DUST Search - Taking off the Small turrets of HAV's for extra CPU/PG, and extra module slots

Tac Com wrote:

While I don't agree that basic HAVs should get things like extra modules and extra fitting resources for such a swap, I would like to beable to not equip small turrets for the simple fact that sometimes you need to squeeze that extra 100 grid or 10 CPU to make a really strong fit work. Sometimes that can mean the differance between a 120mm plate and a 180mm.

But I think a vehicle I'd like to see in the game is an MAV. Either a highly mobile platform (something wheeled and moderately slower then an LAV) with the driver in control of a small turret with additional protection over the LAV. Perhaps the ability for a passanger which can fire with thier own weapon (light or sidearm, no heavy weapons). I would envision the passanger firing from a roof hatch of some sort. You could also do 2 light weapons, the driver getting the front mount while the passanger gets a 360 turret mount.

The other version could be a much heavier vehicle. A tracked vehicle which is smaller and faster then the HAV. Able to fit a large or both a large and a small weapon. Think of this as more of a mobile weapons platform rather then a tough all out brawler. It would beable to outmanuver HAVs and its heavier arsenal would make short work of anything in it's crosshairs, but it's lower health means you need to be more mobile and cautious of who and where you are fighting.

Either version would be great to have (or both :D), and I think this vehicle would help to better catagorize the ground fighting vehicles. LAVs are much more mobile and suited to skrimishing and troop transport. HAVs are suited to heavy combat where strong guns and shields/armour is nessessary. And MAVs would be suited to flanking where thier they are fast enough to move into advantageous positions and can bring enough firepower to threaten most targets. The MAV's main weakness in either version would be thier low health for an all out combat vehicle.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Godin Thekiller KNIGHTZ OF THE ROUND 14	Posted - 2013.01.06 04:42:00 - [1] - Quote This way I can have less firepower for a stronger HAV. other vehicles andeven dropsuits should be able to do this.
WHz DS9899 Doomheim 136	Posted - 2013.01.06 04:44:00 - [2] - Quote I approve of this message.
Tac Com Sand Mercenary Corps Inc. 41	Posted - 2013.01.06 06:52:00 - [3] - Quote While I don't agree that basic HAVs should get things like extra modules and extra fitting resources for such a swap, I would like to beable to not equip small turrets for the simple fact that sometimes you need to squeeze that extra 100 grid or 10 CPU to make a really strong fit work. Sometimes that can mean the differance between a 120mm plate and a 180mm. But I think a vehicle I'd like to see in the game is an MAV. Either a highly mobile platform (something wheeled and moderately slower then an LAV) with the driver in control of a small turret with additional protection over the LAV. Perhaps the ability for a passanger which can fire with thier own weapon (light or sidearm, no heavy weapons). I would envision the passanger firing from a roof hatch of some sort. You could also do 2 light weapons, the driver getting the front mount while the passanger gets a 360 turret mount. The other version could be a much heavier vehicle. A tracked vehicle which is smaller and faster then the HAV. Able to fit a large or both a large and a small weapon. Think of this as more of a mobile weapons platform rather then a tough all out brawler. It would beable to outmanuver HAVs and its heavier arsenal would make short work of anything in it's crosshairs, but it's lower health means you need to be more mobile and cautious of who and where you are fighting. Either version would be great to have (or both :D), and I think this vehicle would help to better catagorize the ground fighting vehicles. LAVs are much more mobile and suited to skrimishing and troop transport. HAVs are suited to heavy combat where strong guns and shields/armour is nessessary. And MAVs would be suited to flanking where thier they are fast enough to move into advantageous positions and can bring enough firepower to threaten most targets. The MAV's main weakness in either version would be thier low health for an all out combat vehicle.
