DUST Search - To Rattati: on roles

All Channels

General Discussions

To Rattati: on roles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1938	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:32:00 - [1] - Quote Rattati, You said here, Quote: Players have been asking, "what is the role of the ADS", and to that I only have one answer, "we provide the sandbox, you play in it". We have no intent to shoehorn in an exact playstyle. I feel that this is a flawed statement. Let's look at sentinels. Should they be able to run EWAR the same as a scout? No, of course not. His role is not to run ewar. It is to run point defense. He is not meant to fit dampeners and enhancers. It is in this light that me and others ask for the role of the ADS. We want to have a designated job, and we want to do that job well. The sandbox comes from accomplishing that job in a myriad of ways, but I don't try and do a front line assault with my scout for the same reason I don't try and be stealthy in my sentinel. We have had some discussion about things we can do to improve ADS, and you seemed keen on the idea of Python as infantry slayer and Incubus as vehicle slayer. But I would really like to nail down what we as ADS pilots are to do. I think saying we can attack, scout, transport is giving us too many hats to wear at once. We should let the transport DS be for transport, and have the ADS do a separate job. Just like we let the scout be good at scouting and the logi good at logistics. So I ask you: in order to balance ADS and give them a place on the battlefield, what should their role be? Until we have defined a clear role for them, we can't begin to try and balance them because we don't know what they are to be balanced against. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17233	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:38:00 - [2] - Quote This doesnt stop the said sentinel from fitting ewar still. Would he ever be as good as a scout? No. But hes going to be better than every other sentinel out there. ADS are not Gunships, Bombers, or Attack Choppers. Does that stop them from trying to be used or flown like one? No. Now comes the box part. When an ADS nullifies the need for any other role this is where the box wall comes in to say no, you are not god. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13576	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:41:00 - [3] - Quote I feel the same way about tanks. While I appreciate CCP's willingness to let me "play my way" (something not yet come to pass) I'd rather see vehicles have their roles like infantry suits. From there anything beyond that role that we can achieve is much more satisfying....I mean in EVE every ship has a role, every variant a niche. An Omen deals with Efficient capacitor management of Laser weapons A Maller deals with Armour Resistance Values and High EHP An Augoror/ Guardian mostly deals with Repairs and Logistics An Arbitrator is normally a Drone boat. In Dust A Soma has no specific role A Madrugar has no specific role A Sica has no specific role A Gunlogi has no specific role "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 2498	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:42:00 - [4] - Quote I was thinking about the possibility of making the ADS a silent, ninja extration/infiltration dropship. Makes minimal noise, tiny profile so doesn't show up on TACNET unless scanned, and can move infantry in and out of areas without enemies noticing. You godly ADS pilots out there want a role for a ship that was never meant to accommodate for your flying skills. You guys are after an Assault Airship, something like that. The dropship, by its name, implies transportation. It's a flying bus. You ask why it can't have a defined role, it's because you guys want something totally different from what CCP meant it to be and this is probably Rattati telling you nicely. Forgive me if I've put words in anyone's mouths. > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17235	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:52:00 - [5] - Quote Now I will not disagree there does needs to be a root role or general idea of what is it supposed to do. A sense of 'agency' if you will. It would be confusing as heck if you gave me a full auto shotgun that fires slugs a role that could possibly interfere with heavy rifles. It is more confusing if you deploy a tank to a field and it doesn't feel like a tank at all. I mean back in the old day the general term of a tank (and to great extent even today) refers to any armored vehicle not just the more familiar MBTs. So what sort of tanks do on the field and their purpose? There is not a good strong out outside of anti-vehicle role which overall it does poorly at against flying aircraft. With so few potential targets the HAV feels a bit roleless. MAVs could be the solution along with additional turret types and map obstacles that only heavier firepower can destroy such as search towers or gates allowing infantry to gain access to shortcuts that even the tank may not be able to utilize. So back to the OP's concern about the ADS? What role should it play? Verticality is an important factor and great advantage in this game but lately with the changes a sniper rifle is superior to discouraging roof play (though I never seen the previous ADS discourage rooftop play that much) What would be the main role? So far I seen alot of pilots ask for one way relationships. This very is unhealthy aspect and played into the previous ADS godhoo as the counter relationship is excruciatingly underclassed for the task. However the relationship as it stands now is a simple one at best. There is no lockon signal, there is no targeting signal, players don't render that easily unless you hopped into the ADS as a sniper. (which is really kittened up part) Ground Infantry don't have deployable bubbles. The sound engine is not up to part allowing ADS to sneak up on them without a single audio queue, and ultimately sensors are screwed up. Vehicles are typically stealth in this game to a frustrating point. