DUST Search - The Lav removal was the opposite of what we players asked for. So will be the ta...

All Channels

General Discussions

The Lav removal was the opposite of what we players asked for. So will be the ta...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Exmaple Core Who Gives A Flux 560	Posted - 2013.07.19 07:56:00 - [1] - Quote In chrosome, we had weak lavs that was able to get 2 hit by standard AV nades and easily moped up by miltia AV. it got its owner around as intended and the lavs you speced into was reasonably durable and versitile, it was great. Then in the regression to Uprising, the milita lavs do not die, get ppl were they need to be and kills everyone. Also, the Speced lavs are more dangerous, survivable and mobility. So, we asked for the lavs to go back to their most perfect state and only be reliable transports again. A logical solution right? Instead, no one can have lavs because their blue print is being removed. Also, lavs are being added with a higher shield recharge rate than tanks, built in resistance mods to continue them being more durable, and a missle launcher to look cute as ppl get ran over. Wtf? that is the exact opposite of what we wanted. Weve been cringing and QQing to get these things nerfed but instead ppl have to walk and those who do use lavs get batter lavs. Thats how we fix the current lav promblem, yes. We want shield tanks buffed to be on par with armor tanks and tanks to suck a whole lot less against AV. AV isentreally OP, our tanks suck balls so its OP to us. We also want dropships to become usefull, these things are useless. So, im anticipating the armor tanks to get nerfed to be on par with shield tanks so all tanks will be worthless in all senarios while AV grenades 2 shot everything but lavs instead of 3 shotting them like they do now. And dropships will remain untouched and forget about, as usually. ^ considering CCPs history on grasping vehicals, this is prolly accurate. Do the opposite of what they want!
Dale Templar Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 290	Posted - 2013.07.19 07:59:00 - [2] - Quote No, I wanted MLT LAV's removed AND LLAV's nerfed. tyvm
broonfondle majikthies P.O.N.A.G.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 8	Posted - 2013.07.19 08:00:00 - [3] - Quote I'd be happy if they stopped cueing the 'death music' every time my dropship is airborne so I don't instantly run into a wall of missiles
Panther Alpha DarkWingsss 619	Posted - 2013.07.19 08:04:00 - [4] - Quote This is only the first step, and a very good one indeed. They already said that is more fixes coming to the LAV's on top of this ones; Quote: Further to these two fixes, weGÇÖre in the process of updating how collision damage is calculated and addressing vehicles, vehicle modules, turrets and vehicle skills in a rebalance pass that weGÇÖre hoping to complete for Uprising 1.4 or a hot-fix thereafter. This is likely to be a fairly substantial overhaul so once weGÇÖre in a position to do so weGÇÖll make sure you all get a good look at them and weGÇÖll attempt to address any concerns before finalizing the update.
Grimmiers 0uter.Heaven EoN. 226	Posted - 2013.07.19 08:08:00 - [5] - Quote I hope for the vehicle balance update they remove that horrendous 40% proficiency rating for small turrets against vehicles. Remember that early trailer when a lav slides in and destroys a tank in like 3 seconds? Well I want that to not be a complete joke, but also not that overpowered obviously. I also hope the collision damage is not only realistic based on a lav's speed hitting a dropsuit, but also has some sort of anti-dragging physics like halo where we can bounce off a bit in order to recover. It's kinda funny that when we get hit by lavs we can now see that they're doing a wopping 10k damage. I would like it if they capped it at 600~700 damage at max speed and anything that wasn't killed did some damage to the lav. I'm not too peeved about free lavs being removed. I'm going to keep my baloch-impact as a souvenir.
Sona Nara DUST University Ivy League 8	Posted - 2013.07.19 08:37:00 - [6] - Quote A load of people asked for free LAVs to be removed. And this was only the first, quickest step of a lot of vehicle rebalancing. Personally I think it's great they've been removed. With fewer free LAVs there will be less AV farming the free LAV WPs. Also, fewer people will carry AV nades. This means that tanks and dropships won't be so vulnerable as soon as they appear. I can't wait to see the rest of the vehicle changes!
steadyhand amarr Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 952	Posted - 2013.07.19 08:56:00 - [7] - Quote Uuhh no loads of people asked for this change you can still buy your lav the whole removed argument is void
Celeste Cyra Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:15:00 - [8] - Quote Panther Alpha wrote: This is only the first step, and a very good one indeed. They already said that is more fixes coming to the LAV's on top of this ones; Quote: Further to these two fixes, weGÇÖre in the process of updating how collision damage is calculated and addressing vehicles, vehicle modules, turrets and vehicle skills in a rebalance pass that weGÇÖre hoping to complete for Uprising 1.4 or a hot-fix thereafter. This is likely to be a fairly substantial overhaul so once weGÇÖre in a position to do so weGÇÖll make sure you all get a good look at them and weGÇÖll attempt to address any concerns before finalizing the update. Can I get a link to the source please?
