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.

Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17249	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:18:00 - [31] - Quote Taurion Bruni 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. 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. Pre-Empryean Soldier Tech doesn't' stand a candle to our stuff. Our HMGs turns Sparrow Class Dropships into Swiss Cheese. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13581	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:34:00 - [32] - Quote Mex-0 wrote: 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. This asshat............ is not even worth my time "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 13582	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:45:00 - [33] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Taurion Bruni 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. 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. Pre-Empryean Soldier Tech doesn't' stand a candle to our stuff. Our HMGs turns Sparrow Class Dropships into Swiss Cheese. True dat. Our equipment is designed for 7' tall bioengineered super soldiers in ultra high tech combat armour and augumentations which would cause damage to other technologies not designed for our use. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Taurion Bruni D3ATH CARD RUST415 267	Posted - 2014.10.16 01:37:00 - [34] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Taurion Bruni 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. 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. Pre-Empryean Soldier Tech doesn't' stand a candle to our stuff. Our HMGs turns Sparrow Class Dropships into Swiss Cheese. Did you even read that? your response indicates otherwise. I never once talked about Pre-Empyrean Soldier tech, although you mentioned Attack Chopper Does this description make any sense to you? Python Pilot // Minmatar Assault Adapt or Die!
Mex-0 G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 82	Posted - 2014.10.16 01:43:00 - [35] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Mex-0 wrote: 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. This asshat............ is not even worth my time Didn't even give me a troll rating...? I'd say 10/10 seeing I've managed to ** you off. Dedicated Scout and Nova Knifer.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 8668	Posted - 2014.10.16 01:46:00 - [36] - Quote There is a thread in Feedback and Discussion about this very topic "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Mex-0 G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 82	Posted - 2014.10.16 01:48:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: There is a thread in Feedback and Discussion about this very topic Which one, there are at least 5 side-issues Dedicated Scout and Nova Knifer.
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 2594	Posted - 2014.10.16 02:17:00 - [38] - 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 It'd be opppppppp doe cuz dat scount be up in dar doeee "Minmitar Scout" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ Give the Minja active dampening!--By Bor
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13584	Posted - 2014.10.16 02:30:00 - [39] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p 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 It'd be opppppppp doe cuz dat scount be up in dar doeee Scouts are sissies. "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 1942	Posted - 2014.10.16 02:30:00 - [40] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: There is a thread in Feedback and Discussion about this very topic https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2391233#post2391233 I see what you did there! However, I feel like that thread has about 3-4 different topics going on, and I quoted you from that very thread in the OP. This is more of a call for ADS - and really all vehicles - to be given a defined role. I feel like a lot of the imbalance is because they lack that role. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive

Apocalyptic Destroyer KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 178	Posted - 2014.10.16 02:52:00 - [41] - 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. Please tell me How a EWAR stacking sentinal would be better than a Proto Sentinel with a Gastuns ? Do Tell \\CPM's Are Forum Warriors// Pain is weakness leaving the body. You Underestimate Me, ADS, Tanker, Heavy, Scout
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1944	Posted - 2014.10.16 02:54:00 - [42] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: 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. Please tell me How a EWAR stacking sentinal would be better than a Proto Sentinel with a Gastuns ? Do Tell He's so.ply saying you can. Of course, you CAN... But why would you want to? I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Apocalyptic Destroyer KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 178	Posted - 2014.10.16 03:04:00 - [43] - 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. Hence his wording "Better than every other Sentinel Out there" You need to work on your wording. Not only that IWS is probably what I find to be is one of the most annoying CPM's out there. Really, since you're saying and emphasizing "by all accounts be an assault dropship" We're here trying to f**ng find out what that role in particular is. So, If you won't give us, The ADS Pilots an answer, then by all means step the f* off . \\CPM's Are Forum Warriors// Pain is weakness leaving the body. You Underestimate Me, ADS, Tanker, Heavy, Scout
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17256	Posted - 2014.10.16 04:16:00 - [44] - Quote Or maybe I forgot a word. meant to say his scan. As for the roles I declared off limits The answer is that what you guys want is an Assault Dropship. let the fighter pilots, bombers, and gunship pilots get their own things later on. You need to focus on what an assault dropship means. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Assault Rifles =// Unlocked
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1945	Posted - 2014.10.16 04:18:00 - [45] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Or maybe I forgot a word. meant to say his scan. As for the roles I declared off limits The answer is that what you guys want is an Assault Dropship. let the fighter pilots, bombers, and gunship pilots get their own things later on. You need to focus on what an assault dropship means. Literally the entire point of this thread is for CCP to establish just that. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Operative 1125 Lokaas True Companion Planetary Requisitions 492	Posted - 2014.10.16 04:37:00 - [46] - 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. Lol, what Rattati means to say is that this game is based on FOTM. It doesn't matter what "role" or gear you choose to play, if you didn't pick the FOTM you lose. If you want the run of the mill, infantry only shooty shooty then you got the game you whined for. These hotfixes have solidified that. THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4916	Posted - 2014.10.16 05:39:00 - [47] - 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. what
Taurion Bruni D3ATH CARD RUST415 267	Posted - 2014.10.16 13:46:00 - [48] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Or maybe I forgot a word. meant to say his scan. As for the roles I declared off limits The answer is that what you guys want is an Assault Dropship. let the fighter pilots, bombers, and gunship pilots get their own things later on. You need to focus on what an assault dropship means. Iron Wolf, if you can't bring anything productive to this thread, then please step aside. All you have done is tell us what the assault dropship is not. we have been asking what role it has been intended for, we have not claimed it to be anything because we ourselves do not know where the puzzle piece fits in the game. Python Pilot // Minmatar Assault Adapt or Die!