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kyoudai Furinkazan 1281	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:57:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I feel the same way about tanks. While I appreciate CCP's willingness to let me "play my way" (something not yet come to pass) I'd rather see vehicles have their roles like infantry suits. From there anything beyond that role that we can achieve is much more satisfying....I mean in EVE every ship has a role, every variant a niche. An Omen deals with Efficient capacitor management of Laser weapons A Maller deals with Armour Resistance Values and High EHP An Augoror/ Guardian mostly deals with Repairs and Logistics An Arbitrator is normally a Drone boat. In Dust A Soma has no specific role A Madrugar has no specific role A Sica has no specific role A Gunlogi has no specific role Dam straight True but you know that it wasn't always like that , the previous vehicle skill tree was like the dropsuit and the mods were similar , the turrets were the weapons and we even had logi LAV's and HAV's for the most part with the shield and armor sharing . those were the underappreciated days in my eyes because the only complaints that we as vehicle users should have had was , the imbalance of the anti-vehicle V.S. vehicles but it just seemed like for the most part in the forums , the community couldn't come to an understanding and there were mostly complaints and finger pointing on both parts ( infantry and vehicle users ) and vehicle users for the most part didn't argue among themselves like they do now . I miss the old vehicle system . Delta should come with a SP or infantry SP refund so that a campaign for one is not needed .
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1097	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:01:00 - [7] - Quote Vyzion Eyri wrote: I was thinking about the possibility of making the ADS a silent, ninja extration/infiltration dropship. Makes minimal noise, tiny profile so doesn't show up on TACNET unless scanned, and can move infantry in and out of areas without enemies noticing. You godly ADS pilots out there want a role for a ship that was never meant to accommodate for your flying skills. You guys are after an Assault Airship, something like that. The dropship, by its name, implies transportation. It's a flying bus. You ask why it can't have a defined role, it's because you guys want something totally different from what CCP meant it to be and this is probably Rattati telling you nicely. Forgive me if I've put words in anyone's mouths. its an ASSAULT craft.. now if there was a scout craft.. like ads but no front gun but still as fast and agile but more silent and smaller signiture it may work [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1097	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:06:00 - [8] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I feel the same way about tanks. While I appreciate CCP's willingness to let me "play my way" (something not yet come to pass) I'd rather see vehicles have their roles like infantry suits. From there anything beyond that role that we can achieve is much more satisfying....I mean in EVE every ship has a role, every variant a niche. An Omen deals with Efficient capacitor management of Laser weapons A Maller deals with Armour Resistance Values and High EHP An Augoror/ Guardian mostly deals with Repairs and Logistics An Arbitrator is normally a Drone boat. In Dust A Soma has no specific role A Madrugar has no specific role A Sica has no specific role A Gunlogi has no specific role they are the basic models.. the advanced and proto and "logi" or "maurauder" vehicles were removed because OP.. atleast OP by the standards before we rebalanced AV and vehicles/moduals [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kyoudai Furinkazan 1281	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:06:00 - [9] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: Now if there was a scout craft.. like ads but no front gun but still as fast and agile but more silent and smaller signiture it may work I remember when we use to have discussions about such around these parts , to bad plans changed huh ? Delta should come with a SP or infantry SP refund so that a campaign for one is not needed .
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1097	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:07:00 - [10] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: Now if there was a scout craft.. like ads but no front gun but still as fast and agile but more silent and smaller signiture it may work I remember when we use to have discussions about such around these parts , to bad plans changed huh ? we can only hope ccp is sourceing ideas for legion from here too :P [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]

Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kyoudai Furinkazan 1281	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:09:00 - [11] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: Now if there was a scout craft.. like ads but no front gun but still as fast and agile but more silent and smaller signiture it may work I remember when we use to have discussions about such around these parts , to bad plans changed huh ? we can only hope ccp is sourceing ideas for legion from here too :P Hell they should be , it would be silly not to . Delta should come with a SP or infantry SP refund so that a campaign for one is not needed .