WHz DS9899 Doomheim 136	Posted - 2013.01.06 08:22:00 - [4] - Quote Tac Com wrote: While I don't agree that basic HAVs should get things like extra modules and extra fitting resources for such a swap, I would like to beable to not equip small turrets for the simple fact that sometimes you need to squeeze that extra 100 grid or 10 CPU to make a really strong fit work. Sometimes that can mean the differance between a 120mm plate and a 180mm. But I think a vehicle I'd like to see in the game is an MAV. Either a highly mobile platform (something wheeled and moderately slower then an LAV) with the driver in control of a small turret with additional protection over the LAV. Perhaps the ability for a passanger which can fire with thier own weapon (light or sidearm, no heavy weapons). I would envision the passanger firing from a roof hatch of some sort. You could also do 2 light weapons, the driver getting the front mount while the passanger gets a 360 turret mount. The other version could be a much heavier vehicle. A tracked vehicle which is smaller and faster then the HAV. Able to fit a large or both a large and a small weapon. Think of this as more of a mobile weapons platform rather then a tough all out brawler. It would beable to outmanuver HAVs and its heavier arsenal would make short work of anything in it's crosshairs, but it's lower health means you need to be more mobile and cautious of who and where you are fighting. Either version would be great to have (or both :D), and I think this vehicle would help to better catagorize the ground fighting vehicles. LAVs are much more mobile and suited to skrimishing and troop transport. HAVs are suited to heavy combat where strong guns and shields/armour is nessessary. And MAVs would be suited to flanking where thier they are fast enough to move into advantageous positions and can bring enough firepower to threaten most targets. The MAV's main weakness in either version would be thier low health for an all out combat vehicle. Your comment about this MAV has nothing to do with this thread. I didn't ask for speed; I asked for more slots for modules. Plus, you didn't say why you didn't like this idea. Give a logical reasoning so I can make a actual counter argument.
Go Away Putz Doomheim 11	Posted - 2013.01.06 08:49:00 - [5] - Quote WHz DS9899 wrote: Your comment about this MAV has nothing to do with this thread. I didn't ask for speed; I asked for more slots for modules. Plus, you didn't say why you didn't like this idea. Give a logical reasoning so I can make a actual counter argument. I'll comment on both of these. I dislike the idea of having seats in a HAV without turrets connected to them just on principle. A HAV is essentially a Tank and turning it into a one person SP/WP generating machine is counter productive. We have posts pop up from time to time wanting the HAV to be more Tank-like including the driver not being able to shoot a gun. This is in the opposite direction. Although I like the idea that a passenger could shoot from a hatch if I was allowed to remove the turret. And removing a turret accomplishes the same thing as adding a module. So adding yet another module makes the HAV an unbeatable monster which is what I think your original post was about. What you always want in your HAV posts, it seems to me, is to get rid of passengers, get stronger HAVs, better guns and probably a Kill Anything Within 50 Meters button as well. Just to be sure, let's make it passive. Plus, think about this from a game play change. Now only HAV drivers will be topping the charts, all the time. That means the only way to top a chart is to run the 9899 Killer HAV (tm). They only way to progress will to be a HAV driver. And they all have to drive variations on 9899 Killer HAV. So a perfect mod mix will be the ticket. Someone figures out a unique combination and everyone else is toast until they can deduce what the latest twist was. Seems like you want a different game than what we are playing, good old 9899. Maybe something like a Mechs On Line or Tank vs Tank.
Tac Com Sand Mercenary Corps Inc. 41	Posted - 2013.01.06 19:06:00 - [6] - Quote Actually, my post was very relevent to what you were talking about. What you want is an attack vehicle more suited to soloing. The HAV does need additional gunners to be at it's fullest potential and since you are forced to equip those small turrets, you are better off making use of them. Now the idea behind the MAV is a vehicle that would be more suited to solo fighting then the HAV. It would be much more nimble and thus not need as much help fending off smaller/faster targets. The HAV is sitting in a good position right now, minor tweeks could be made but it does not need an overhaul. What would be needed is a new vehicle class to fill that void. The idea of a medium class vehicle though is you can't reward playing solo over team based operations. The HAV is a team based vehicle requiring multiple people to be fully effective, and thus should be treated as such when balancing.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page