DUST Search - [ALL CALL] Dropship pilots

All Channels

General Discussions

[ALL CALL] Dropship pilots

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6347	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:18:00 - [1] - Quote I need dropship pilots who are familiar with both Chromosome build dropships and with the current ones. One of the proposals on the table for vehicles is a reversion to chromosome vehicles and AV. I remember that Dropships were basically target practice, and they weren't really viable except as a one-way trip. I need people who are familiar with the weaknesses of the chrome dropships to look at the stats posted here and provide feedback on how to make the chrome ships less squishy, and keep a similar TTK to today. All possible solutions are on the table from tweaking base resistances, to increasing fitting and/or slots. I would like to be able to provide a FULL proposal that includes having dropship pilots being more than incidental victims. If you have input, post it here EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 227	Posted - 2015.01.17 04:16:00 - [2] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I need dropship pilots who are familiar with both Chromosome build dropships and with the current ones. One of the proposals on the table for vehicles is a reversion to chromosome vehicles and AV. I remember that Dropships were basically target practice, and they weren't really viable except as a one-way trip. I need people who are familiar with the weaknesses of the chrome dropships to look at the stats posted here and provide feedback on how to make the chrome ships less squishy, and keep a similar TTK to today. All possible solutions are on the table from tweaking base resistances, to increasing fitting and/or slots. I would like to be able to provide a FULL proposal that includes having dropship pilots being more than incidental victims. If you have input, post it here Chromosome dropships were horrible... They were shot out the sky with 1 shot from militia forge guns and swarms a like. The controls were bad, and players who were pilots would fly away from 99% everything. Not to mention the controller and dropship physics were extremely bad compared to what things are now. You might want to rethink this thought you are having and read older threads. Uprising has been the only time dropships have been actually decent. Codex and Chromosome dropship builds were dark days for dropships. There is nothing worth going back in grabbing from those dropships of Codex and Chromosome. It would be more feasible for CCP to finish what they started with vehicles, and add A/V along with it. Swarms current speed along with their turning speed needs to be tweaked further. Also there needs to be an absolute feature to where swarms can no longer chase a vehicle. An example would be if swarms have to turn 180-¦ that they will explode premature, or loose tracking, making them continue on their current course until they crash into something. Forge Gun's damage needs to be looked into and evaluated against HAV's and the rest of the different vehicle types. The forge gun should be strong but its damage output should not surpass large turrets. HAV's need some physics adjustments and limitations along as to how they take damage when rolling around environment. Example would be HAV's falling from extremely high places and not getting destroyed. Another for HAV's is they need a serious look over on their module lay out possibilities with PG and CPU spent, along with Health points pool. HAV's acceleration needs adjusting. An example is take the dropship for example. It is suppose to be the fastest vehicle but it is not able to stop and go easily. The HAV does not suffer from this issue. LAV's need some maximum speed decrease, but their acceleration should be the highest of the current three type of vehicles. The rear turret wouldn't hurt from having a forward facing shield to protect the gunner from wherever they are facing either and perhaps reintroducing Logistic LAV's back but without turrets on the back, but perhaps deployable equipment meant for assisting infantry, proposed by Manboar. Dropships biggest issue at the moment is turret performance and how Turrets work on dropships. This issue has always existed since the beginning of the introduction of dropships. First it was only the blaster that performed great compared to the other two. Missiles use to be plagued with horrible hit detection, and prediction patterns. the rail turret has never been bug free. In the past the small rail was cursed with bad hit detection, and now with an unusual hit detection if the player manually reloads. Dropships need turrets to behave better or better yet give them their own class of turrets. Turrets will never work the same as they do for ground vehicles which is the hugest issue why they have so many issues with it. They are trying to uniform turrets across aerial vehicles and ground vehicles. Everything that would make vehicles great and balanced has been staring at CCP as a whole for a very long time but they have always avoided with accepting these things as the truth to whats the issue with vehicles. Dropship, A/V, LAV, & HAV proposals are all over the forums. Many bad but there are also just as many good ones that are often the ones never commented or acknowledge by CCP or the CPM's. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1129	Posted - 2015.01.17 04:19:00 - [3] - Quote it wasnt much of a build problem but mechanics. There was no WP for DMG, transporting, etc all those things we have now. The main thing was that turret worked better back thing. There was no snap resets, or random rotations. I dont think the turret caused the derpship to lose control either though i could be wrong. Also that link is focused on HAV not derpships -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 264	Posted - 2015.01.17 05:08:00 - [4] - Quote Chromosome was before my day but the CPM who shall not be named raises some good points about how resistances can be used to balance AV/vehicles Airbourne DUST - The Problem With Swarms