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13577	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:11:00 - [12] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Now I will not disagree there does needs to be a root role or general idea of what is it supposed to do. A sense of 'agency' if you will. It would be confusing as heck if you gave me a full auto shotgun that fires slugs a role that could possibly interfere with heavy rifles. It is more confusing if you deploy a tank to a field and it doesn't feel like a tank at all. I mean back in the old day the general term of a tank (and to great extent even today) refers to any armored vehicle not just the more familiar MBTs. So what sort of tanks do on the field and their purpose? There is not a good strong out outside of anti-vehicle role which overall it does poorly at against flying aircraft. With so few potential targets the HAV feels a bit roleless. MAVs could be the solution along with additional turret types and map obstacles that only heavier firepower can destroy such as search towers or gates allowing infantry to gain access to shortcuts that even the tank may not be able to utilize. So back to the OP's concern about the ADS? What role should it play? Verticality is an important factor and great advantage in this game but lately with the changes a sniper rifle is superior to discouraging roof play (though I never seen the previous ADS discourage rooftop play that much) What would be the main role? So far I seen alot of pilots ask for one way relationships. This very is unhealthy aspect and played into the previous ADS godhoo as the counter relationship is excruciatingly underclassed for the task. However the relationship as it stands now is a simple one at best. There is no lockon signal, there is no targeting signal, players don't render that easily unless you hopped into the ADS as a sniper. (which is really kittened up part) Ground Infantry don't have deployable bubbles. The sound engine is not up to part allowing ADS to sneak up on them without a single audio queue, and ultimately sensors are screwed up. Vehicles are typically stealth in this game to a frustrating point. I feel very strongly about the sense of "agency" as you put and and that is what I feel vehicles (HAV from my perspective) sorely lack. And as you said "It is more confusing if you deploy a tank to a field and it doesn't feel like a tank at all." Which of course in Dust 514 they do not, not a single HAV feels like an HAV nor functions in the manners that we are familiar with, thus making them a very confusing and unsatisfying role to specialise in. Contrary to what you believe I think HAV have too many options and need a redesignation of their primary role which should be "The definitive Anti Ground Vehicle Unit" one that carries the games largest ordinance in the forms of the Large Turret and proves to be the most deadly threat to Vehicles (this being the same for Emplacements....need more sting less EHP I feel). The direct counter to these HAV with their slower movement speeds, slower turret tracking and turning speeds are infantry AV units whose manoeuvrability can now allow them to run circles around out of position HAV. HAV only counter to this it in the form of Small Turrets and secondary gunners who protect the Tank and its pilot. You mentioned that maps could require specific targets and or obstacles that require heavier fire power to remove..... I think this is a very progressive and solid idea. Currently we have objective based game modes that cater specifically to infantry units, perhaps this could be opened up in future to Search and Destroy Objectives such as reactors, command centres, radar or weapons arrays. These being damageable by any weapons system in the game, but more so affected by AV weapons, Vehicles, and Remote Explosives. That I feel would additionally open up and define the role of HAV. Especially if CCP takes a leaf out of SOV Structures, Deployable District Assets, Infrastructure Hubs for the various game modes. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17238	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:14:00 - [13] - Quote Yeah right now our HAVs are a bastardization of a light armored fighting vehicle and MBT (though technically modern MBTs makes 'scout' tanks useless. ) For the sake of video games though Medium Turrets Scout HAVs then shift our current HAVs into MBTs CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1939	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:21:00 - [14] - Quote As far as tanks go, I disagree that they should be AV only. Let's be honest, what exactly is there for them to kill? If we had MAVs and jets and what have you, I'd understand having them be AV only, but as it stands, they have LAVs (laughably unused save for expendable transport) drop ships (which only rails and missiles truly threaten) and other tanks (which, if there are no vehicles, why call one out at all?) I think large blasters should be reworked as AP large turret. However, the old blasters from 1.7 were (insert proper descriptor) OP. I would thus reduce their damage and reduce their max dispersion. In this way, they can now more easily attack infantry, while being more vulnerable to other tanks. But that's just me. But I agree with True. All vehicles are just kind of here. They have no defined role beyond slaying. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13578	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:22:00 - [15] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Yeah right now our HAVs are a bastardization of a light armored fighting vehicle and MBT (though technically modern MBTs makes 'scout' tanks useless. ) For the sake of video games though Medium Turrets Scout HAVs then shift our current HAVs into MBTs Prior to the 1.7 Tankpocalypse I was actually working with two types of HAV. The commonly established 6573 Armour Madrugar - 2x Hardners 1x Repper, and Heavy 180mm Polycrystaline Plating and a 5015 Light Armoured Scout HAV with Passive Resistances, Duration Based Armour Repper, and Scanners. The current over simplified system reduced the need for low EHP vehicles when I can have speed, armour, and firepower in one package. I'd like to see a break down of Vehicles into LAV- 1 or 2 man rapid terrain traversal units MAV- Larger, Better armoured Squad sized ground transport units which double as spawners/ mobile bunkers for engaging/supporting infantry HAV- Bigger, More Expensive, Greater Firepower for taking down Vehicles and Objectives. As I see it the Cycle Should looks like Match Begins * Team A launches LAV to reach objective X first Team B responds with Armoured MAV to allow them to push Team A from Objective X Team A calls in an HAV to pop the MAV * Team B responds with LAV mounted AV to destroy the HAV which is not mobile enough to react. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13578	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:31:00 - [16] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: As far as tanks go, I disagree that they should be AV only. Let's be honest, what exactly is there for them to kill? If we had MAVs and jets and what have you, I'd understand having them be AV only, but as it stands, they have LAVs (laughably unused save for expendable transport) drop ships (which only rails and missiles truly threaten) and other tanks (which, if there are no vehicles, why call one out at all?) I think large blasters should be reworked as AP large turret. However, the old blasters from 1.7 were (insert proper descriptor) OP. I would thus reduce their damage and reduce their max dispersion. In this way, they can now more easily attack infantry, while being more vulnerable to other tanks. But that's just me. But I agree with True. All vehicles are just kind of here. They have no defined role beyond slaying. They are not AV only units, they are primarily designated Vehicle Killers. That is not to say that swatting infantry with a well placed explosive shell is not impossible, or that a Tank should not be modified to support a pilot controlled coaxial turret.....however I am suggesting that Tanks do what Tanks main guns were designed to do first and foremost, then engage infantry units secondly. Because my suggestion relies of reduced turret tracking speeds I see no reason an HAV should not be able to switch to a fixed light turret mounted on the cuppola in the same manner infantry get a secondary wepaon. However this means forgoing your primary fire power for the duration of use, using a slow tracking low damage AI turrets, and compromising your fitting capacity by mounting a small turret. I often do this anyway on my Missile HAV, switching out to a 20gj Railgun and popping infantry. I however see no reason to actually leave the main drivers seat to do this thought. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1939	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:38:00 - [17] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As far as tanks go, I disagree that they should be AV only. Let's be honest, what exactly is there for them to kill? If we had MAVs and jets and what have you, I'd understand having them be AV only, but as it stands, they have LAVs (laughably unused save for expendable transport) drop ships (which only rails and missiles truly threaten) and other tanks (which, if there are no vehicles, why call one out at all?) I think large blasters should be reworked as AP large turret. However, the old blasters from 1.7 were (insert proper descriptor) OP. I would thus reduce their damage and reduce their max dispersion. In this way, they can now more easily attack infantry, while being more vulnerable to other tanks. But that's just me. But I agree with True. All vehicles are just kind of here. They have no defined role beyond slaying. They are not AV only units, they are primarily designated Vehicle Killers. That is not to say that swatting infantry with a well placed explosive shell is not impossible, or that a Tank should not be modified to support a pilot controlled coaxial turret.....however I am suggesting that Tanks do what Tanks main guns were designed to do first and foremost, then engage infantry units secondly. Because my suggestion relies of reduced turret tracking speeds I see no reason an HAV should not be able to switch to a fixed light turret mounted on the cuppola in the same manner infantry get a secondary wepaon. However this means forgoing your primary fire power for the duration of use, using a slow tracking low damage AI turrets, and compromising your fitting capacity by mounting a small turret. I often do this anyway on my Missile HAV, switching out to a 20gj Railgun and popping infantry. I however see no reason to actually leave the main drivers seat to do this thought. I am all for this idea of a coaxial turret. My thoughts are only because there are next to no vehicles for tanks to destroy beyond each other, so having one that was better at AP would give missiles and rails an actual reason to go and kill it. As it stands its basically world of tanks with swarms and forges thrown into the mix. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17240	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:40:00 - [18] - Quote Original Artwork suggested 3 guns for the HAVs, the third one being on the neck. Maybe make that one the coaxial one. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1939	Posted - 2014.10.15 22:51:00 - [19] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: This doesnt stop the said sentinel from fitting ewar still. Would he ever be as good as a scout? No. But hes going to be better than every other sentinel out there. And he is going to not be as good as a scout, nor be as tanky as another sentinel. Because he was not intended to use ewar. You can... but why would you want to? Quote: ADS are not Gunships, Bombers, or Attack Choppers. Does that stop them from trying to be used or flown like one? No. Which is my point. They have no defined role. Thus they are hard to balance, because we have not defined what it is they are supposed to do. Quote: When an ADS nullifies the need for any other role this is where the box wall comes in to say no, you are not god. ADS had not changed since 1.7 first dropped. I still have yet to hear how they became OP when they never changed in over 8 months or whenever it was that 1.7 dropped. But once again, we cannot say whether they were OP or not because WE DID NOT DEFINE WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE. If they were supposed to be infantry slayers, then they were doing their job perfectly. No need for a change. That's the crux of the entire issue. I keep hearing they were overperforming... but not hearing how they are supposed to perform. If as an ADS pilot I am not meant to kill infantry and instead do something else, then by all means tell me. I want to find out what Rattati wants the ADS to do, and then we can talk about balancing around performing that job. Just like currently we as a community are talking about balancing scouts around being ewar platforms and not as assault suits with a cloak bonus. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Lloyd Orfay Commando Perkone Caldari State 66	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:09:00 - [20] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Rattati, You said here, Quote: Players have been asking, "what is the role of the ADS", and to that I only have one answer, "we provide the sandbox, you play in it". We have no intent to shoehorn in an exact playstyle. I feel that this is a flawed statement. Let's look at sentinels. Should they be able to run EWAR the same as a scout? No, of course not. His role is not to run ewar. It is to run point defense. He is not meant to fit dampeners and enhancers. It is in this light that me and others ask for the role of the ADS. We want to have a designated job, and we want to do that job well. The sandbox comes from accomplishing that job in a myriad of ways, but I don't try and do a front line assault with my scout for the same reason I don't try and be stealthy in my sentinel. We have had some discussion about things we can do to improve ADS, and you seemed keen on the idea of Python as infantry slayer and Incubus as vehicle slayer. But I would really like to nail down what we as ADS pilots are to do. I think saying we can attack, scout, transport is giving us too many hats to wear at once. We should let the transport DS be for transport, and have the ADS do a separate job. Just like we let the scout be good at scouting and the logi good at logistics. So I ask you: in order to balance ADS and give them a place on the battlefield, what should their role be? Until we have defined a clear role for them, we can't begin to try and balance them because we don't know what they are to be balanced against. We can see that Dust made some attempt at being a team based game with the sentinel and logistics suits. Not putting out a specific playstyle with the existing roots of team based play gives only certain players the ability to have too much power on their own, (scouts, ADS, snipers, and so on) which is highly unfair to the rest of the community. No good logic there. No point in having roles in a game when there are solo players with so much power, so we have to sacrifice either the solo players or the roles... And there are more people that want roles than there are those that do not. Sacrificing the soloing would be the easiest approach in the first place, too.