| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
5256
   |
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
While talking with Evolution-7 over a week ago I started thinking about how right now Fighters are the only "jets" we have seen for Dust 514/Legion, and I decided to brainstorm a few other aircraft we could add to this mix, as well as weapons to give them a more defined role.
Aircraft
First of all, I'd like to propose a medium jet, and in keeping with the naming convention of ground vehicles in this game, I'll refer to them as Medium Multirole Aircraft, and the Fighters we've seen before as Heavy Multirole Aircraft.
For reference, I would consider Fighters to be classified as Heavy due to this concept art: http://i.imgur.com/wjyT0CK.jpg
(While the two-seater nature of this aircraft has apparently been changed, the design was shown at last year's FanFest at apparent equal scale to the Caldari Fighter, so the size appears to be the same, and is also consistent with the size of modern 5th-Generation fighter aircraft.}
Now, for the difference between the two size classes, I would say use an F-15C as an example of an HMA, and an F-16C as an example of an MMA. (This is a picture of the two side by side for better comparison)
Now, in keeping with offering a more generalist vehicle hull that has variations for greater specialization, each of these aircraft would branch into two other roles.
As an example of what I was thinking about, the MMA would branch into Interceptor and Striker, and the HMA would branch into Fighter and Attacker.
- The Figher, as we've already seen, would be focused on air-to-air combat, have bonuses to ordnance (discussed later) used for this such as guided missiles, and would be fairly fast and maneuverable.
- The Attacker would be the same weight class and hull design, but have more hitpoints, be slower and less maneuverable, and have bonuses to ground-attack ordnance such as bombs.
As far as I've thought out right now, the MMA variants would follow these two but be faster and slightly more maneuverable by virtue of their smaller size. They would also carry less ordnance because of this.
Ordnance
As I see it right now, this applies to all vehicle weaponry not mounted in turrets. To be more specific, these are individual weapons that are deployed individually, rather than having a launcher system or a reloadable magazine.
When deployed, these weapons cannot be "reloaded" and do not regenerate, so you must return to a supply area to obtain more of them.
These so far encompass the following
- Rocket Pods (faster firing and lower damage than Missile Turrets, with more shots)
- "Dumb" Bombs (high damage, large radius, penalty against heavy armor)
- Guided Bombs (high damage, little-to-no radius, useful only against heavy armor, requires pilot to maintain lock to guide the bomb)
- Fire-and-forget missiles (low damage, doesn't require pilot to maintain lock)
- "Semi-guided" missiles (high damage, requires pilot to maintain lock to guide the missile, faster flight speed)
As I stated before, these are "once-and-done" weapons that require you to return to a supply asset after using them. Weapons such as rocket pods would fire as long as you hold down the trigger, so you can control how much you expend at one time.
Equipping these to your aircraft could be handled in the same way as rigs in EVE. They would not affect your PC/CPU at all, but would instead take up your Ordnance space.
Say your aircraft has a capacity of 400.
A Light Bomb is 100, a Medium Bomb is 200, and a Heavy Bomb is 300.
Using these numbers as an example, you could carry 4 Light Bombs, 2 Mediums, and 1 Heavy.
Missiles would have lower numbers and could come in packs of 2, such that you could hold 8 missiles of one type, and 6 of another, for another example.
That's what I have so far. Thoughts?
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2176
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pretty sure that fighters are light aircraft (you are using irl sizes to compare to a video game, lol)
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
5256
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Pretty sure that fighters are light aircraft (you are using irl sizes to compare to a video game, lol)
You saw the concept art I linked, right? Look in the lower left-hand corner.
The Gallente Fighter is bigger than an HAV, or at the very least of similar size.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2176
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Anyways, there's such a thing as bomb and rocket/missile launchers........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
5256
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Anyways, there's such a thing as bomb and rocket/missile launchers........
The idea is to extend what they already did with vehicle turrets.
Vehicle turrets have limited ammo counts to counter their higher damage output, and since all these weapons would do higher damage than that, you can only use as many of them as you can attach to the aircraft, and then you have to go back for more.
Similar to how we have systems to limit the frequency of Orbital Strikes, these weapons would be balance by your limited ability to deploy them so that they don't end up being "spammed".
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2176
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 23:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Anyways, there's such a thing as bomb and rocket/missile launchers........ The idea is to extend what they already did with vehicle turrets. Vehicle turrets have limited ammo counts to counter their higher damage output, and since all these weapons would do higher damage than that, you can only use as many of them as you can attach to the aircraft, and then you have to go back for more. Similar to how we have systems to limit the frequency of Orbital Strikes, these weapons would be balance by your limited ability to deploy them so that they don't end up being "spammed".