Apocalyptic Destroyer KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 179	Posted - 2014.10.17 01:04:00 - [49] - Quote Bump \\CPM's Are Forum Warriors// Pain is weakness leaving the body. You Underestimate Me, ADS, Tanker, Heavy, Scout
Auris Lionesse Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 1021	Posted - 2014.10.17 01:18:00 - [50] - 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 thread should have stopped after this. dust lacks parity with eve and thus the roles and balance are all screwed up. for anyone interested this is the most accurate breakdown of roles in dust 514 as related to eve. heavy: battleshiptech 1 sentinel: marauder tech 2 commando: battlecruiser tech 1 assault: heavy assault cruiser tech 2 logistics: logistics tech 2 medium: cruiser tech 1 scout: covert ops frigate tech 2 light suit: frigates tech 1 vehicles would be captial ships and theyre roles should fit that. tanks are dreadnoughts, dropships are super carriers and lavs are carriers. assault dropships are only in the game because of the lack of fighters. they should have been removed in 1.7 they serve no role withing eves structure. unless of course their so op you want to call them titans which is an understandable an valid point. Don't vote for iron wolf saber. Vote for someone who will help the community i.e. anyone else.

Auris Lionesse Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 1021	Posted - 2014.10.17 01:23:00 - [51] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer 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. Hence his wording "Better than every other Sentinel Out there" You need to work on your wording. Not only that IWS is probably what I find to be is one of the most annoying CPM's out there. Really, since you're saying and emphasizing "by all accounts be an assault dropship" We're here trying to f**ng find out what that role in particular is. So, If you won't give us, The ADS Pilots an answer, then by all means step the f* off . i warned you guys not to vote for him again. i voted for people i never even heard of over him. hes really the last remnant of the failure that was cpm0 Don't vote for iron wolf saber. Vote for someone who will help the community i.e. anyone else.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1959	Posted - 2014.10.17 23:07:00 - [52] - Quote Auris Lionesse wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyer 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. Hence his wording "Better than every other Sentinel Out there" You need to work on your wording. Not only that IWS is probably what I find to be is one of the most annoying CPM's out there. Really, since you're saying and emphasizing "by all accounts be an assault dropship" We're here trying to f**ng find out what that role in particular is. So, If you won't give us, The ADS Pilots an answer, then by all means step the f* off . i warned you guys not to vote for him again. i voted for people i never even heard of over him. hes really the last remnant of the failure that was cpm0 I'd like to keep this discussion on topic. We won't get an answer if it devolves into bickering over unrelated issues. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
NIETZCHES OVERMAN Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 104	Posted - 2014.10.17 23:40:00 - [53] - 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 This is not Eve. Its Dust, we are a diffrent game. Perhaps you've heard of us.
