's, I'm simply saying it'd work better simply as a MAV. That's clear by seeing the actual concept of a MAV. That statement is fair. What does this have to do with this topic at all? They cannot, those vehicles already exist, well except for the EDAV, that is simply a new hull I made up to fill the requirement of three T II items, and that naturally fit. The first two are real hulls. You might know that, doesn't change the fact that they are. When people tend to say silly , they either are a child, trolling, or just in general don't know what the they are talking about (kinda like how you are now), especially if they don't explain themselves, which is why I respond with equally silly comments. want smart comments? Form and say smart . I mean, Breakin knows, I've given him both silly and smart comments about whatever he says. Who says that I've always posted on this one single account? Also, I highly doubt it even saved every last posting I've done, as this character itself is *** old. Also, if you show them, people will see them. I know that is arcane is , especailly since you typically don't know what in the holy you're talking about but you know, it actually works! It does when they try and argue facts about basic ** that everyone who knows gets. Evidently simple concepts are beyond you. I am saying they don't exist because you cannot buy them in the market. If you cannot buy them in the market then all that is left is outstanding stock because CCP don't remove existing stuff from people generally. If it isn't in the market, then it defacto doesn't exist as an available item, excluding the people who already have some left. Insulting me as you are just makes you look like a child. I've explained myself absolutely fine. As regards e-war, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Tackling in Eve isn't considered E-War. At all. It's considered tackling. Again, this isn't a difficult concept, but it seems to be beyond you, so I'll let the eve uni page on e-war explain it for you: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/EWAR_Guide Once again, sensor dampening is e-war & so the reverse is true, sensor amplification is e-war. The fact that you don't consider it so isn't relevant. However since you feel that you cannot possibly be wrong please do tell me what you think e-war is in this context? As for your "explanation", it's nonsense. E-war is anything that gives you a tactical advantage on the battlefield through means other than direct fire. In fact, here is a post that YOU commented on with a definition of e-war INCLUDING active scanning that you didn't feel the need to try & erroneously correct: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1866529 Scanning gives away the enemy position &makes them visible on everyone's radar, even by your definition of MMO debuffs, that qualifies. You are either trolling or you're being deliberately provocative. What you may or may not have been told doesn't mean jack either as you can't prove that statement. It's against the TOS to publicise private communication between CCP employees & players so even IF they had actually confirmed to you that something was coming back, you cannot prove it so it is completely meaningless to your argument. You keep saying I fail at understanding, but you keep throwing complete nonsense backed up by wishes and dreams for your entire argument andbeing needlessly insulting. You come across as a petulant child who doesn't like it that someone disagrees with him and can't find a mature way to express it. Once again the vehicles and roles you are spouting about cannot be bought in the market place. They are not definitions set by CCP in the game (any more in some cases) & whatever you may or may not have been told about their return (that you cannot prove) is irrelevant; a forum post is hardly binding either. Rattati's board of things & ideas doesn't go into specifics & neither does the roadmap. I will reiterate one last time in the hope it sinks through the wall of arrogance with which you surround yourself: I was making some suggestions for discrete roles that a basic/advanced/tech II LAV could have. I was not suggesting they be given all of those roles, or any of those roles. I was suggesting possible roles. Instead you've insulted me needlessly at every turn. You may asterisk your profanity but the intent is clear.
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.05.15 21:25:00 - [5] - Quote In addition you went from telling me that I couldn't use IRL terms in a game (something that is demonstrably fallatious as the entire game is an abstract of various real-world concepts, most tellingly a battlefield/war scenario) because it's silly (something I provided a reasoned rebuttal to) to telling me I "Fail at understanding context" with no actual argument. You do understand that telling me that words can have different meanings isn't an argument? It's a statement. It doesn't back up your argument in any way as I was talking to you about common conceptual frameworks for cultures, not the definitions of words. You once again come across as a petulant child who can't think of a reasoned argument and resorts to dictionary definitions and insults. I will however warn you for the only time, I'm fed up of the insults. There is no need for them. If you want to have a reasoned discussion/argument then fine, I have no issues with that, but your entire attack is based on the assumption that I think LAV's should be given all the roles in my initial post. I don't. I was suggesting some roles they could be considered for, as I have said repeatedly. However, if you persist in the insults (asterisking out the insulting profanity doesn't change the intent) then I will report you for it. Give me reasoned argument, not crazy insults and I'll engage with you on that level. That said, some of the ideas you've had on other posts are very interesting, I particularly like the bubble rep idea. The LAV is weak enough that I don't think it would be OP and it would make the LAV an instant target, which could bring some interesting metrics. I think they would have to be careful to make sure they couldn't get to certain areas of the map or they could create severe imbalances in the right location. But then again the reps would be probably about the same as current reppers and damage can happily penetrate through them to kill someone.