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13578	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:29:00 - [21] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As far as tanks go, I disagree that they should be AV only. Let's be honest, what exactly is there for them to kill? If we had MAVs and jets and what have you, I'd understand having them be AV only, but as it stands, they have LAVs (laughably unused save for expendable transport) drop ships (which only rails and missiles truly threaten) and other tanks (which, if there are no vehicles, why call one out at all?) I think large blasters should be reworked as AP large turret. However, the old blasters from 1.7 were (insert proper descriptor) OP. I would thus reduce their damage and reduce their max dispersion. In this way, they can now more easily attack infantry, while being more vulnerable to other tanks. But that's just me. But I agree with True. All vehicles are just kind of here. They have no defined role beyond slaying. They are not AV only units, they are primarily designated Vehicle Killers. That is not to say that swatting infantry with a well placed explosive shell is not impossible, or that a Tank should not be modified to support a pilot controlled coaxial turret.....however I am suggesting that Tanks do what Tanks main guns were designed to do first and foremost, then engage infantry units secondly. Because my suggestion relies of reduced turret tracking speeds I see no reason an HAV should not be able to switch to a fixed light turret mounted on the cuppola in the same manner infantry get a secondary wepaon. However this means forgoing your primary fire power for the duration of use, using a slow tracking low damage AI turrets, and compromising your fitting capacity by mounting a small turret. I often do this anyway on my Missile HAV, switching out to a 20gj Railgun and popping infantry. I however see no reason to actually leave the main drivers seat to do this thought. I am all for this idea of a coaxial turret. My thoughts are only because there are next to no vehicles for tanks to destroy beyond each other, so having one that was better at AP would give missiles and rails an actual reason to go and kill it. As it stands its basically world of tanks with swarms and forges thrown into the mix. And I like that idea, one reason I suggest that MAV take on a tough, highly armoured Anti Infantry role/ Squad support. All tanks IMO should be single shot vehicles. Other AP vehicle options should be made available for those who like to hunt down infantry thus clearly defining the roles between Small Turret, Medium Turret, and Large Turrets. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17247	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:32:00 - [22] - Quote Let me clarify. and ADS SHOULD NOT BE A BOMBER, FIGHTER, GUNSHIP, STRATEGIC BOMBER, OR ATTACK CHOPPER. It should by all accounts be an assault dropship. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13578	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:35:00 - [23] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Let me clarify. and ADS SHOULD NOT BE A BOMBER, FIGHTER, GUNSHIP, STRATEGIC BOMBER, OR ATTACK CHOPPER. It should by all accounts be an assault dropship. I don't know about that...... if the Dropship is the Blackhawk/Transport Copter sans missile pods, surely an Assault Dropship should be akin to an Apachi/ Attack Chopper right? "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17247	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:37:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Let me clarify. and ADS SHOULD NOT BE A BOMBER, FIGHTER, GUNSHIP, STRATEGIC BOMBER, OR ATTACK CHOPPER. It should by all accounts be an assault dropship. I don't know about that...... if the Dropship is the Blackhawk/Transport Copter sans missile pods, surely an Assault Dropship should be akin to an Apachi/ Attack Chopper right? I am thinking more along the line so an armored and armed chinook. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13578	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:43:00 - [25] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Let me clarify. and ADS SHOULD NOT BE A BOMBER, FIGHTER, GUNSHIP, STRATEGIC BOMBER, OR ATTACK CHOPPER. It should by all accounts be an assault dropship. I don't know about that...... if the Dropship is the Blackhawk/Transport Copter sans missile pods, surely an Assault Dropship should be akin to an Apachi/ Attack Chopper right? I am thinking more along the line so an armored and armed chinook. Would love RDV lift ability for Dropships. Assaults being hardy enough to carry an MAV or HAV maybe. Does that mean another vehicles will have a role more akin to an Apachi...... I get the distinct feeling no one really wants to fly a Chinook when they could nab an attack chopper...... That being said Air Cav is an entertaining way to play. OH CARRY MY TANK? YES PLEASE! ( I once wished that I could deploy my HAV from orbit) "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
DEZKA DIABLO THE FOOTCLAN 711	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:50:00 - [26] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Rattati, You said here, Quote: Players have been asking, "what is the role of the ADS", and to that I only have one answer, "we provide the sandbox, you play in it". We have no intent to shoehorn in an exact playstyle. I feel that this is a flawed statement. Let's look at sentinels. Should they be able to run EWAR the same as a scout? No, of course not. His role is not to run ewar. It is to run point defense. He is not meant to fit dampeners and enhancers. It is in this light that me and others ask for the role of the ADS. We want to have a designated job, and we want to do that job well. The sandbox comes from accomplishing that job in a myriad of ways, but I don't try and do a front line assault with my scout for the same reason I don't try and be stealthy in my sentinel. We have had some discussion