Sergeant Sazu Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 149	Posted - 2014.10.18 00:45:00 - [54] - Quote I use the Python to single-handedly clear out rooftop campers. Unless they have AV. Then I spend the entire match trying not to die. Most people use the ADS simply as a slaying tool, in which case the AV should kill them quickly. But when I'm trying to clear the guys on the roof that are holding back my team, it kinda sucks to get taken down so easily. So yeah, that's what I use it for. I can't really conclude their intended purpose. This will take a lot of discussion. "Whoops! Sorry bro, my finger slipped on the trigger... 11 times." [31.6m SP - Next skill: Repair Tool Operation 5]
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1959	Posted - 2014.10.18 00:47:00 - [55] - Quote NIETZCHES OVERMAN wrote: 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 This is not Eve. Its Dust, we are a diffrent game. Perhaps you've heard of us. True still has a point. Vehicles do not have roles, which is part of why balancing them is so difficult. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 845	Posted - 2014.10.18 01:29:00 - [56] - Quote assault dropship. has same transport roles as all the other dropships out there. but that assault part doesnt and shouldnt mean anything great. all it should mean is that this particular dropship can drop friendlyies off and lay down some fire as the dropped mercs go fr cover or an objectives. i think thats how it should be interpreted. not the infantry or vehicle slayer. just another transport. only with a little extra firepower. to support those mercs. if there were maps where we could wage some large open warfare and attack decenty sized big installtion structures to create opening for infantry. then theres your vehicle roles right there. supplemental roles would be to assist infantry and provide cover for those same mercs as they push to capture objectives. right now looking at this i think it will be impossible to give vehicles roles other than transport and infantry slaying. the basic gameplay has become pointless. not fun anymore. i dont even see the roles of different dropsuits any more. any1 can get high wp and high amounts of kills or what ever regardless of suit type/ role.. really? what is the point of all of this?. i know ive played for a while. but i think this is why i quite in the first place. not just because of proto stomps. pve for dust 514. so what? u killed me twice with proto?. i killed you once with my mlt fit. that takes more skill.
Vicious Minotaur 1233	Posted - 2014.10.18 02:06:00 - [57] - Quote I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Vehicles need to be redone 100% from the ground up, while referencing REAL life vehicle archetypes. DUSTs dropships specifically are equivalent to our modern day military helicopters, so I use them as an example. What IS the basic dropship equivalent to? An attack helicopter? A transport heli? A rescue heli? Then, what IS the assault dropship equivalent to? An attack helicopter? A transport heli? A rescue heli? Right now, both the ADS and the DS are some bastardized version of an attack helicopter and a transport one. They step on each other's toes. In a warzone, a transport heli and one used for rescue would probably have side gunners (maybe even a third forward facing one). Attack helicopters... well, they are entirely different with their armaments. Compare an Apache with the Huey. Note how different they are, and that our DS types are so damn similar. And if a gunship comes into the game... well, gunships can use a helicopter as a platform, and in that case, those could be called attack helicopters. Now, if anybody says: "but DUST is sci-fi, not real life!" then I will point to this: vehicles seem to have been developed without looking at real-life equivalents, and look at where we are. We have awful vehicles with no role. I am a minotaur.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 23	Posted - 2014.10.18 02:29:00 - [58] - Quote I just want to point out that the Huey/Apache comparison with derpships is fundamentally flawed, for the simple reason that the Apache can in no way transport any kind of passengers. A more apt description would be the Mil Mi-24 Hind gunship, which is the nearest (and really only) equivalent to the ADS- a "fully" armed vehicle with a useful transport capability. Yes yes, I realize that "useful transport capability" requires fitting the side turrets, but hey, even three guys is better than four, and if one of them can take potshots at things you may not be able to hit (or paying attention to), then that's a pretty good deal.
Vicious Minotaur 1233	Posted - 2014.10.18 02:56:00 - [59] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: ... I am not necessarily Comparing the ADS to the Apache. I called the ADS, and I quote: "some bastardized version of an attack helicopter and a transport one." Also, I am comparing the diverse and distinct roles of real life helicopters to the homogenized and indistinct roles of current DUST dropships. --> wrote: Compare an Apache with the Huey. Note how different they are, and that our DS types are so damn similar. I never explicitly called the Apache the equivalent to the current flawed ADS. I am looking at general helicopter types, and the Apache/Mil MI-24 Hind are both fall under "Attack helicopter." (Assault dropship = Attack heli) My use of the Apache was only to personify a real attack helicopter and its very different armaments. And anyway, the current state of the ADS and its ability to transport troops is irrelevant to this, because I stated: vehicles need to be redone entirely. I am a minotaur.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1961	Posted - 2014.10.18 04:11:00 - [60] - Quote More to the point, many are saying that the ADS SHOULD act like an Apache, and lose the passenger seats for more attack and defensive power. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive

Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 23	Posted - 2014.10.18 05:27:00 - [61] - Quote Vicious Minotaur wrote: I am not necessarily Comparing the ADS to the Apache. I called the ADS, and I quote: "some bastardized version of an attack helicopter and a transport one." Also, I am comparing the diverse and distinct roles of real life helicopters to the homogenized and indistinct roles of current DUST dropships. --> Vicious Minotaur wrote: Compare an Apache with the Huey. Note how different they are, and that our DS types are so damn similar. I never explicitly called the Apache the equivalent to the current flawed ADS. I am looking at general helicopter types, and the Apache/Mil MI-24 Hind are both fall under "Attack helicopter." (Assault dropship = Attack heli) My use of the Apache was only to personify a real attack helicopter and its very different armaments. I just want to be clear, that by no means was I specifically referring to you. Rather, I wanted to point out that the general consensus- including CCP Rattati- was that the ADS is supposed to be some kind Apache. My intent was to point out that "Apache" and "Huey" are by no means the only choices; there is, in fact, the hybrid concept of the 'Hind' platform. Certainly the purpose of the Hind is to be an attack helicopter, but it can also carry as many as eight people- that's slightly more than what the current, garden-variety Grimsnes/Myron can handle, and anywhere from 2-4 times what the ADS can carry (depending on turret configuration, or lack thereof). Alena Ventrallis wrote: More to the point, many are saying that the ADS SHOULD act like an Apache, and lose the passenger seats for more attack and defensive power. That's something I really disagree with, as a wannabe ADS pilot. I really think that the Hind concept is something that almost nobody has ever done in a game, and that has a great deal of potential. The ADS should sit at a nexus between more traditional dropships, and the eventual jets; an ADS would offer the transport capability and greater loiter time of a dropship, while still being more heavily armed in the style of a dedicated attack platform. It's the sort of thing that then brings in strategy, tactics, choice, and consequences- if working as part of a group, do you want the larger transport capacity but inferior armament of a dropship, and/or the short loiter time and high lethality of a fighter, or do you pick the combination that's not quite as good at either job but also offers its own unique ability- that being the capability to loiter over a target area for a while. There's two things that stop me from really getting into flying ADS's. First and foremost, the fact that KB/M controls for the dropships are the worst thing in the history of the universe (and I dislike controllers in general for vehicle-based gameplay), as well as the expense of flying- or rather replacing- an ADS. **Traditional dropships can indeed loiter around, but they lack the firepower of an ADS. They do offer other potential advantages (like a constant stream of reinforcements via an mCRU) though.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game RUST415 533	Posted - 2014.10.18 05:42:00 - [62] - Quote ADS don't need a role, just look at the role tanks have they're av only, you know the blaster tank is av... It can't farm infantry with ease >_____________> Okay so Tanks could easily become the main tool for pushing back installations if the map layout is improved in 1.9 maybe. An idea at least (probably a bad one as usual) is that if we make drop uplinks fail at certain heights (this adversely effects me as I tend to just plop them in stupid places with my dropship so I'm not just out to poop on everyone doing things I dislike.) This paves the way for the dropship CRU meta, which can (and likely will) be somewhere pretty high up (easier to dodge the av and no swarms!!! yay.) The main counter to a dropship so high plopping people down into good places on the map will be the ADS, which also means more ADS required to defend the CRU ship. Now you've got funky aerial battles that have an impact on the overall game, plus no more glitched tower uplinks means people camping up there will need to be more strategic than "oops I missed the dropship, it killed me, respawn with a swarm launcher instead!" Could create more strategy, but who knows. Or we could carry on farming infantry and forcing them to carry av, which then has to down vehicles with ease, which is boring for everyone involved. Will also put an end to me parking a dropship on your glitched uplinks... Which I assume from the hatemail people don't like?
Vicious Minotaur 1234	Posted - 2014.10.18 05:52:00 - [63] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Certainly the purpose of the Hind is to be an attack helicopter, but it can also carry as many as eight people- that's slightly more than what the current, garden-variety Grimsnes/Myron can handle, and anywhere from 2-4 times what the ADS can carry (depending on turret configuration, or lack thereof). I'd say that the term 'gunship' is more apt than 'attack helicopter' in the case of the Hind. (certainly both could apply... but that is unimportant). What is important is figuring out the various roles helicopters play, and transferring those roles to DUST. In DUST, there are different icons for aircraft sizes (light, medium, and heavy). The icons, for reference. I believe that the Huey is comparable to the current regular dropships, which are the light variey. We still need to fill the others (medium and heavy). The Apache, given its small-ish size, higher maneuverability and high firepower, could be translated to the role of an ADS and be classified as a medium aircraft. The Hind, given its large size, lower comparative maneuverability, high armour, firepower and troop transport capabilities, would translate to a gunship, which would be a heavy aircraft. There is absolutely no need to limit things based upon the way things currently are. It is not a matter of only having the regular DS and the ADS. There are more options. Given the above, I'd say that the Apache informing what the ADS becomes is very much appropriate. I am a minotaur.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1963	Posted - 2014.10.18 06:32:00 - [64] - Quote The ADS does not act like the Apache, but my point is that it SHOULD. We have a transport DS, we need an attack one. Personally I think the ADS should be light aircraft, small and maneuverable with some firepower but very fragile. But the point is, regardless of how we use it, CCP has never defined what the ADS, and all vehicles for that matter, are supposed to do. Imagine if there was a dropsuit that kind of had the tank of a sentinel and kind of the ewar of a scout. Too many hats means those hats are all too gimped to be worth it. ADS need one hat to wear, and in my opinion that role should be to attack. Like the Apache. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 23	Posted - 2014.10.18 17:53:00 - [65] - Quote Vicious Minotaur wrote: I'd say that the term 'gunship' is more apt than 'attack helicopter' in the case of the Hind. (certainly both could apply... but that is unimportant). True, the Hind is more accurately described as a "gunship". Vicious Minotaur wrote: What is important is figuring out the various roles helicopters play, and transferring those roles to DUST. In DUST, there are different icons for aircraft sizes (light, medium, and heavy). The icons, for reference. I believe that the Huey is comparable to the current regular dropships, which are the light variey. We still need to fill the others (medium and heavy). The Apache, given its small-ish size, higher maneuverability and high firepower, could be translated to the role of an ADS and be classified as a medium aircraft. I think you may be mistaken; dropships are actually medium aircraft (the slightly filled triangle; a video for reference; ~1:13, upper left corner shows the icon very well). That being said, a dedicated attack aircraft would fit much more nicely as a "light" or a "heavy" vehicle; IMO it's likely that the light archetype would encompass dedicated fighter-analogues, fulfilling missions like air superiority and some ground attack, while the heavy platforms would be more comparable to bombers and large gunships- being generally slower, with either tremendous anti-ground firepower (bombers) or substantial durability and thus loiter time (gunships). Vicious Minotaur wrote: The Hind, given its large size, lower comparative maneuverability, high armour, firepower and troop transport capabilities, would translate to a gunship, which would be a heavy aircraft. There is absolutely no need to limit things based upon the way things currently are. It is not a matter of only having the regular DS and the ADS. There are more options. Given the above, I'd say that the Apache informing what the ADS becomes is very much appropriate. Well, consider that the likely analogue to an actual Apache would be a light aircraft, rather than the medium aircraft that dropships actually are (ref above video, which is from JudgeRhadamanthus' channel), it's very true that the ADS, as a Hind analogue, would be more durable, larger, tougher vehicle with troop transport that isn't as maneuverable, and, for balance reasons wouldn't have as much firepower. Of course, this then leads us straight into the wall of "More Content SOON", so, there's that. Alena Ventrallis wrote: The ADS does not act like the Apache, but my point is that it SHOULD. We have a transport DS, we need an attack one. Personally I think the ADS should be light aircraft, small and maneuverable with some firepower but very fragile. But the point is, regardless of how we use it, CCP has never defined what the ADS, and all vehicles for that matter, are supposed to do. Imagine if there was a dropsuit that kind of had the tank of a sentinel and kind of the ewar of a scout. Too many hats means those hats are all too gimped to be worth it. ADS need one hat to wear, and in my opinion that role should be to attack. Like the Apache. You mean there isn't such a dropsuit already? /eyeroll As I comment above, the ADS is a medium aircraft, just like the current DS is. Quite frankly the ADS as a dedicated, only-does-one-thing attack platform is unappealing to me, and also seems like a step backwards. But again, as per my comments above, we have the issue of not actually having that lighter, more deadly and dedicated attack platform. So we end up with an issue- IMO the ADS is likely going to be slated as a hybrid transport/attack platform in Legion, and if we change it up to be a dedicated attack chassis in DUST, any pilots who migrate to Legion will then be in for a pretty big shock. The other issue, IMO, is that vehicles in general really just need another overhaul. The original design statement we got for 1.7 vehicles was really dropsuit-esque if you think about it; most capabillities- eHP, DPS, etc.- would have been determined by modules fitted (a lot like dropsuits) rather than base hull function. Instead we got... well, what we got was the exact opposite of that. If vehicles had more slots (even just one more in the case of the ADS) there'd be a lot more capability to make vehicles specialized through fitting. This would require some turret variants, but it would accomplish specialization through player interaction. I'd say that that would be far better than what we have now.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1966	Posted - 2014.10.19 01:45:00 - [66] - Quote B ump. I'm interested to hear Judge weigh in. I don't want it I just need it To breath, to feel, to know I'm alive
Flint Beastgood III Carbon 7 Iron Oxide. 598	Posted - 2014.10.19 06:35:00 - [67] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. ^ This sounds good. Real good. Yep


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.