|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
   |
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Does heavy light assault vehicle make any sense to you?
Nope, me neither.
We could use an APC, though. |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
STB Vermaak Doe wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:Does heavy light assault vehicle make any sense to you?
Nope, me neither.
We could use an APC, though. ^^^obvously doesn't get the op^^^ i want to add diversity to the vehicle selection other than race specific vehicles. A bit how we have assault and breach classes of most guns
Diversity is fine. Standard LAV, logistics LAV, recon LAV, etc, and four different racial variants of all these are fine. Heavy LAV makes no sense. Stop being silly. |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
STB Vermaak Doe wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:STB Vermaak Doe wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:Does heavy light assault vehicle make any sense to you?
Nope, me neither.
We could use an APC, though. ^^^obvously doesn't get the op^^^ i want to add diversity to the vehicle selection other than race specific vehicles. A bit how we have assault and breach classes of most guns Diversity is fine. Standard LAV, logistics LAV, recon LAV, etc, and four different racial variants of all these are fine. Heavy LAV makes no sense. Stop being silly. Diversity in the same level of vehicle. The current system is equivalent to leveling to advanced ars to get breach assault rifles Ps the heavy would be like a ifv/apc
Logistics or recon LAV would be equivalent to breach or tactical, not light, medium heavy.
We don't need light light, medium light, heavy light, light heavy, medium heavy, heavy heavy. |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 10:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:You appear to be arguing his point solely based on syntax, which I doubt was his discussion point. 
Partially, but the idea is silly also.
We already have light and heavy attack vehicles, and mediums may be coming (APCs could fit nicely in a medium vehicle role).
We do not need three sub-weight types within each weight type. We need specializations, in other words sub-roles whithin each weight type.
In EVE, there are frigates, then there are tech 2 frigates like assault ships, covert ops ships, and stealth bombers. They're all the same size, but they have different roles, just like vehicles do.
We have LAVs and logistics LAVs. We have HAVs and marauders and black ops HAVs.
We need specialized roles, not heavy-light vehicles. I mean, why stop there? Why not have heavy-medium-light attack vehicles and light-medium-heavy attack vehicles?
He brings up breach assault rifles, and that's fine, but there aren't little assault rifles and medium assault rifles, and bigger-than-medium-but-smaller-than-big assault rifles, and kinda-big-assault rifles and big assault rifles and really-big assault rifles. There are assault rifles for different roles. |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 10:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
STB Vermaak Doe wrote:Currently it's not and ccp has no real reason to change it from how it is now
You make no sense and I'm done replying to you. You're the one advocating that CCP add sub-weight classes to each weight class of vehicle. I'm not saying CCP should change anything, just pointing out how little sense this whole thread makes. |
|
|
| |
|