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6531	Posted - 2015.01.17 05:13:00 - [5] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: it wasnt much of a build problem but mechanics. There was no WP for DMG, transporting, etc all those things we have now. The main thing was that turret worked better back thing. There was no snap resets, or random rotations. I dont think the turret caused the derpship to lose control either though i could be wrong. Also that link is focused on HAV not derpships What part of "I need dropship input to unscrew the dropship numbers" do you fail to comprehend? It's going to stay focused on HAVs until I get some data and help with numbers. So far not one damn dropship pilot has provided useful feedback. In case you were curious: useful=actionable. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15115	Posted - 2015.01.17 05:51:00 - [6] - Quote These Dropship Pilots have a natural habitat known to some as "1st Airborne". If you would like to encounter one, that place would be your best bet. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
DUST Fiend duna corp 15573	Posted - 2015.01.17 06:41:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: it wasnt much of a build problem but mechanics. There was no WP for DMG, transporting, etc all those things we have now. The main thing was that turret worked better back thing. There was no snap resets, or random rotations. I dont think the turret caused the derpship to lose control either though i could be wrong. Also that link is focused on HAV not derpships What part of "I need dropship input to unscrew the dropship numbers" do you fail to comprehend? It's going to stay focused on HAVs until I get some data and help with numbers. So far not one damn dropship pilot has provided useful feedback. In case you were curious: useful=actionable. I dont mess with numbers anymore, especially not before something exists. Too much wasted effort and useless hoping. Im in a perpetual state of "cant ******* record dust" otherwise id make videos, but I only post ideas if they intrigue me. The whole system is shot because AV parity doesnt exist, so rolling armor is a pain, and if anti shield AV is as strong then vehicles will be totally screwed, and AV would need a nerf. A possible solution would be to add a 4% native resist to shields or armor per level of ADS, sort of like we had in the before time. This would only work with AV parity because otherwise shields OP. I cant hope for CCP to make a big push to elevate their game, so I sit by with popcorn and amuse myself. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6535	Posted - 2015.01.17 07:25:00 - [8] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: it wasnt much of a build problem but mechanics. There was no WP for DMG, transporting, etc all those things we have now. The main thing was that turret worked better back thing. There was no snap resets, or random rotations. I dont think the turret caused the derpship to lose control either though i could be wrong. Also that link is focused on HAV not derpships What part of "I need dropship input to unscrew the dropship numbers" do you fail to comprehend? It's going to stay focused on HAVs until I get some data and help with numbers. So far not one damn dropship pilot has provided useful feedback. In case you were curious: useful=actionable. I dont mess with numbers anymore, especially not before something exists. Too much wasted effort and useless hoping. Im in a perpetual state of "cant ***** record dust" otherwise id make videos, but I only post ideas if they intrigue me. The whole system is shot because AV parity doesnt exist, so rolling armor is a pain, and if anti shield AV is as strong then vehicles will be totally screwed, and AV would need a nerf. A possible solution would be to add a 4% native resist to shields or armor per level of ADS, sort of like we had in the before time. This would only work with AV parity because otherwise shields OP. I cant hope for CCP to make a big push to elevate their game, so I sit by with popcorn and amuse myself. Remember chrome? You remember my forge gun obnoxia? My intent is to find a method of making an ADS eat two triple modded IAFG forge gun shots before having to worry about crashing. I realize the old shenanigans aren't fun, so im taking them into account. Example, back in the deep dak past I seem to recall you daying the myron and grimses needed about 30% cpu/pg buff to be viable vs av as more than clay pigeons. That accomodation has been included in my numbers. The militia have been similarly buffed by 15%. I'm serious when I say I'm not fking around here. I refuse to submit final proposal numbers where the meta is "dropships fall from the sky like 30 ton hailstones 30 seconds after launch." So if you nerds can help me math these things into something resembling a playable form, everyone wins. Yes I remember almost everything everyone says. Including the standard arguments between AV and V. Especially when the concerns are valid, even when I'm giving those concerned a hard time. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1262	Posted - 2015.01.17 09:03:00 - [9] - Quote Just to poke my head in to say I'll help, but brain is currently mushy, so won't be til tomorrow at the earliest. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6539	Posted - 2015.01.17 10:40:00 - [10] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Just to poke my head in to say I'll help, but brain is currently mushy, so won't be til tomorrow at the earliest. Fair. I won't be off work till 9 am eastern time anyway. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Leovarian L Lavitz NECROM0NGERS 1321	Posted - 2015.01.17 10:57:00 - [11] - Quote a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure Omni-Soldier Few are my equal in these specialties, none compare in all of them
