|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yeshua Saliot
Pro Hic Immortalis
9
   |
Posted - 2013.10.25 14:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lanius Pulvis wrote:I can't say I know for sure how to keep the LDS relevant as most people only seem to use it for it's tank; needless to say, I've got a few suggestions though.
1) Probably the one that will engender the most discontent, do not allow turrets to be fitted. The LDS to my mind is better suited to support and e-war than a shooting war.
2) Introduce a jamming module for swarms/dispersal field for FG. The damage should be mitigated, not eliminated by this module, and it should cost significant enough pg and cpu that other ships can't afford to fit it as well as a normal load-out.
3) Better range on scanners are needed for drop ships, the best should cost enough to fit that the best use would be on the LDS.
4) Pg and cpu should be sufficient to fit the equipment for support and e-war.
1) I would've suggested the opposite, add a turret to the LDS for the pilot. The assault would then earn it's moniker by gaining a more than token increase to damage with the appropriate racial weapon. As it stands now with the current scoring system, I have no real incentive to fly the LDS. Half the time I don't have gunners, the other half my gunners are more interested in shooting other blues than the enemy. I find myself spending most of the match in an LDS being incredibly bored. And before anyone pipes up with "That's OP!!!," even with proto small turrets it takes a ri-donk-ulous amount of time to kill anything (even infantry). The lack of a damage bonus would insure that the LDS remained in a strictly support role while upping the small turret damage in the ADS would allow it to actually assault the enemy instead of harassing them.
2) That's a terrible idea. Suggesting that something as basic as a functioning countermeasures package be too expensive to field on anything but one type of dropship would guarantee it would never be used. Think about it, if it's that expensive in PG or CPU, then fielding it on a LDS would come at the expense of fielding modules that actually support the team.
3) Again, no. Increasing the PG/CPU cost of the modules to force back obsolescence of a single vehicle type denies me the very customization that is supposed to lie at the heart of Dust. The whole point of this game is that, should I want to, I can make my Heavy stealthy (for a Heavy) or armor tank my Scout. Inefficient use of my resources true, but doable. Your idea would deny pilots that very important aspect of the game.
4) It already is. With the CRU built in, the PG/CPU available to the LDS is more than enough for it to play a serious ELINT/SIGINT role as well as transport.
It seems to me that most of your ideas for keeping the LDS relevant rely on hamstringing the ADS and limiting customization. We should be seeking the exact opposite. Make the ADS live up to its name while giving LDS pilots something to do other than hover on the outskirts of the map waiting to be useful.
Now my counter argument:
a) As stated above, beef up the small turret damage for the ADS while adding a small turret to the LDS for the pilot. Allowing the ADS to fulfill its presumed role as an "Assault" vehicle in more than name alone while giving the LDS the adaptability to fit multiple roles on the battlefield keeps one from overpowering the other (the current problem), increases the customization options currently lacking, and goes a long way towards addressing the disparity that currently exists between the ground-pounders and fly-boys without resorting to super-buffing the DS at the expense of the ground game (aircraft should be thin skinned, they just shouldn't be toothless).
b) In addition to the omni directional scanner currently available, make a longer range limited FOV active scanner that replaces a weapon in the small turret. It would act much like the hand held scanner by giving the pilot an assist to enemies killed while scanned. It would light up targets for the whole team but have a definite cone shape that would limit its area of effect while having a longer cool down time (to limit the point gain to a reasonable level).
c) Make the inbuilt CRU in the LDS removable for extra PG/CPU, maybe (maybe) even an extra high slot. This would greatly expand the LDS pilot's adaptability and allow him or her to fulfill roles on the battlefield beyond the current "Soccer Mom" one available without handicapping other DS types.
Please see my previous post on Dropships: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=935374#post935374 for my line of reasoning.
|
Yeshua Saliot
Pro Hic Immortalis
9
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 07:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
It may not be your computer, but the site as I've had problems with it in the past.
I'm afraid I'm much too busy right now and for the next few days to properly look at your arguments. But I just wanted to quickly say that I appreciate this chance to have a civil dialog with someone of an opposing viewpoint and will be pursuing this discussion further.
SEMPER PHI |
Yeshua Saliot
Pro Hic Immortalis
11
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 19:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeshua Saliot wrote:It seems to me that most of your ideas for keeping the LDS relevant rely on hamstringing the ADS and limiting customization.