Panther Alpha DarkWingsss 619	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:17:00 - [9] - Quote Celeste Cyra wrote: Panther Alpha wrote: This is only the first step, and a very good one indeed. They already said that is more fixes coming to the LAV's on top of this ones; Quote: Further to these two fixes, weGÇÖre in the process of updating how collision damage is calculated and addressing vehicles, vehicle modules, turrets and vehicle skills in a rebalance pass that weGÇÖre hoping to complete for Uprising 1.4 or a hot-fix thereafter. This is likely to be a fairly substantial overhaul so once weGÇÖre in a position to do so weGÇÖll make sure you all get a good look at them and weGÇÖll attempt to address any concerns before finalizing the update. Can I get a link to the source please? Really ? Ok.. then.. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=95372&find=unread
KalOfTheRathi Talon Strike Force LTD Covert Intervention 544	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:25:00 - [10] - Quote Since when has doing the right thing been the expected answer to 'what have they done now'? Those that have skilled into Logistic LAVs are even more able to run down players. Removing free LAVs should have only been considered once teleportation was enabled. Seriously, walking about the maps in Beta was horrible, now we have devolved to choosing between a $30K LAV or Having to walk there so we can be easier targets for The Logistics Murder Taxi Game! Classic CCP/Shanghai.

Tharak Meuridiar The Empyrean Agency 182	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:27:00 - [11] - Quote LAV = Light Assault Vehicle Their description mentions nothing about transportation but instead talks about how they are effective against infantry. They are nearly identical to / modeled after warthogs from Halo, which are quite effective in combat. There is absolutely nothing to back up the argument that LAVs are meant as transports. They have always been meant as killing machines and the older versions were so easy to kill I was afraid to hop inside of one even as a transport. If anything about the LAV needs changing to could trade some impact damage for drastically improved turret performance.
Celeste Cyra Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:30:00 - [12] - Quote Panther Alpha wrote: Celeste Cyra wrote: Panther Alpha wrote: This is only the first step, and a very good one indeed. They already said that is more fixes coming to the LAV's on top of this ones; Quote: Further to these two fixes, weGÇÖre in the process of updating how collision damage is calculated and addressing vehicles, vehicle modules, turrets and vehicle skills in a rebalance pass that weGÇÖre hoping to complete for Uprising 1.4 or a hot-fix thereafter. This is likely to be a fairly substantial overhaul so once weGÇÖre in a position to do so weGÇÖll make sure you all get a good look at them and weGÇÖll attempt to address any concerns before finalizing the update. Can I get a link to the source please? Really ? Ok.. then.. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=95372&find=unread Thank you
Panther Alpha DarkWingsss 626	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:32:00 - [13] - Quote Tharak Meuridiar wrote: LAV = Light Assault Vehicle Their description mentions nothing about transportation but instead talks about how they are effective against infantry. They are nearly identical to / modeled after warthogs from Halo, which are quite effective in combat. There is absolutely nothing to back up the argument that LAVs are meant as transports. They have always been meant as killing machines and the older versions were so easy to kill I was afraid to hop inside of one even as a transport. If anything about the LAV needs changing to could trade some impact damage for drastically improved turret performance. LAV = Light Assault Vehicle LIGHT... tanks are HEAVY, tanks are killing machines. NOT LAV's ... seriously... i just don't know... Facepalm
Tharak Meuridiar The Empyrean Agency 182	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:41:00 - [14] - Quote Panther Alpha wrote: LAV = Light Assault Vehicle LIGHT... tanks are HEAVY, tanks are killing machines. NOT LAV's ... seriously... i just don't know... Facepalm Light = Fast & mobile. Any good LAV player uses it for hit & run / harassment. Heavy = Slow & powerful. HAVs move around slowly destroying everything in their path including LAVs that don't run away fast enough. The "light" doesn't override the "assault". If it was a transport vehicle it would be called a Light Transport Vehicle.
Elite Girl Gamers Molon Labe. League of Infamy 5	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:49:00 - [15] - Quote I like it. I JUST STARTED getting really good at driving them around, too. However, I think that 28,000 ISK is a decent price for a Baloch. I won't mind shelling it out if I feel like calling in an LAV. I mean...they really didn't make any changes except requiring people to purchase them instead of having them free.