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 11:01:00 - [12] - Quote Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 190	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:05:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. Last vehicle that could was the triple rep maddy prior to the rep nerf. Not sure about quad rep grimsness tanking triple mod IAFG. Purifier. First Class.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2833	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:19:00 - [14] - Quote Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage. Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up. I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16645	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:38:00 - [15] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. That's because in the current balance of things its impossible. I've had people assert that Madrugars can rep between 500-750 armour per second when the maximum that you can fit is something 312.5 rep sec. This build you can manage about 337.5 rep sec on a Grimsnes using 3x Complex Reppers and 1x Enhanced (this enhanced was assuming max fitting skills and to fit and ADV railgun and afterburner). *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:40:00 - [16] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage. Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up. I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect. 1.7 was worthless from a balance perspective. The balance was utter trash. I'm not reiterating that fiasco. I'm focusing more on things like allowing standard dropships to fit 120mm plates and better extenders more easily. If the dropships instapop from AV then they're useless. If you think I'm going to submit numbers that allow a fully skilled dropship to die to solo AV without a significant expenditure of effort you're delusional. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 908	Posted - 2015.01.17 13:30:00 - [17] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. It is true. A single Swarmer will not out-dps a quadruple-repped Grimsnes. Just like a quadruple-boosted Myron will laugh at a Swarmer. But a damage amped railgun will smite both of these. I've run the numbers for the current build up, down, back again and sideways. I'm supremely happy with non-assault DS as "light aerial vehicles" right now, except for the fitting cost of afterburners, which I will likely post a thread on today.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2835	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:00:00 - [18] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage. Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up. I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect. 1.7 was worthless from a balance perspective. The balance was utter trash. I'm not reiterating that fiasco. I'm focusing more on things like allowing standard dropships to fit 120mm plates and better extenders more easily. If the dropships instapop from AV then they're useless. If you think I'm going to submit numbers that allow a fully skilled dropship to die to solo AV without a significant expenditure of effort you're delusional. Post-1.7 has not been as bad as you and everyone else has made it out to be. In fact, vehicle balance has been about a balanced as it's ever been. Sure there are some things awry, but I believe they're nothing more than number or mechanic changes. The only other complaint people have is that there isn't much versatility, which can easily be amended by reintroducing mods as needed. The current model is a much better starting point for balance than pre1.7 would be. Standard DSs aren't much of a problem, if you ask me. I've made acceptable fits for both and only really have trouble with multiple AVers (which is fine with me). The biggest problems are the turrets which are still a bit buggy and the hardener animation with blocks the view of the gunners. Other than that there's not much else to complain about. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:16:00 - [19] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage. Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up. I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect. 1.7 was worthless from a balance perspective. The balance was utter trash. I'm not reiterating that fiasco. I'm focusing more on things like allowing standard dropships to fit 120mm plates and better extenders more easily. If the dropships instapop from AV then they're useless. If you think I'm going to submit numbers that allow a fully skilled dropship to die to solo AV without a significant expenditure of effort you're delusional. Post-1.7 has not been as bad as you and everyone else has made it out to be. In fact, vehicle balance has been about a balanced as it's ever been. Sure there are some things awry, but I believe they're nothing more than number or mechanic changes. The only other complaint people have is that there isn't much versatility, which can easily be amended by reintroducing mods as needed. The current model is a much better starting point for balance than pre1.7 would be. Standard DSs aren't much of a problem, if you ask me. I've made acceptable fits for both and only really have trouble with multiple AVers (which is fine with me). The biggest problems are the turrets which are still a bit buggy and the hardener animation with blocks the view of the gunners. Other than that there's not much else to complain about. Post 1.7 I will be judiciously stealing what works. 1.7 itself can die in a fire. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Nonoriri ko Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 38	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:25:00 - [20] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: Swarms current speed along with their turning speed needs to be tweaked further. Also there needs to be an absolute feature to where swarms can no longer chase a vehicle. An example would be if swarms have to turn 180-¦ that they will explode premature, or loose tracking, making them continue on their current course until they crash into something. I believe tweaking swarms further one way or another doesn't resolve what pilots want in general. Rockets are supposed to fly fast, and far. That is their job. If you want to limit them why have them at all? There are flying ships in Dust514, infantry cannot fly. If there were no rockets to take them down, they could fly all they want without worries of being taken down. Pilots hate that there is a counter to flying ships. But that is balance. If you want to limit the time a swarm rocket can fly, do we do the same for ships? Limit how long they can fly? If you apply real world physics to rockets such as only having so much fuel, does not the same apply to the flying ships themselves? What pilots want is a counter to 3 or more different swarms coming their way. A more sane approach to all this would be to add anti-missile chaff defenses. An option like adding a scanner, for example, taking up a slot. Chaff could have charges like an explosive has. When swarms are coming your way, they could be deployed to absorb some or all of them. Having a finite amount would be balanced, as it could help stave off 2 or 3 swarms, but if the pilot hangs around anymore it would be dangerous. Before 1.7, ads pilots could hit afterburners and fly straight up, faster than the swarms chasing them. It was a broken system where swarms could not do their job, a turtle chasing a rabbit. This was why the swarms speed was increased, it was a fix.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6544	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:37:00 - [21] - Quote After having poked at swarm mechanics I can safely say I hate them. I can balance for dumb fire. I can balance for "hold the lock." This fire and forget makes it very hard to just number crunch that crap. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 909	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:42:00 - [22] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: After having poked at swarm mechanics I can safely say I hate them. I can balance for dumb fire. I can balance for "hold the lock." This fire and forget makes it very hard to just number crunch that crap. Are you aware of the number-crunching in this thread? The hotfix delta scenario discussed there is pretty much what went into the final patch, if I didn't miss anything while looking at it for 30 seconds. I like them. Swarms vs DS is not about thumb twiddling skills, it's about positioning and awareness. Thumb-twiddling is used in a IAFG vs DS fight.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6546	Posted - 2015.01.17 15:12:00 - [23] - Quote What I mean is swwarms are a binary equation based on positioning. If you can launch while almost directly under the belly it'spushing foregone conclusion. Minmando reload speeds mean jack on a three shot splash. But a hold the lock setup would allow better control for both the swarm gunner and pilot. I'm not saying I hate swarms by concept or even implementation. I hate crunching the numbers on them because the "always hit" aspect makes my brain crack when fiddling with numbers. Yes I realize always hits is an exaggeration. It's just a pain in the ass. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 227	Posted - 2015.01.17 15:40:00 - [24] - Quote Nonoriri ko wrote: Gabriella Grey wrote: Swarms current speed along with their turning speed needs to be tweaked further. Also there needs to be an absolute feature to where swarms can no longer chase a vehicle. An example would be if swarms have to turn 180-¦ that they will explode premature, or loose tracking, making them continue on their current course until they crash into something. I believe tweaking swarms further one way or another doesn't resolve what pilots want in general. Rockets are supposed to fly fast, and far. That is their job. "If you want to limit them why have them at all? There are flying ships in Dust514, infantry cannot fly. If there were no rockets to take them down, they could fly all they want without worries of being taken down." First did you not forget that vehicles interact with each other as well? Flying high opens most dropships, fitted to take out infantry and ground vehicles, in high altitudes makes them prey for A/V dropships to wipe them out of the sky easily. Limiting the swarms turning radius further is needed. The intentions for swarm balance and pilots is for pilots to have a chance in loosing swarms if the pilot knows what they are doing. I will not dwell very deep into this as this has been stated in numerous other post by many pilots prior to the swarm and afterburner changes. The geometry equation for loosing swarms as it stands does not exist. In simple terms the goal I am referring to only apply to how swarms will react to extreme sharp turns when missing the dropship. Currently causing swarms to miss is not there. If CCP does not want to add things such as flight instruments, this is a great fix. Though the turning radius of swarms at there current speed of velocity does not work quite yet to CCP's goal. "Pilots hate that there is a counter to flying ships. But that is balance. If you want to limit the time a swarm rocket can fly, do we do the same for ships? Limit how long they can fly? If you apply real world physics to rockets such as only having so much fuel, does not the same apply to the flying ships themselves?" This is a personal opinion and not facts, I am dealing with facts on balancing 1 vehicle vs 1 infantry scenario. My personal opinion, for however much it is worth, I welcome interaction with A/V but it is no fun if I can not engage infantry when being shot at. "What pilots want is a counter to 3 or more different swarms coming their way. A more sane approach to all this would be to add anti-missile chaff defenses. An option like adding a scanner, for example, taking up a slot. Chaff could have charges like an explosive has. When swarms are coming your way, they could be deployed to absorb some or all of them. Having a finite amount would be balanced, as it could help stave off 2 or 3 swarms, but if the