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.05.15 21:55:00 - [6] - Quote BLOOD Ruler wrote: It is cheaper. You're not the first to say it, and it's certainly a valid argument. Another is that it is probably easier to skill into it. The point really though is if you have the option and you actually want to kill something, generally take the tank as it'll do the job more efficiently. The LAV doesn't really fit in, the maps are small enough that the transport isn't enough of a thing to give it that any more. So other than ISK/Skill points (though I haven't done the math on SP's, they might be very similar , but something tells me otherwise) there is really no need/desire to have one.
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2015.05.16 09:02:00 - [7] - Quote Giving away someone's position in an FPS where position is not generally known is a hindrance. They have to move from what was previously a safe location. Knowing the enemy position is a hindrance to that enemy. It tells you that you have been scanned, if it didn't tell you, it would still be a hindrance but you just wouldn't know.. The same as in Eve where combat scanning someone down and then being able to warp to them is time to get the hell out of dodge [the closest equivalent in eve]. It's a hindrance to the other player because it affects the decisions they have to make in the game going forward. Don't flatter yourself, you aren't enraging me, your insults are unnecessary and tiresome and a sign of a lack of maturity. As I have already explained, CCP don't generally remove items from people that already have them, but their not existing on the market for general consumption means that they don't exist outside of a select few individuals so they don't exist for the vast majority of the players. The radar/map is generally terrible [by design] and unless you have insane bonuses to passive scanning, you can't spot much of anything on it without an active scan from someone, it's one of the things I had to very quickly learn when I started playing a couple years ago, don't trust the bloody radar. I stopped playing for some time due to the buggy as feck nature and the P2W nature of the game and have come back a few times since. Whatever has been promised by devs and might happen in the future is not relevant to this discussion. What might theoretically be returned, or added to the game has no bearing on this. There is no point whatsoever to adding (or returning) specific items to a game where basic items are broken with no purpose. All that will do is further marginalise the broken items and see further declines in their use. Whatever has been promised by devs isn't worth anything to this discussion either and as you say yourself, the word "try" is the important one in the promise. If it can't be made to work, they won't put it back in. I will reiterate, if it still exists in code but noone can use it, then it doesn't exist in the game defacto and when you don't actually bother explaining yourself in any meaningful fashion - for example I've been playing since Beta but really couldn't give a flying monkeys about using vehicles myself, I've never skilled into them and never used them. My comments are based out of the observation that LAV's usage by other people have basically dropped through the floor. It is unreasonable to expect me to know things that have been removed from the game by CCP because they were considered OP and CCP didn't know how to fix them at the time. The fact that you may or may not have been promised a return (which again, you can't prove and forum posts don't mean anything as they aren't binding) is irrelevant as the discussion is general LAV's. As I said earlier, if you want to compartmentalise them into different discrete roles, Scout/Logistics/Assault, whatever, then fine, that solves the issue just as well because LAV's are then not useless. As for looking up something in Eve. I have no need to, based on a guess of your maturity in this conversation so far, I've been playing Eve for about a third of your life, but eve uni is out and out the best teaching corp in the game for teaching new players how to play the game and they have a dust uni as well. Webbing is casually referred to by some as e-war. It is not considered e-war by CCP (when discussing e-war it is always the four on the e-uni page) and it is not considered e-war by the majority of Eve players. As I said, Active Scans hinder your opponent because they give away their position, that is a tactical advantage to you and a disadvantage to them as knowing someone's position on a battlefield is powerful. Sensor dampening makes it harder for your position to be given away, it hinders your opponent as it makes it harder for them to find your position other than visually and gives you an advantage over them. By any definition it is E-War. There are numerous posts on this forum defining it as such, yet you seem to be the only one claiming otherwise. Pistols aren't rifles either, yet modern pistols and shotguns have barrel rifling, what's your point? That doesn't mean anything or have any bearing at all on what's being discussed. You once again claim I fail to understand something without a proper explanation of what you're referring to and using ad hominem to try and make your point. It would appear that you don't understand the evolution of language. Rifle doesn't just refer to a gun with rifling any more, it's moved beyond that to encompass a specific shape and size of weapon. Tank turrets also have rifling. Most weapons do because it improves the accuracy of the weapon, so by your logic all weapons are rifles. That simply isn't the case as it's not here. E-War absolutely does affect you [the person engaging in it], it makes it harder for the enemy to shoot you, therefore it makes you safer. That is an effect on you.
Krias Thracian Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2015.05.16 09:12:00 - [8] - Quote I don't think we are getting anywhere with this and we have derailed this thread enough. All we are now doing is repeating the same arguments while you resort to ad hom and insults. I don't intend to continue this discussion with you, I have better things to do with my time. Apologies for derailing the thread.