DUST Search - LAV question

Breakin Stuff wrote:

What breaks if LAVs gain only a 25-50% resistance to small arms?

Currently there is no differentiation between the resilience of light, medium or heavy vehicles save solely in raw EHP.

I feel that the requirement that killing them takes antitank weapons makes it much harder to balance things out.

I also believe that this is one of the contributing factors of why most players feel that speccing a full AV fits is absolutely mandatory. It also means that there is no differentiation between a dedicated tank hunter and a infantry killer.

It also functionally makes AV weapons a skill tax for players, as the militia weapons have historically been insufficient to the task of significantly threatening militia vehicles.

I would like to see more differentiation between vehicle classes and what types of punishment that they can endure. I would also, when LAVs get their turn for a rebalance, be tweaked so that they can be more than disposable transport, filling the role of a viable fast attack vehicle.

I think that the LAV class should be treated more like a jeep or hummvee on the field than a wheeled tank, and thusly, not immune to small arms. I think gearing the vehicles for that could create a jump off point for greater diversity of play.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC 1	Posted - 2015.06.20 17:48:00 - [1] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: What breaks if LAVs gain only a 25-50% resistance to small arms? Currently there is no differentiation between the resilience of light, medium or heavy vehicles save solely in raw EHP. I feel that the requirement that killing them takes antitank weapons makes it much harder to balance things out. I also believe that this is one of the contributing factors of why most players feel that speccing a full AV fits is absolutely mandatory. It also means that there is no differentiation between a dedicated tank hunter and a infantry killer. It also functionally makes AV weapons a skill tax for players, as the militia weapons have historically been insufficient to the task of significantly threatening militia vehicles. I would like to see more differentiation between vehicle classes and what types of punishment that they can endure. I would also, when LAVs get their turn for a rebalance, be tweaked so that they can be more than disposable transport, filling the role of a viable fast attack vehicle. I think that the LAV class should be treated more like a jeep or hummvee on the field than a wheeled tank, and thusly, not immune to small arms. I think gearing the vehicles for that could create a jump off point for greater diversity of play. Question, how will making them vulnerable to small arms fire make them more viable beyond throw away transport? I do understand what you are saying here, as players wouldn't need to pull dedicated large AV weapons to deal with one. Yet I find it's not difficult to deal with an LAV now and I really don't see many people using them as a light attack vehicle anymore. And still yet, I don't believe that you need to even spec into a full AV fit to deal with one. A basic swarm launcher or AV nades or a combination are generally enough to deal with an LAV, assuming the LAV driver isn't full on spec'ed into vehicles. Even still, my fully fit LAV with skills isn't much to behold when faced against basic AV, much less proto AV. True if they were tweaked to become a danger with a gunner, vulnerability to small arms fire would make sense as you wouldn't need to switch out AV to drive one away. Right now though, I just don't see them as any sort of major threat. Some tweaks to fitting space and maybe some bonuses to small turrets would make them more appeasing and warrant this kind of change. In any case, vulnerability to small arms fire would still only be supplementary to dedicated AV weaponry and not a replacement. (BTW, weren't they vulnerable to small arms at one time, and why did they change it in the first place.) Tanks - Balancing Turrets