|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
13690
   |
Posted - 2014.10.21 00:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon.....
Gunner: Keep me steady sir.
PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding.
Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?!
"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
13690
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 00:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:True Adamance wrote:I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon.....
Gunner: Keep me steady sir.
PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding.
Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets.
Almost rather see something like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLRbutgJLXs
I don't like this rut vehicle stuff has fallen into, and as these turrets are not just for ADS, y'need something with recoil/weight behind it.
"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
13690
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:True Adamance wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:True Adamance wrote:I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon.....
Gunner: Keep me steady sir.
PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding.
Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets. Almost rather see something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLRbutgJLXsI don't like this rut vehicle stuff has fallen into, and as these turrets are not just for ADS, y'need something with recoil/weight behind it. Throw one of these on an ADS and it would be a real Light-Heavy Vehicle Killer Yeah that's my thought on the 'artillery' arch type for small turrets. Larger ones be more closer to traditional tank cannons. Autocannons just oversized HMGs.
Indeed knowing full well Minmatar use two primary types of Projectile Weapon (Artillery and Autocannon). However I suggets that if this is something you push you tell CCP please don't allow CCP to ever make a Large Turret version (Artillery Large Turret Yes, AutoCannon Large Turret NO)
"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
13690
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
Indeed knowing full well Minmatar use two primary types of Projectile Weapon (Artillery and Autocannon). However I suggets that if this is something you push you tell CCP please don't allow CCP to ever make a Large Turret version.
Large Autocannons should be feasible; slow spin up firing makes it okay at infantry suppression but when it gets really spinning it becomes wasteful on ammo to use on infantry. By then it would feel like being assaulted by an anti armor blaster like weapon as a vehicle. Should probably feature the best up arc viewing though and maybe slightly less range and damage and better rotation speed.
Large Artillery not sure if it should be like a giant mass driver with really low arc and more pain than the railgun can offer or something more tank cannon like with a rapid fire complex.[/quote]
I'm not saying they are not feasible but I think a line in the sand has to be drawn with turrets to break them down into categories.
In the same manner that if I try to fire a Large Pulse Laser at an AB Rifter orbiting me at 500m..... I'm not gonna be able to track it.
IMO
Artillery should be represented by an almost direct fire arc with a long ranged fall off threshold ( 450-550 on Large turrets Yes that far) and represented as a low yield AP warhead with a small AoE, but incredibly high Alpha being either single shot or at max a part of a 3 round chambering.
Auto Cannon (at large turret size) should really take the role of Missile Launchers in this game. High DPS, moderate reloads, strong AOE, individually weak rounds with very short fall off's that arc like the only PLC rounds did.
For the smaller turrets the manner in which you described the AutoCannon is perfect.
However all turrets sizes really need to have standardised tracking values.
"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
13693
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 02:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:CommanderBolt wrote:Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea!
Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles....
You know its a great idea Rather have the gunship armed in such manner. The de facto Air to Ground weapon.
AT some point I want to corner a CPM in a dark corner of Skype and talk about how they perceive the current state and role, or lack there of, regarding vehicles.
"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
13693
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 02:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short.
BASICALLY.. you ADS pilots are trying to be slayers when your actually support.. Transport.. and "air support" NOT "Air to air superiority" and not "Air to ground superiority"
Not so much that its that CCP shoe horned the ADS into a role that was other wise designed for the Helicopter/Gunship.
Beyond that until recently they never stated that ADS were supposed to be aggressive deployment units.
They've not yet specified that Gunships are to be a real role, and most people specced into ADS for the Gunship role, or so I assume.
"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
13703
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 04:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Victor Moody Stahl wrote:
Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now.
Debatable.
"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
13721
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease.
Lore wise the HAV are suppose to anchor ground assaults and take down low flying vessels like MCC...... your point?
"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
13722
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. They certainly swiss cheese the hell out of the preclone tech.
No they don't. Lore wise the Swiss do not exist.
As such no cheese is named after them.
"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
13725
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Victor Moody Stahl wrote:True Adamance wrote:Victor Moody Stahl wrote:
Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now.
Debatable. I'd like to know what you consider debatable and why you consider it to be debatable. Since I'm not a serious tanker, and am a bad (and also poor) ADS/derpship pilot, I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I'll admit to being good at theorycrafting (until someone smarter than I am comes along, of course), but my practical experience- as far as vehicle go- is generally limited to "I'm new and bad at xyz".
Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content.
Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to.
"We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|