Panther Alpha DarkWingsss 627	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:49:00 - [16] - Quote Tharak Meuridiar wrote: Panther Alpha wrote: LAV = Light Assault Vehicle LIGHT... tanks are HEAVY, tanks are killing machines. NOT LAV's ... seriously... i just don't know... Facepalm Light = Fast & mobile. Any good LAV player uses it for hit & run / harassment. Heavy = Slow & powerful. HAVs move around slowly destroying everything in their path including LAVs that don't run away fast enough. The "light" doesn't override the "assault". If it was a transport vehicle it would be called a Light Transport Vehicle. "Assault" in a vehicle doesn't means what you think it means. You also have Assault helicopters that their main function is to deliver "ASSAULT" troops to the front line safely. A LAV is a support unit for ASSAULT troops.
broonfondle majikthies P.O.N.A.G.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 10	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:54:00 - [17] - Quote Tharak Meuridiar wrote: LAV = Light Assault Vehicle erm... isn't it Light Armoured Vehicle?
Panther Alpha DarkWingsss 627	Posted - 2013.07.19 12:56:00 - [18] - Quote broonfondle majikthies wrote: Tharak Meuridiar wrote: LAV = Light Assault Vehicle erm... isn't it Light Armoured Vehicle? Yeah.. all the trolling got me confuse ... Light Armoured Vehicle / Infantry Support.
Tharak Meuridiar The Empyrean Agency 182	Posted - 2013.07.19 13:35:00 - [19] - Quote Actually I guess we were both wrong, it's Light Attack Vehicle. Quote: The Light Attack Vehicle (LAV) represents a new generation of mobile support vehicle, an agile and effective unit, adept at assisting both infantry and other vehicles on the battlefield with its cadre of electronic warfare subsystems and all-terrain maneuverability modules. Whether employed as a scout vehicle or as an anti-infantry unit, the LAV is a ubiquitous part of New Eden's modern battlefield. Quote: LAVs are highly versatile light armor attack vehicles with a crew capacity of up to three squad members. They are capable of stacking a wide array of lightweight modules in a single configuration, which allows them to assume a very dynamic support role on the battlefield.As an offensive unit they find strength in numbers, often found amongst a group of other LAVs at the front line of battle. Their high degree of mobility and relatively low cost make thema very common, favored anti-infantry unit amongst many mercenary contingents.However, the driver of an LAV needs to persistently be aware of how exposed his crew is to enemy fire and react appropriately so as to avoid having himself and his fellow crew mates picked off before they can land the first punch. The wiki used the same description as the wikia. I'm not sure if either of those are the in-game description but I am 100% sure that like these two blurbs, it directly mentions it's anti infantry role but makes no direct reference to it's use as a transport. I'm not trolling. I'm giving the facts.
Shae Daix Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2013.07.19 13:47:00 - [20] - Quote broonfondle majikthies wrote: I'd be happy if they stopped cueing the 'death music' every time my dropship is airborne so I don't instantly run into a wall of missiles This is a really great point. If the LAV's had music to let you know where they are, there be no undetectable, invisible, murder taxi issue. Or at lest a much smaller one. But seriously, getting rid of that drop ship sound? Great idea. Is it music, though? Or is it considered the sound of the engines? If it is music, I bet the title is "kill the dropship" as music it stinks. It should be like "kill the wabbit" from the old bugs bunny cartoon.

Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 1356	Posted - 2013.07.19 13:49:00 - [21] - Quote Tharak Meuridiar wrote: Actually I guess we were both wrong, it's Light Attack Vehicle. Quote: The Light Attack Vehicle (LAV) represents a new generation of mobile support vehicle, an agile and effective unit, adept at assisting both infantry and other vehicles on the battlefield with its cadre of electronic warfare subsystems and all-terrain maneuverability modules. Whether employed as a scout vehicle or as an anti-infantry unit, the LAV is a ubiquitous part of New Eden's modern battlefield. Quote: LAVs are highly versatile light armor attack vehicles with a crew capacity of up to three squad members. They are capable of stacking a wide array of lightweight modules in a single configuration, which allows them to assume a very dynamic support role on the battlefield.As an offensive unit they find strength in numbers, often found amongst a group of other LAVs at the front line of battle. Their high degree of mobility and relatively low cost make thema very common, favored anti-infantry unit amongst many mercenary contingents.However, the driver of an LAV needs to persistently be aware of how exposed his crew is to enemy fire and react appropriately so as to avoid having himself and his fellow crew mates picked off before they can land the first punch. The wiki used the same description as the wikia. I'm not sure if either of those are the in-game description but I am 100% sure that like these two blurbs, it directly mentions it's anti infantry role but makes no direct reference to it's use as a transport. I'm not trolling. I'm giving the facts. Im fairly certain that when they said anti infantry they meant using the turret, not running people over all match
Tharak Meuridiar The Empyrean Agency 182	Posted - 2013.07.19 13:57:00 - [22] - Quote Well then as I said, the turret needs a massive buff. I can't even remember the last time I was killed by an LAV's gunner. Make the turret deadly enough to justify the vehicle cost and 2 people needed to man a gunned LAV / 2 kills received if it blows up, and I will happily accept a nerf to impact damage. Until then it should be left as is.
