DUST Search - [Idea] Concerning ADS

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Idea] Concerning ADS

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:06:00 - [1] - Quote I very well realize this was mentioned before but, as myself being an ADS pilot, I'd like to discuss this idea I've been seeing an awful lot. : Firstly, To Classify : * Now seeing as how the standard DS is and will have a classified role of a Transport Dropship, Having that particular role of being Transport, it makes sense as to why it has Seats, and Gunner Seats. Seats for Transport & Gunner Seats for Protecting the exiting infantry. Now, as for the Assault Dropship : * It should not have any normal seats what so ever, It's not a Transport DS * It should also not have Gunner Seating. Although It is an Assault DS, the extra gunner seating makes no sense at all and actually will make it harder to give the ADS a role. Why Take off all the Extra and Gunner Seating : * Because It's not a Transport DS It's an Assault DS * Take the gunner seats away because the ADS is perfectly capable of destroying many vehicles on it's own. I have taken on many Pythons, Incubi, Tanks, Infantry. Given the damage mods you can fit on the ADS & The Increased RoF Skill it should not have extra seating. Lastly The New ADS Specs: * The ADS should have slight increased due to the loss of the turrets. * You should be able to control the ADS turret slightly to make strafe runs possible * The ADS should have some Type of Lock on Warning System * It should have slight increased PG/CPU Incubus: CPU From 515 to 545 PG From 1055 to 10850 Python: CPU From 760 to 790 PG From 810 to 840 The Role of the new Assault Dropships would be to scatter and/or kill enemy infantry on highly contested areas, Take on Enemy Assault Dropships, and depending on how properly fitted the Tank is, to take on enemy tanks as well.
Kaeru Nayiri OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 369	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:26:00 - [2] - Quote I completely disagree. I have gunners that have skilled up in Python and Incubus -just- to be gunners in my assault dropship. Millions of SP and coordination required for very satisfying and rewarding gameplay and you want to throw it out the window. :(
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:44:00 - [3] - Quote It's not really necessary. Too much firepower for an ADS. If they do go along removing it their skills will obviously be refunded.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5500	Posted - 2014.12.20 01:14:00 - [4] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: It's not really necessary. Too much firepower for an ADS. If they do go along removing it their skills will obviously be refunded. Where does it say single gun pilot controlled only in the description? Only4-5KDRpubbiesCanRunADV24/7\|PCplyrsRunPRO&smashSTD/MLTplyrs24/7. ThisIsHowIt'sAlwaysBeen,ThereforeMustStayThisWay.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.20 02:28:00 - [5] - Quote I'm obviously proposing a recreation of the ADS, you bum
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1166	Posted - 2014.12.20 03:56:00 - [6] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: I'd like to discuss this idea I've been seeing an awful lot. I don't think we've been seeing this suggestion the same amount. Frankly, yours is the first time I've seen it in quite a while! Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: * It should not have any normal seats what so ever, It's not a Transport DS * Because It's not a Transport DS It's an Assault DS It is not a Transport DS, you are correct, but it is a DS. As far as transporting troops is concerned, the TDS is superior: it has the same top speed (with a slower acceleration) and carries more infantry with a tougher hull, with greater fitting capacity (more, lower level modules amount to more effectiveness than less, higher level modules.) Your notion that because it is an Assault DS makes it invalid to carry any troops carries as much weight as suggesting that because an LAV is a Light Attack Vehicle (seriously, go look at the in-game description: that's what LAV means) it shouldn't have a passenger seat, and that there should be a Light Transport Vehicle that has no turret and more seats. A parallel with infantry: an Assault Dropsuit has less equipment than a Logistics Dropsuit. Surely, by applying similar logic, the Logistics should either have no weapon; or the Assault should have no equipment. Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: Firstly, To Classify : * Now seeing as how the standard DS is and will have a classified role of a Transport Dropship, Having that particular role of being Transport, it makes sense as to why it has Seats, and Gunner Seats. Seats for Transport & Gunner Seats for Protecting the exiting infantry. Assuming agreement with the above, "it's not a Transport DS, it's an Assault DS" the surely, by that same logic the Transport DS shouldn't have guns? Ah, but of course, it makes sense for the TDS to have some firepower; similarly it makes sense for the ADS to have some transport capability. Removing all transportation capability is trying to turn the ADS into a pure gunship, which it is not. I could see an argument for removing the side guns (I strongly disagree, as I'll state below) or the passenger seats, but you seem to be focusing far too heavily on the word 'Assault' and not the word 'Dropship.' Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: * It should also not have Gunner Seating. Although It is an Assault DS, the extra gunner seating makes no sense at all and actually will make it harder to give the ADS a role. * Take the gunner seats away because the ADS is perfectly capable of destroying many vehicles on it's own. I have taken on many Pythons, Incubi, Tanks, Infantry. Given the damage mods you can fit on the ADS & The Increased RoF Skill it should not have extra seating. While skill stacking makes certain things overpowered (pre-nerf ADSs with pilot stacking were insanely OP) that is not the basis we should be going off: either the stacking is a bug/oversight and not supposed to be part of the game; or it is part of the game and should be balanced in and of itself, rendering any stacking argument moot. As far as gunners making the ADS too powerful: how, then, does that impact upon HAVs with small turrets? Sentinels with Logistics support? Any coordination whatsoever? Essentially, a 2-merc/3-merc ADS is sacrificing mobility (in that multiple players are occupied in one location) and flexibility (a multi-gun ADS is sacrificing a lot of fitting to fill those turret slots, making them more offensively oriented and far more vulnerable defensively.) Are those sacrifices not steep enough? I often fly with Pvt Numnutz, who runs a triple XT-1 Python: that fit is far less survivable than my solo fit Python, but together we are more effective (and not down to the skill stacking - which I would happily remove, if I could!) because there are two players working in concert. Quite frankly, the ADS has a limited fitting already, which is one of the ways in which a multi-gun ADS is not overpowered (assuming balance for turrets, AV, etc is done reasonably.) Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1166	Posted - 2014.12.20 03:57:00 - [7] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: * The ADS should have slight increased due to the loss of the turrets. * It should have slight increased PG/CPU As above, part of the interaction between multi-turret ADSs and solo ADSs is the fitting: a solo fit has more room for fitting than a multi-turret one; that means that the solo fit has either more survivability (very likely) or more firepower (unlikely; due to the fact that ADSs rarely have the survivability to remain anywhere for long anyway.) Considering that the solo fit ADS already has the advantage in fitting, I see no reason why you would suggest a fitting buff with this change, other than it being ill thought out proposal. Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: * You should be able to control the ADS turret slightly to make strafe runs possible I assume you mean in first person? Yes, but this has nothing to do with solo/multi fit ADSs, and I see no particular reason why you would bring this up in this proposal. Yes, it's something that would be a good quality of life proposal for ADSs in general, but this has nothing to do with your intended seat/turret modifications and thus should be relegated to a separate thread. Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: * The ADS should have some Type of Lock on Warning System As above, this should be something entirely separate. Unless you are proposing that only ADSs should have a lock-on warning, and not TDSs/all vehicles? That notion I, personally, greatly dislike. All vehicles should the capacity to have a lock-on warning with any exceptions having particular lore reasons (they have used that tech for something else; can't fit it because of whatever propulsion; etc.) Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: The Role of the new Assault Dropships would be to scatter and/or kill enemy infantry on highly contested areas, Take on Enemy Assault Dropships, and depending on how properly fitted the Tank is, to take on enemy tanks as well. Essentially, you feel that the ADS should become a gunship: I strongly disagree. There is room in the game for both. An Assault *Dropship* is capable of supporting ground troops with improved firepower over the normal DS but when it comes to transportation it is inferior. If anything, the only change I would consider from this sort of proposal would be to alter the number of passenger slots - but not remove them entirely - and even then I'm not certain I agree. Baseline is: TDS has superior resilience and transport capacity. ADS has superior firepower and mobility. I do not feel that this differentiation needs to be changed. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.20 04:20:00 - [8] - Quote I simply proposed modifying the current ADS as I'd only assume it would make it completely easier on the Devs than to completely add another Vehicle and balance that. edit: and proposed this to finally give the "ADS" a new role. As people have a hard time finding one for it.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1169	Posted - 2014.12.20 04:21:00 - [9] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: I simply proposed modifying the current ADS as I'd only assume it would make it completely easier on the Devs than to completely add another Vehicle and balance that. I can understand that, but what you're proposing is not a modification of the ADS, it's entirely reclassifying it as a Gunship. ADS and Gunship are entirely different and not mutually exclusive. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.20 04:23:00 - [10] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: I simply proposed modifying the current ADS as I'd only assume it would make it completely easier on the Devs than to completely add another Vehicle and balance that. I can understand that, but what you're proposing is not a modification of the ADS, it's entirely reclassifying it as a Gunship. ADS and Gunship are entirely different and not mutually exclusive. It's a loose term the way I use it. By doing these changes I feel that the "ADS" will have a place and role.

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1169	Posted - 2014.12.20 04:37:00 - [11] - Quote Then let me ask you this: where is the Dropship in the ADS after your proposal? Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.20 05:12:00 - [12] - Quote There won't be a Dropship. I'm completely redefining the role by doing this, thusly giving the players something to tinker around with furthermore and making the ADS an AS.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1171	Posted - 2014.12.20 05:21:00 - [13] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: There won't be a Dropship. I'm completely redefining the role by doing this, thusly giving the players something to tinker around with furthermore and making the ADS an AS. Then I fundamentally disagree with your entire proposal. The ADS is a Dropship and thus should have transportation capability. An AS is a gunship and should be designed from the ground up to operate differently. Use the same art assets and such, that's fine, but it quite simply doesn't work the same way an ADS should and parallels should be minimal. An ADS is air support for ground troops, vastly more so than a TDS; an AS is more targeted destruction and while fundamentally air support, it is not directly linked to the movement of ground troops. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.20 05:27:00 - [14] - Quote If you want something with transport capability then go fly a TDS.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1172	Posted - 2014.12.20 05:40:00 - [15] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: If you want something with transport capability then go fly a TDS. Except, I'm flying my ADS. An Assault Dropship is not what you are suggesting and there is no reason an ADS cannot be a balanced part of the game. Perhaps it needs to further sacrifice transport capacity (I disagree, but that's a possibility) but you and I obviously strongly disagree on the role and presence of the ADS. You want something fundamentally different to the ADS and for the ADS to cease to exist. I, and apparently others in this thread, disagree. A TDS being the only transport DS is, in my opinion, a mistake. Real life parallels are tricky to use, but in this case I feel it is appropriate: we have many different types of helicopters. We have gunships like the AH-64 Apache and the Mil Mi-24 'Hind' which have no transport capability and heavy firepower; we also have the transport helicopters like the CH-54 (essentially an RDV) and the HC3 Chinook which is essentially the TDS without the firepower; we also have MH-60A Black Hawk which has transportation capacity and additional firepower to support. Essentially, there is a huge variance in the design of Dropships where both the TDS, ADS and your proposed AS would all fit: they would each only be somewhat different and each would have strengths and weaknesses. The ADS is pretty much the middle ground between the TDS and an AS. Your opinion is your own, and good luck with your suggestion, but you have yet to garner any support for your notion, which leads me to believe you are relatively alone in this situation. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Apocalyptic Destroyerr Shining Flame Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2014.12.20 05:49:00 - [16] - Quote Tell me, have you ever flown one ? I am not proposing a change to the TDS at all, only the current ADS. As far as I know nobody knows what role should the ADS play not even the Devs know. What I just proposed could change all that.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1172	Posted - 2014.12.20 05:58:00 - [17] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: Tell me, have you ever flown one ? An ADS? A TDS? Or an actual helicopter? Yes to the first two, no to the helicopter. Apocalyptic Destroyerr wrote: I am not proposing a change to the TDS at all, only the current ADS. As far as I know nobody knows what role should the ADS play not even the Devs know. What I just proposed could change all that. I understand that you're not changing the TDS, but I also feel that there is no reason to remove the ADS. Implement the AS all you want, it's a perfectly reasonable notion, but the ADS is not without merit. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
DUST Fiend Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 15518	Posted - 2014.12.20 10:22:00 - [18] - Quote Teamwork should be rewarded and encouraged, not punished and prohibited Flight Academy coming soon(tm) to my YouTube WoD 514
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5885	Posted - 2014.12.20 11:18:00 - [19] - Quote Bad idea from the outset. What you want is a fighter jet. Not a glorified blackhawk with a gun jimmied onto the nose. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.


Pages: [1] :: 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.