Well, rockets and missiles makes no sense to lock to just fighters, so bomb launchers could be locked to them, like the stealth bombers do in EVE.
Also, you could just have a inventory, and pack ammo into it............
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
5257
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 04:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Anyways, there's such a thing as bomb and rocket/missile launchers........ The idea is to extend what they already did with vehicle turrets. Vehicle turrets have limited ammo counts to counter their higher damage output, and since all these weapons would do higher damage than that, you can only use as many of them as you can attach to the aircraft, and then you have to go back for more. Similar to how we have systems to limit the frequency of Orbital Strikes, these weapons would be balance by your limited ability to deploy them so that they don't end up being "spammed". Well, rockets and missiles makes no sense to lock to just fighters, so bomb launchers could be locked to them, like the stealth bombers do in EVE. Also, you could just have a inventory, and pack ammo into it............
Well rockets don't lock anything at all, and the idea of guided bombs is that they fill the role that an air-to-ground missile would. However, they require the pilot keep the enemy in their sights just like the AtG missiles in Battlefield, thus ensuring that the pilot has to exchange some level of risk for the ability to put the bomb precisely on target.
|
Evolution-7
The Rainbow Effect
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 10:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Would increase diversity a lot. Just a shame the forum warriors crawling these forums do not like contributing to anything other than their likes and posting "lolno".
I highly agree with this idea, and for anyone else reading this, take a look at this: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1814009#post1814009 It fits in nicely with Wyverns idea.
Veteran Pilot
"Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart."
|
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
5258
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 18:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Evolution-7 wrote:Would increase diversity a lot. Just a shame the forum warriors crawling these forums do not like contributing to anything other than their likes and posting "lolno". I highly agree with this idea, and for anyone else reading this, take a look at this: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1814009#post1814009 It fits in nicely with Wyverns idea.
It does indeed, and I should probably quote your thread up where I mentioned resupply assets.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2181
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 18:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Anyways, there's such a thing as bomb and rocket/missile launchers........ The idea is to extend what they already did with vehicle turrets. Vehicle turrets have limited ammo counts to counter their higher damage output, and since all these weapons would do higher damage than that, you can only use as many of them as you can attach to the aircraft, and then you have to go back for more. Similar to how we have systems to limit the frequency of Orbital Strikes, these weapons would be balance by your limited ability to deploy them so that they don't end up being "spammed". Well, rockets and missiles makes no sense to lock to just fighters, so bomb launchers could be locked to them, like the stealth bombers do in EVE. Also, you could just have a inventory, and pack ammo into it............ Well rockets don't lock anything at all, and the idea of guided bombs is that they fill the role that an air-to-ground missile would. However, they require the pilot keep the enemy in their sights just like the AtG missiles in Battlefield, thus ensuring that the pilot has to exchange some level of risk for the ability to put the bomb precisely on target.
From how you made this thread, yes it does (not referring to lockon, referring to being able to use it for X vehicle).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2181
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 18:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pretty sure that fighters are light aircraft (you are using irl sizes to compare to a video game, lol) You saw the concept art I linked, right? Look in the lower left-hand corner. The Gallente Fighter is bigger than an HAV, or at the very least of similar size.
A fighter won't have the tank of a HAV, nor would it have the firepower of one. My point still stands.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Mobius Wyvern
Ahrendee Mercenaries
5259
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 18:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pretty sure that fighters are light aircraft (you are using irl sizes to compare to a video game, lol) You saw the concept art I linked, right? Look in the lower left-hand corner. The Gallente Fighter is bigger than an HAV, or at the very least of similar size. A fighter won't have the tank of a HAV, nor would it have the firepower of one. My point still stands.
Heavy is a classification of size, though, not necessarily firepower.
It seems like that right now because the only vehicles we have are jeeps and tanks, but the Heavy, Medium, and Light classifications could easily cover other vehicles within the same size class.
As well, if an aircraft that large would be considered Light, how do you explain the smaller Dropship being classified as Medium?
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2181
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 19:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pretty sure that fighters are light aircraft (you are using irl sizes to compare to a video game, lol) You saw the concept art I linked, right? Look in the lower left-hand corner. The Gallente Fighter is bigger than an HAV, or at the very least of similar size. A fighter won't have the tank of a HAV, nor would it have the firepower of one. My point still stands. Heavy is a classification of size, though, not necessarily firepower. It seems like that right now because the only vehicles we have are jeeps and tanks, but the Heavy, Medium, and Light classifications could easily cover other vehicles within the same size class. As well, if an aircraft that large would be considered Light, how do you explain the smaller Dropship being classified as Medium?
No, it isn't. sizes have to do with tank mainly, and then firepower. It has nothing to do with size. Otherwise, DS's would be Heavy vehicles, as they are as big as HAV's.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |