As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.

I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue.

I agree that a assault dropship should eventually be able to take out a missile turret on its own but it would have to spend a bit of time doing it. If it was not maned then the turret would defend itself in the normal way they do now, causing the ADS pilot to move and therefore make it more challenging. It would therefore be more efficient to hotdrop a small squad in. Either that or coordinate attacks so that scouts take out all AA (missile) turrets before going in with ADS to transport, harass, take out other turrets, which wont be able to shoot up, and generally do your thing.

This as you say would not be possible without either (preferably both) getting rid of all turrets in the red line or changing turret weapons to the same stats as basic vehicle weapons.

However i completely disagree with the ideology that by using those ridiculous XT-1 missiles, you should be able to take out and have free rain at destroying all targets from tanks, infantry and turrets with only having to worry about the occasional group of AVers.

Turret angle is fine, it does not need to be increased, otherwise they won't have a weakness with a strong AI and power. The only safe place for a dropship to be is way up in the sky, where we are completely useless when turrets can lock onto you from every direction.

Nice replies, and nice debate from everybody.
When I'm not operating a Dropship (main concern transporting mercs safely to a spot covered by red-hacked turret installations), I am, err, umm,... hacking and manning installations to, um, use AGAINST HAVs and Dropships.

I want to think (THINK) that my position gives me insight on both points of view.
I also want to believe that, no matter what role you play as, if the adjustment CCP makes to the current Installations opens up an opportunity for you to VALUE that installation more---AND at the same time poses a new risk or difficulty to acheiving a goal related to that installation... then it's an adjustment in the RIGHT DIRECTION (even if it will make you curse more and throw your PS-controller across the room more than prevous matches).

So, grabbing randomly from some of the stuff you've posted here,
if the Railgun installation can eviscerate an incoming DS with just a few hits, but barely has time to make those hits if a skilled DS operator like Baggins can quickly approach beyond the rail-installation's gun ELEVATION-limit... THAT's GOOD. The elevation of the rail-gun installation should NOT be changed to allow 90-degrees vertical aiming because that would make it less difficult for turret-gunner to acheive his goal. On paper, it will look as though the installation-player has been given a harder job than the DS-player... but IN THE ENCOUNTER, both opponents actually have a target they are drooling to reach, a VALUED device they think they can reach it with, and each player has ONE immediate obstacle has to become good enough to overcome in order to succeed (DS driver must develop skill to jag/weave his way up to a lethal installation---the installation-operator must practice getting perfect lead on a DS in the short period before his gun-elevation limit is reached).

If a lone merc walking out into an open gap between two buildings after just spawning from a CRU, suddenly gets sniped by a hacked missile installation sitting on the hill---that's GOOD. On paper, it feels unfair because no one is getting WP for it, and it's taking hurtful advantage of your momentary carelessnes. But in the encounter, it makes the same sense as the enemy RE or the red-sniper you didn't know about: they are limited, but annoyingly effective, means of denying your travel across the map.

When the DS driven by Baggins reaches the enemy's redzone and (with the help of a skilled door gunner named Aungm) wants to convert red dots into red ooze,...but the area is littered with three or four installations---but one is a railgun installation that can't elevate high enough and has shield/armour thin enough to destroy with 9 XT-1s---but the other two are Blaster installations whose shield/armour is too tough for the DS to waste time on---but they can only be lethal to Baggins if he drifts into into the airspace where both installations can overlap their fire... as frustrating an experience as this is to have at a redline... IT'S GOOD. Redlining the opposing team should be an acheivable goal, and a player ought to be able to get a vehicle over there and loiter---but it should not be something he can acheive on a whim. So they DON'T need to reduce the number/placement of installations stationed at the redline (it's supposed to be the staging area for the team, so it rightly should feel like the most combat-secured piece of the map). Tebow's view is right that the installations shouldn't be so invincible that the vehicle HAS to shoo away constantly. My own wish is that installations not be so wimpy that they are rubbed out faster than dropsuit Newberrys.

See the flip-flopping set up in this? It's not one of those "balance" creations. It's "imbalance", doled out sequentially to both opponents, so both have to eat an unfair handicap during the encounter. And it would work.

The vehicle-driver needs to be able to loiter and redline enemy DOTS (that's the victory), but since it IS the enemy's redline, there should be a hard obstacle she has to to grind-down or tactic-through before she can own the enemy's terrain.

The Gun-Installations should be the game pieces players VALUE and WANT TO USE to create that obstacle for the enemy.
And that "use" isn't about stats on paper---like most of Dust 514, it's really about influencing what behavior and actions we players perform when in the match.

Yes, Litany... you're identifying a tricky thing with Dust 514. We console players are "WICKED", we rapidly detect patterns or glitches in the sessions of a game title, grin to ourselves, and EXPLOIT IT faster than a duck can poop! (Someday, I'd like to find out if PC players are as good at finding 'exploits' in their games as consolers are in ours...could be interesting data).

I THINK (could be wrong) that CCP would want small-turrets (vehicle-mounts) and large-turrets (not to be confused with what we call installations) to always be two slightly overlappng species.
In the small-turret species, there really isn't a drastic champion in range or EHP, because the type of moving platform we choose to fit them on substantially effects how lethal each one ends up. (I think when most players say the XT-1 missile is the "best" turret, they're really just responding to the fact that it's the only turret type that will forgive you for mounting it on the back of a drunk-bucking bronco bull, and will still get reasonable kills for you while you're sloshing around. LOL) .

In the large-turret species, there tends to be an argument that the RAIL is the best turret to mount on your HAV as soon as you can afford it. (The large-blaster and large-missile heads MAY be something most vehicle players resort to because they don't have the ISK/SP to fit the good Rails yet, or because sometimes you just want a "disposable" turret on your HAV).

I suggest treating the "installation" as a distinct THIRD species. Since it's something that (for now?) is not bought or fitted in the game by PLAYERS, like the HAV/Lav/DS turrets, it has a right to be given its own distinct stats that don't need to overlap or relate much to say the HAV's stats.

To deter stand-off sniping, keep the range of any Installation type substantially LONGER than the its HAV (large-turret) version. This would give it an advantage over the HAV turret weapon. (The HAV turret weapon already has an advantage over the Installation by being MOBILE on the map).
Hence, the BLASTER installation would have a noticeably longer reach (range) than the Blaster-turret an HAV driver could buy.
The MISSILE installation would have a longer reach than the HAV's Missile-turret, and the RAILGUN installation longer reach than the HAV's large-Railgun turret.
This way the HAV will always have to risk itself in order to "snipe" most installations.


(This would reinforce MY personal feeling about choosing to use installations and vehicles in a fight: if you want to stay way in the back-edge of the map and sniper at folks with the biggest non-handheld weapon you can find, you ought to be allowed enough reach to kill the enemy 3-fifths across the map, but only harass/frighten/suppress an enemy at 4-fifths distance, and NEVER be able to touch reds at the other end of the football field. If you want to DESTROY someone that far away and stay out of retaliatory reach, only a true sniper rifle should give you that privelege---the rest of us should be foreced to step in closer and risk getting killed in return, if we want to be a merc).

Nice replies, and nice debate from everybody.
When I'm not operating a Dropship (main concern transporting mercs safely to a spot covered by red-hacked turret installations), I am, err, umm,... hacking and manning installations to, um, use AGAINST HAVs and Dropships.

I want to think (THINK) that my position gives me insight on both points of view.
I also want to believe that, no matter what role you play as, if the adjustment CCP makes to the current Installations opens up an opportunity for you to VALUE that installation more---AND at the same time poses a new risk or difficulty to acheiving a goal related to that installation... then it's an adjustment in the RIGHT DIRECTION (even if it will make you curse more and throw your PS-controller across the room more than prevous matches).

So, grabbing randomly from some of the stuff you've posted here,
if the Railgun installation can eviscerate an incoming DS with just a few hits, but barely has time to make those hits if a skilled DS operator like Baggins can quickly approach beyond the rail-installation's gun ELEVATION-limit... THAT's GOOD. The elevation of the rail-gun installation should NOT be changed to allow 90-degrees vertical aiming because that would make it less difficult for turret-gunner to acheive his goal. On paper, it will look as though the installation-player has been given a harder job than the DS-player... but IN THE ENCOUNTER, both opponents actually have a target they are drooling to reach, a VALUED device they think they can reach it with, and each player has ONE immediate obstacle has to become good enough to overcome in order to succeed (DS driver must develop skill to jag/weave his way up to a lethal installation---the installation-operator must practice getting perfect lead on a DS in the short period before his gun-elevation limit is reached).

If a lone merc walking out into an open gap between two buildings after just spawning from a CRU, suddenly gets sniped by a hacked missile installation sitting on the hill---that's GOOD. On paper, it feels unfair because no one is getting WP for it, and it's taking hurtful advantage of your momentary carelessnes. But in the encounter, it makes the same sense as the enemy RE or the red-sniper you didn't know about: they are limited, but annoyingly effective, means of denying your travel across the map.

When the DS driven by Baggins reaches the enemy's redzone and (with the help of a skilled door gunner named Aungm) wants to convert red dots into red ooze,...but the area is littered with three or four installations---but one is a railgun installation that can't elevate high enough and has shield/armour thin enough to destroy with 9 XT-1s---but the other two are Blaster installations whose shield/armour is too tough for the DS to waste time on---but they can only be lethal to Baggins if he drifts into into the airspace where both installations can overlap their fire... as frustrating an experience as this is to have at a redline... IT'S GOOD. Redlining the opposing team should be an acheivable goal, and a player ought to be able to get a vehicle over there and loiter---but it should not be something he can acheive on a whim. So they DON'T need to reduce the number/placement of installations stationed at the redline (it's supposed to be the staging area for the team, so it rightly should feel like the most combat-secured piece of the map). Tebow's view is right that the installations shouldn't be so invincible that the vehicle HAS to shoo away constantly. My own wish is that installations not be so wimpy that they are rubbed out faster than dropsuit Newberrys.

See the flip-flopping set up in this? It's not one of those "balance" creations. It's "imbalance", doled out sequentially to both opponents, so both have to eat an unfair handicap during the encounter. And it would work.

The vehicle-driver needs to be able to loiter and redline enemy DOTS (that's the victory), but since it IS the enemy's redline, there should be a hard obstacle she has to to grind-down or tactic-through before she can own the enemy's terrain.

The Gun-Installations should be the game pieces players VALUE and WANT TO USE to create that obstacle for the enemy.
And that "use" isn't about stats on paper---like most of Dust 514, it's really about influencing what behavior and actions we players perform when in the match.