This is a misprint on my part, I meant LDS. It seems to me that your ideas to keep the LDS relevant hamstring the very vehicle you're trying to save.
regarding:
scoring I think we're both in agreement that scoring for pilots is in drastic need of an overhaul. Any discussion on how should probably be reserved for a different thread purely for space considerations.
removing the turrets I understand the LDS's primary purpose is not pew pewing things, but the design philosophy behind Dust is one of multi-functionality. Removing any offensive capability from the LDS is a further limiting factor on her usefulness and it is the LDS's limitations that have led to her lack of use thus far. To me, the solution is not to make her even more niche, but to add to her functionality. Adding the turret, but not requiring it, then filling out the equipment roster with scanners, remote reppers, boosters, etc. that replace that turret and that the LDS gains bonuses to use.
Both Dropships gain in functionality, but now the LDS again has a compelling reason to be used.
countermeasuresQuote:2)Just a thought, but you might want to read my suggestion more carefully, I suggest not being able to fit it with a "NORMAL LOAD-OUT" i.e. you're armor tanked and able to defeat a percentage of swarms, that would be OP. I believe yours and my ideas of just what a basic countermeasure package can do differs greatly. Also, why would I skill into an entire class of vehicle for a line of modules that I wouldn't be able to use on a regular basis when I can just skill into the sister ship?
Countermeasures against both swarms and forge guns should be a tiered set of modules that require skilling into, can fit only one to a vehicle, and require cooldown between use. The ability to avoid a lock on should never be 100% guaranteed and the modules effectiveness should be adjusted according to the module type as well as pilot skill. Furthermore, the skill level of the AV soldier along with the weapons complexity should effect this outcome. If I have spent the time and effort to skill into proto armor and proto countermeasures and so on, it is not OP to expect and find that someone's militia swarm or forge is nothing more than a nuisance.
customizationQuote:3)Once again, see comment above. And thank you for countering your own argument, you just said "fielding it on a LDS would come at the expense of fielding modules that actually support the team" so you don't want the option to make a fitting how you deem appropriate...or you do?!?! And once again, see above comment on PG and CPU.
Huh? How does wanting to be able to use a module in more than one very narrowly defined fit counter my claim to want to use a module in more than one very narrowly defined fit? Your suggestion is that modules be designed in such a way that only the LDS can field the very best and only in limited circumstances. But this merely paints over the problem of the LDS at the expense of the ADS while further pushing it into a niche market. The problem with the LDS is that it is both too generic and too specialized. It is too generic in that it lacks the proper modules and bonuses to use those modules and too specialized in that the person spending all their time in it in match has nothing to do a vast portion of the match.
In my opinion, the LDS REQUIRES far more than the extremely limited set of tools it is currently in possession of, namely it's CRU, scanners, and the less than useless remote repper/boosters. Without these tools, it can never really step out of the shadow of the ADS.
removing turrets This is directed to both Lanius and Judge. I don't believe that removing turrets and making dropships purely transports or purely assaults is the way to go at this time or indeed at all. I can totally see adding these types of vehicles in, each one vastly superior in its chosen role in comparison to the multi-role Dropships we currently field. But I believe simply pulling the teeth out of the LDS is the wrong thing to do for a multitude of reasons, the main one being:
Whether Pub or PC, much time is spent waiting to be and to feel useful when piloting the LDS. current player count in match really does keep you from flying with gunners at all times and without a turret for the LDS pilot, it can seem at times like you've contributed nothing to victory except not dying. Disregarding the usefulness/uselessness of the turrets, I believe most dedicated pilots derive no small amount of comfort from the fact that they can shoot at or shoot back should they need to and this is a further nail in the coffin of the LDS. But by giving it the base turret while simultaneously creating modules that replace it and gain substantial bonuses when fielded by the LDS, you provide very real incentive to pilots to skill into it while reducing the homogeneous nature of the current dropships.
I think the fundamental difference between our positions is that I am looking at what I feel needs to be added to differentiate the LDS from the ADS while you are looking at what you feel needs to be removed to achieve the same. |
Yeshua Saliot
Pro Hic Immortalis
11
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 14:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
I would like to see a revamped UI that would include the following two additions:
1) Vehicle opacity controls for the pilot. I imagine it as very similar to the HUD opacity controls currently available. Not something you adjusted on the fly in match, but tweaked in the MQ. This would be like the augmented reality systems being developed for modern fighter pilots. I consider this essential if the current camera scheme is to be kept.
2) An altitude, airspeed, and level flight indicator. All three gauges could be combined in the current HUD by integrating them into the bottom right element used as a turret overheat indicator/infantry ammo counter. The following is a quick and dirty edit showing what I have in mind.
http://i.imgur.com/FyP63hy.png |
Yeshua Saliot
Pro Hic Immortalis
13
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 06:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lanius Pulvis wrote:Sorry it took so long to reply to this.
My original point on this can loosely be interpreted thus: (assuming for the moment we're not fitting equipment) You can fit proto modules on a std. logi suit, but if you try it with a std. assault you start having to make tough choices, "do I use std. shield extenders to free up cpu or do I not fit a damage mod". This is rather akin to your stealthy heavy analogy.
I know it doesn't correlate precisely, but this is exactly what I'm trying to say with the statement "unable to fit it with a normal loadout". "Do I fit countermeasures or better armor plates?" You seem to be saying this kind of situation shouldn't exist in the Dropship, yet that's exactly the kind of tough choice already present in dropsuits. There is already an analog to my theoretical ECM, what stops an ADS pilot from fitting a MCRU or remote reps? I'm just trying to clarify that the logistics craft should have enough slots (since there's no such thing as airborne equipment), and enough cpu/pg to fit an area of effect type ECM. I should have elucidated my point a bit more up front.
This was a misunderstanding of your explanation on my part, I actually agree wholeheartedly with this. My understanding of what you were saying was that only the Logi could fit ECM and only at the expense of everything else.
Quote:I would be behind replacing the side turrets with a single nose turret, but if we keep the side turrets and have the passenger room still, why would I fly a transport? I'm looking for differentiation, but all the LDS is, is a beefier transport which still has the same offensive capabilities. Are you for a transport only DS, because if you chafe at the wait in a LDS imagine what the transport pilot feels, he has no MCRU. Should we then give all DS a nose turret? What separates them from assault craft then? Should we then have only assault craft?
It's just a slippery slope if we leave them undifferentiated. I don't want to cripple any ship or the users thereof.
Just out of curiosity, do you think there should be the 3 types of craft, and if so why would you use a transport?
I honestly have no problem with having all three types of dropship. As for a nose turret in the base transport, I wouldn't add one but would include the module type I spoke of in my own post of several months ago (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=935374#post935374) that allows the side turrets to be fixed forward (barring a module, I could see them as alternate turret types that you specialized in like the various infantry weapon specializations).
I could see the transport truly living up to it's name by including an in-built RDV like tractor module and vastly superior torque that would allow it to move any manner of battlefield item to new and better locations. Don't need that resupply depot half a click behind the lines? Pick it up and move it where you want it. The Logi can't do it because the built in CRU drains power from available torque and the Assault spends its PG on acceleration. This could be balanced by having installations so moved be unusable until a certain period of time had passed and by having terrain requirements be met before activation could occur (not drop off mind you, just activation).
Removing the side turrets from the Logi while adding a nose gun would force blueberries spawning in to actually get out instead of clipping you with your own weapons while firing on allies and keeping you able to at least make a potshot or two in between dropoffs into hot zones
Finally, I have no objections to removing some seats from the assault so long as this corresponds with an increase in available ammo for the turrets (once ammo is implemented).
I think a good analogy of most peoples view of the dropships is:
Transport = American Huey, Logistics = American Blackhawk, and Assault = Russian Hind.
But I don't think we've actually come that far in the design stage. Instead, I think a better analogy is to look at the current lineup of DS as variants of a single type: The Bell UH-1 Iroquois or 'Huey'
Transport = UH-1H edit:(basic transport)
Logistics = UH-1P edit:(special ops and attack ops use)
Assault = UH-1M edit:(gunship)
Keeping this analogy in mind, I hope you can see where my line of reasoning is going. I think the differentiation between Dropships should focus more on differing stat bonuses combined with differing racial bonuses and less on making each DS its own beast. I think we need to nail down the interrelationship between racial variants and role variants before we start throwing in truly different models of Dropship that will increase that complexity by a wide margin, a complexity I only welcome if it doesn't break my Dropships or the game. |
|
|
| |
|