about things we can do to improve ADS, and you seemed keen on the idea of Python as infantry slayer and Incubus as vehicle slayer. But I would really like to nail down what we as ADS pilots are to do. I think saying we can attack, scout, transport is giving us too many hats to wear at once. We should let the transport DS be for transport, and have the ADS do a separate job. Just like we let the scout be good at scouting and the logi good at logistics. So I ask you: in order to balance ADS and give them a place on the battlefield, what should their role be? Until we have defined a clear role for them, we can't begin to try and balance them because we don't know what they are to be balanced against. Honestly tho, run dat amar sentinel wit dual bolt pistol s, precision and range and damps lol you'd be surprised! DONT EVER COMPLAIN, USE CAPS LOCK OR POINT OUT WHAT BROKEN WITH OUR GAME OR WE WILL DEFINITELY BAN YOUR ASS FOR 6 MONTHS
TEBOW BAGGINS GREATNESS ACHIEVED THRU TROLLING 1283	Posted - 2014.10.15 23:53:00 - [27] - Quote i disagree.. the NDS should not be pigeon holed into transport only.. ADS can still withstand a sht storm of abuse if enough SP gets sunk into the right vehicle upgrades. very few times outside of academy can i actually fill up an NDS with more than 2 ppl who want transport, most players want nothing to do with pilots and actually despise them.. the ADS can easily accomplish multiple roles with more speed/agility than NDS. ADS does not need more EHP it is a speed tank. if your not playing into that strength then your ADSing wrong. i really wish we could just leave dropships alone for a few hotfixes. buffing them somewhere is just going to get them nerfed elsewhere. i think a lot of pilots are complaining when they're still using basic mods or are not able to fit better mods because they don't want to sink the millions of SP required for a decent dropship. AKA Zirzo Valcyn AFKing since 2012
Taurion Bruni D3ATH CARD RUST415 267	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:00:00 - [28] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Let me clarify. and ADS SHOULD NOT BE A BOMBER, FIGHTER, GUNSHIP, STRATEGIC BOMBER, OR ATTACK CHOPPER. It should by all accounts be an assault dropship. But this brings us back to the original argument; What is an Assault Dropship? the description of the Python given by ccp is as follows; Quote: The Dropship is a two-engine VTOL craft that combines advances in shielded hardware, redundant software protocols, and networked aeronautics into a heavily armored tactical platform capable of insertion and extraction in even the most hostile situations. Its standard five-man carrying capacity, dual hardpoints, and reinforced plating allow it to operate independently in any situation, alternately tracking and engaging enemy targets and ferrying troops into and out of harmGÇÖs way. The Assault class is a low-level aerial attack craft. Its light frame makes it highly maneuverable, while the front-mounted pilot-controlled turret gives it a significant advantage in aerial engagements. from this, we get that a Dropship is made to be a "Heavily armored platform, capable of insertion and extraction in even the most hostile environments." I take this to mean that the standard dropship is meant to be slow, yet able to tank enough damage to support the squad as they attack a point. the ADS, by description is a faster transport vehicle, sacrificing seats for speed and a front turret. this allows it to easily cover the squad, but is more susceptible to damage. the front mounted turret allows it to have an advantage over standard dropships in engagements (although its hard to destroy a dropship with anything but a railgun) in theory, the ADS is still able to transport a squad, but its ability to tank is reduced to increase its ability to gank. Python Pilot // Minmatar Assault Adapt or Die!
Mossellia Delt Militaires Sans Jeux 1694	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:13:00 - [29] - Quote I'd like to see the ads fill the role of the defence of troop transport. We'd have to wait to legion or something marvelous for dust of bigger matches. Seeing a dropships with troops being escorted by two ads into a hot battlefield gives me the shivers. Delt for CPM2 CPM1 MISSION : FAILED Moss-delt on skype
Mex-0 G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 82	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:13:00 - [30] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I feel the same way about tanks. While I appreciate CCP's willingness to let me "play my way" (something not yet come to pass) I'd rather see vehicles have their roles like infantry suits. From there anything beyond that role that we can achieve is much more satisfying....I mean in EVE every ship has a role, every variant a niche. An Omen deals with Efficient capacitor management of Laser weapons A Maller deals with Armour Resistance Values and High EHP An Augoror/ Guardian mostly deals with Repairs and Logistics An Arbitrator is normally a Drone boat. In Dust A Soma has no specific role A Madrugar has no specific role A Sica has no specific role A Gunlogi has no specific role Actually, the role of tanks are to score easy kills off of fresh-out-of-the-acadamy scrubs, **** off the infantry, and generally wreak havoc. Dedicated Scout and Nova Knifer.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.