Scheneighnay McBob Tribal Band Dust Mercenaries Immortals of War 2440	Posted - 2013.07.19 14:25:00 - [23] - Quote LAVs aren't meant to be transports.
Vethosis Eir Gaming 604	Posted - 2013.07.19 14:47:00 - [24] - Quote bro, who gives a flux.
Jake Diesel The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 4	Posted - 2013.07.19 15:03:00 - [25] - Quote Tharak Meuridiar wrote: LAV = Light Assault Vehicle Their description mentions nothing about transportation but instead talks about how they are effective against infantry. They are nearly identical to / modeled after warthogs from Halo, which are quite effective in combat. There is absolutely nothing to back up the argument that LAVs are meant as transports. They have always been meant as killing machines and the older versions were so easy to kill I was afraid to hop inside of one even as a transport. If anything about the LAV needs changing it could trade some impact damage for drastically improved turret performance. You're reasoning for using the word "assault" in the way you did could not be more off in regards to the way LAV's are being used in this game. Assault doesn't literally mean ramming someone 90% of the time with that vehicle. It means exactly as described "assaulting", which in turns means to attack. To ASSAULT. That term can mean both ramming and shooting with its support guns. Unfortunately, the LAV driver literally disregards the weapon mounted on its and considers them more as cool decorations. I'm a purist when it comes to tactical military style shooting games whether it's sci-fi or modern day. LAV's are a replication of today's current military humvees. Those carry 50 caliber machine guns on top and is heavily armored against light arms fire. The Halo Warthog is also a sci-fi version of the humvee. Now think about that for second. Does the military spend billions of dollars on military machines like this as a primary source of "ramming" people. Sorry, but the concept of murder taxi is far from the true descritpion of what the LAV is supposed to be. And yes humvees can still ram people. It's just tactically safer to use distance and that nice 50 caliber Machinegun that can tear through walls.
ADAM-OF-EVE Svartur Bjorn 124	Posted - 2013.07.19 15:12:00 - [26] - Quote easy fix for you.....buy some
Tharak Meuridiar The Empyrean Agency 188	Posted - 2013.07.19 15:23:00 - [27] - Quote @Jake- I've never argued that an LAVs primary function is ramming people. Just killing people. I'm fine with LAVs that make heavy use of their turrets instead of their bumpers. But at the moment that is not even a semi-viable role for LAVs. I've quite literally killed more people with plasma cannons than LAV turrets.
Jake Diesel The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY 4	Posted - 2013.07.19 16:23:00 - [28] - Quote Tharak Meuridiar wrote: @Jake- I've never argued that an LAVs primary function is ramming people. Just killing people. I'm fine with LAVs that make heavy use of their turrets instead of their bumpers. But at the moment that is not even a semi-viable role for LAVs. I've quite literally killed more people with plasma cannons than LAV turrets. Oh shoot, my bad. Now I understand what you meant. And I actually agree. You can barely go anywhere with the LAV, switch to the turret to start blasting away and a moment later you'll get blown up with Swarmers from far range. The problem for the fix is tricky. Because LLAV are the answer to that armor issue, but then the current ramming issue exists. I think that other than the current fix that's in the works. I feel that a new type of non-lock-on type of grenade can be carried by everyone that's specifically used for close range, kinda like an emp grenade but with a very short radius of like 3m that would completely slow down incoming LLAV's so they can be shot at. No effect to HAV's.
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. RISE of LEGION 2698	Posted - 2013.07.19 17:10:00 - [29] - Quote The removal of free LAV's is a very good thing ice wanted for ages, it now means that lav's have some value, and it will make speccing into them more valuable. Maple how do you think people would treat tanks if everyone had access to a free fit?
Exmaple Core Who Gives A Flux 565	Posted - 2013.07.19 17:19:00 - [30] - Quote gbghg wrote: The removal of free LAV's is a very good thing ice wanted for ages, it now means that lav's have some value, and it will make speccing into them more valuable. Maple how do you think people would treat tanks if everyone had access to a free fit? If ppl had free miltia tank fits than it would get alot of players blown up and ppl would get the drift to not use them becuase of how reta rd UP they are. srly, all youl be doing is getting blown up in those whhy use them? miltia lavs are more survivable on the other hand and 1 hit ppl on the ram. So they do anti infaintry like a tank does and still survives to do it again and again in the same battle. Thats the difference, if LAVs were weak back to what they were in chromosome were no one complained about lavs because they were reasonable, then they would continue to be reasonable and no one would bring this up as an issue. Now ppl are gona get cought by the ppl who speced into LLAV wich are getting buffed because they dont have a ride. Feel bad for the new players. If they nerfed them back to what they were new players could at least get away



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.