pilot hangs around anymore it would be dangerous." implementing a chaff or flare system has been spoken before. Most systems that have this are very limited as to how many times you can do this. Implementing this in the games current state would require an serious over-haul for how swarms work now more than what I have proposed. I wouldn't want infinite anti measures. Where is the fun and challenge from that? "Before 1.7, ads pilots could hit afterburners and fly straight up, faster than the swarms chasing them. It was a broken system where swarms could not do their job, a turtle chasing a rabbit. This was why the swarms speed was increased, it was a fix." The only time dropships had an extreme acceleration was around 2 implementations directly after Uprising was released. There was some swarm changes along with how the afterburners operated as well. Other than that Afterburners were not touched other than the extended cool down they now have and the bug to where militia and basic afterburners had the wrong stats than they should have had. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6550	Posted - 2015.01.17 15:51:00 - [25] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: This is a personal opinion and not facts, I am dealing with facts on balancing 1 vehicle vs 1 infantry scenario. My personal opinion, for however much it is worth, I welcome interaction with A/V but it is no fun if I can not engage infantry when being shot at. This pretty much sums up why I want dropship info for my proposal. Unfortunately, in order to DO anything, I need ideas for hard numbers. There's this thing, called math. I'm actually pretty good at it. I would like to utilize it in your favor, because I'd like to not return to casually destroying dropships because they're unfortunate enough to be seen. I'd much rather it be because they're a threat, strategically or tactically. If I recall from chrome one of the biggest gripes for dropships was fitting. I'm remembering the CPU/PG enhancement mods being pretty much mandatory which cut into survivability. Am I misremembering? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Leovarian L Lavitz NECROM0NGERS 1322	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:18:00 - [26] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. Challenge all you want, it's the truth. I had Attim forge gunning me while I chilled over him, just to let him know he couldn't shoot me down. This was a few weeks ago when I had specced vehicles. It took him plus a second AV to chase me off, it wasn't until there were three full AVers on the enemy team plus rail turrets that I was shot down. Attiim ended the match with around 5k warpoints from forging me :( Omni-Soldier Few are my equal in these specialties, none compare in all of them
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 265	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:31:00 - [27] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. It is true. A single Swarmer will not out-dps a quadruple-repped Grimsnes. Just like a quadruple-boosted Myron will laugh at a Swarmer. But a damage amped railgun will smite both of these. I've run the numbers for the current build up, down, back again and sideways. I'm supremely happy with non-assault DS as "light aerial vehicles" right now, except for the fitting cost of afterburners, which I will likely post a thread on today. I would agree that the non-assault are in a decent place, they have enough slots & CPU/PG to create some interesting fits
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 227	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:36:00 - [28] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Gabriella Grey wrote: This is a personal opinion and not facts, I am dealing with facts on balancing 1 vehicle vs 1 infantry scenario. My personal opinion, for however much it is worth, I welcome interaction with A/V but it is no fun if I can not engage infantry when being shot at. This pretty much sums up why I want dropship info for my proposal. Unfortunately, in order to DO anything, I need ideas for hard numbers. There's this thing, called math. I'm actually pretty good at it. I would like to utilize it in your favor, because I'd like to not return to casually destroying dropships because they're unfortunate enough to be seen. I'd much rather it be because they're a threat, strategically or tactically. If I recall from chrome one of the biggest gripes for dropships was fitting. I'm remembering the CPU/PG enhancement mods being pretty much mandatory which cut into survivability. Am I misremembering? Hard numbers are easy to produce. 1n+ÅGâú Anywhere from 60 to 90 meters is where the dropship can see the swarm launcher user. 2n+ÅGâú We are dealing with intersecting paths so 90 degree angle is your starting point on possibilities to how much the swarm can turn while the dropship is moving at top speed. 3n+ÅGâú To accompany angle of approach (90 degrees), you now need to figure out the time it takes 1 volley of swarms to hit its target after being shot from 60 to 90 meters away. *Judge Rhadamanthus has a youtube video that has some speed of trajectory numbers for swarms that can start you off. It should be entitled something like "Balancing Swarms," done before our most recent update to swarms vs dropships.* 4n+ÅGâú Download or look at the maps provided by CCP that are on grids. As it stands the best dropship, an ADS dropship, can turn roughly around in 4 squares on the grid with an afterburner active. Example: E1, F1, E2, F2. The goal is to find a comfortable number for swarms, this will then allow fun interaction between the two. There will then be an absolute number for volley of swarms that the dropship can contend with before forced to flee. This will make the two type of dropships have more meaning to their rolls as well. Logistics and standard dropships will be able to dodge swarms without the need of the afterburner, but multiple fired swarm volleys will be difficult for these dropship variants. The ADS will be able to be more aggressive against swarm users to support team mates on the ground. Combined with the afterburner it will give them the advantage over the bulkier dropship to linger around the area while continuing to avoid the swarms from hitting. On the dropship issues before Uprising, I have always been a pure dropship pilot. PG and CPU modules were rarely used. When I would fly Gallante dropships I would fit an Shield Extender on the highs, along with an afterburner, and on the low slots I would have an active armor repair module, 60mm plate, active armor hardener, and the last would depend on if I placed an afterburner in the high slot. If I did I would add another 60mm armor plate or Passive torque module. (Which were amazing modules by the way)! If the torque module was in the last low slot then I would simply add another light shield extender or damage control module. The biggest issue was survivability with dropships back then. A/V and HAV's were so powerful with the amount of damage and range, dropships could not survive if they were targeted or moved towards active areas. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:39:00 - [29] - Quote My goal is to find fitting numbers for the Python and Incubus that will allow them to field a sufficient tank to not get instapopped by every jackass with an AV gun and and opportunity automatically. My proposal uses chrome vehicles with today's swarm launchers, because Damn. And I figured out how to convert over the PG/CPU which I was stuck on, given that the chrome module resource costs were cheaper. Might be a little overgenerous with the fittings (my proposal re-introduces bonused vehicle skills), but better that than easy meat. Incubus should be able to put on a 120 MM plate and some support fittings, the Python should be able to get decent shield tank in. My goal is not to fix the swarms, my goal is to make dropships not die when hit by an IAFG (chromosome base stats, so hitting well over 2k with skills/mods)in any less than 3 shots (4 for the flying brick transports). I'm also going to recommend an acceleration buff for dropships to try to get up to speed to dodge fire. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 227	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:02:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: My goal is to find fitting numbers for the Python and Incubus that will allow them to field a sufficient tank to not get instapopped by every jackass with an AV gun and and opportunity automatically. My proposal uses chrome vehicles with today's swarm launchers, because Damn. And I figured out how to convert over the PG/CPU which I was stuck on, given that the chrome module resource costs were cheaper. Might be a little overgenerous with the fittings (my proposal re-introduces bonused vehicle skills), but better that than easy meat. Incubus should be able to put on a 120 MM plate and some support fittings, the Python should be able to get decent shield tank in. My goal is not to fix the swarms, my goal is to make dropships not die when hit by an IAFG (chromosome base stats, so hitting well over 2k with skills/mods)in any less than 3 shots (4 for the flying brick transports). I'm also going to recommend an acceleration buff for dropships to try to get up to speed to dodge fire. I see what you are trying to do, but from the statistics giving the Incubus and Python more health points to withstand damage is not going to balance dropships with other vehicles, and will inevitably cause more unseen issues like armor hardeners, and shield hardeners produced to withstand A/V attacks. A good example to this is the following two fittings: Python 1 Python 2 Both of these dropships roughly can take the same amount of damage, but the dropship with more shielding is far better than the one with the hardener because of the huge vulnerable down time for the hardener to be ready again. Both of these fittings are max skill python fittings that focus on practicality and have been proven in use, with the top fitting being your current best Python fitting. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:05:00 - [31] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: I see what you are trying to do, but from the statistics giving the Incubus and Python more health points to withstand damage is not going to balance dropships with other vehicles, and will inevitably cause more unseen issues like armor hardeners, and shield hardeners produced to withstand A/V attacks. A good example to this is the following two fittings: Python 1 Python 2 Both of these dropships roughly can take the same amount of damage, but the dropship with more shielding is far better than the one with the hardener because of the huge vulnerable down time for the hardener to be ready again. Both of these fittings are max skill python fittings that focus on practicality and have been proven in use, with the top fitting being your current best Python fitting. Oddly enough I'm taking things like that into account. I'm well aware of the limitations of hardeners. I was trying to make sure that I wasn't going to gimp the python or Incubus' ability to load a sufficient tank to survive a reasonable level of attack from a single, skilled Av gunner. If a rail tank gets a bead on you, all bets are off. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9257	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:06:00 - [32] - Quote Whoever said the controls were bad for Dropships back then makes me laugh. The controls back then gave you a whole lot more control over the ships movement than the controls now. They simplified the controls so they could get more dumbberries to take to the skies (and crash right back down) if they kept the old control scheme and the new one as options I would have been perfectly fine with that. But no, I'm at work so sadly I can't take the time out to give you the post you want. I'm a Blaster Incubus, my only purpose in life is to kill Pythons and its damn good at it. CCP holds the Caldari's hand so this doesn't happen again.
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 227	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:16:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Gabriella Grey wrote: I see what you are trying to do, but from the statistics giving the Incubus and Python more health points to withstand damage is not going to balance dropships with other vehicles, and will inevitably cause more unseen issues like armor hardeners, and shield hardeners produced to withstand A/V attacks. A good example to this is the following two fittings: Python 1 Python 2 Both of these dropships roughly can take the same amount of damage, but the dropship with more shielding is far better than the one with the hardener because of the huge vulnerable down time for the hardener to be ready again. Both of these fittings are max skill python fittings that focus on practicality and have been proven in use, with the top fitting being your current best Python fitting. Oddly enough I'm taking things like that into account. I'm well aware of the limitations of hardeners. I was trying to make sure that I wasn't going to gimp the python or Incubus' ability to load a sufficient tank to survive a reasonable level of attack from a single, skilled Av gunner. If a rail tank gets a bead on you, all bets are off. Yeah as it stands the python needs a bit of love to shield points. the measly 900armor hp can be taken out by a sniper rifle. Most python users do not even count the 900 armor hp. CCP needs to start off with swarm turning radius, forge damage, HAV fittings, HAV collision physics, HAV acceleration, LAV's speed, and Dropship turrets. If they can fix those things together vehicles will be much more balanced and extremely close to their vision. But first CCP has to acknowledge these things are the problems. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6556	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:27:00 - [34] - Quote Bluntly forge guns are the only balanced AV weapon in the game Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 913	Posted - 2015.01.17 18:07:00 - [35] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Whoever said the controls were bad for Dropships back then makes me laugh. The controls back then gave you a whole lot more control over the ships movement than the controls now. They simplified the controls so they could get more dumbberries to take to the skies (and crash right back down) if they kept the old control scheme and the new one as options I would have been perfectly fine with that. I wholeheartedly agree. The current control scheme is terrible - even if I learned to be proficient with it, it is still terrible. Breakin Stuff wrote: What I mean is swwarms are a binary equation based on positioning. If you can launch while almost directly under the belly it'spushing foregone conclusion. Minmando reload speeds mean jack on a three shot splash. But a hold the lock setup would allow better control for both the swarm gunner and pilot. I'm not saying I hate swarms by concept or even implementation. I hate crunching the numbers on them because the "always hit" aspect makes my brain crack when fiddling with numbers. Yes I realize always hits is an exaggeration. It's just a pain in the ass. I think Rattati was looking to tweak the swarm missile turn rate and DS mobility until evasion would be a thing. I looked at the issue with Matlab and concluded that we're not far from a point where an ADS with AB can outmaneuver swarms but never got to report my findings. Just for fun here's a thread that came out of my number-twiddling. All in all I think tweaking swarm missile turn radius a bit and granting DS a ~50 meter scan radius for missiles would already bring us a huge step towards evasion of swarm missiles - at least for ADS with AB. That and directional launching (as per the linked thread) would be my preferred options to make swarms more interesting to play with from both the swarmer's and the pilot's perspective.
Operative 1174 Uuali Y.A.M.A.H 369	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:01:00 - [36] - Quote Give bonuses to ADS small turrets to make then viable as strafing vehicles. Missiles would get more splash, less direct damage. Rails would get slight spread. Blasters would get their hit detection fixed and a higher RoF with reduced spread. I'm better than laser focused; I'm hybrid focused.
Jammeh McJam Titans of Phoenix VP Gaming Alliance 168	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:22:00 - [37] - Quote All dropships need is to be reversed to how they were before the swarm buff and dropship nerf, while also adding in all of the old modules and turret variants. From there, changes can be made TO THE SWARMS, so that they are efficient at taking down dropships but dropships aren't made useless in the process. The swarm buff and dropship nerf made dropships incredibly hard to use even with one swarmer on the field because the ADS lost most of it's ability to fight back. - Return turret RoF to how it was before the changes. - Return swarms to how they were before the changes. - Return afterburners to how they were before the changes. - Add in all of the old modules and turret variants that were taken away ages ago. - Once done, buff swarms accordingly WITHOUT touching the dropships. Hopefully this will make swarms good against dropships without the dropship losing all offensive and defensive capabilities it may have against swarms. "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15600	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:40:00 - [38] - Quote i think having 2/3 and 3/2 slot layouts would help a lot. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
TEBOW BAGGINS GREATNESS ACHIEVED THRU TROLLING 1552	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:11:00 - [39] - Quote if they're not gonna nerf swarm track then a simple lock on tone warning to the pilot as the SL is locking on would do wonders AKA Zirzo Valcyn AFKing since 2012
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1139	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:02:00 - [40] - Quote In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16710	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:13:00 - [41] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... Someone suggested the invention of 90mm plate to give dropships their own size of plating? Is that something you guys would be interested in? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6637	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:17:00 - [42] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... Someone suggested the invention of 90mm plate to give dropships their own size of plating? Is that something you guys would be interested in? If you give me numbers that aren't batsh*t crazy and I'll add 'em. Medium shield extenders should probably be a thing too. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16710	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:18:00 - [43] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... Someone suggested the invention of 90mm plate to give dropships their own size of plating? Is that something you guys would be interested in? If you give me numbers that aren't batsht crazy and I'll add 'em. Medium shield extenders should probably be a thing too. I'll ask Pokey or Thaddeus. It's one of their ideas. "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
TEBOW BAGGINS GREATNESS ACHIEVED THRU TROLLING 1552	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:29:00 - [44] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... Someone suggested the invention of 90mm plate to give dropships their own size of plating? Is that something you guys would be interested in? not really because i spent a lot of SP to be able to fit heavy plate AKA Zirzo Valcyn AFKing since 2012
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1139	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:33:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... Someone suggested the invention of 90mm plate to give dropships their own size of plating? Is that something you guys would be interested in? Yes. Also, pg and cpu need to be changed. Shield extenders should be more cpu and require less pg. And armor should require more pg and reduced cpu. Example: I shouldn't have to use pg modules to fit extenders. I should require cpu modules to make up the little cpu i would be missing for that extender. Makes sense? Likewise, Vehicles need to be modified as well. Caldari vehicles should easily be able to equip CPU related modules. Galente (PG). I should not have to worry about pg to equip CPU based modules. just a thought. Those that do not fall under CPU based or PG based modules, what i would call general modules that can go into both types of vehicles will have a balanced requirement for both cpu and pg, where both are in between their respective maximums and minimum. Examples (exaggerated) : CPU- based modules (like shield extenders) 500CPU and 10 PG PG- based modules (like armor) 10 CPU and 500 PG Universal modules (after burner/scanners): 250 CPU and 250 PG Same would have to apply to turrets, a revamp to say the least. Blasters have a high pg requirement (like it is now) but a low cpu. Rails high cpu but a tiny pg, and missiles somewhere in between for both (not to high not too low). -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1139	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:40:00 - [46] - Quote TEBOW BAGGINS wrote: not really because i spent a lot of SP to be able to fit heavy plate Im not saying to change SP requirement. A medium vehicle should not be able to equip heavy modules. Just like you cant put a large turret on one. Also, we would need to implement medium turrets as well... for this to work -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15600	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:55:00 - [47] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: TEBOW BAGGINS wrote: not really because i spent a lot of SP to be able to fit heavy plate Im not saying to change SP requirement. A medium vehicle should not be able to equip heavy modules. Just like you cant put a large turret on one. Also, we would need to implement medium turrets as well... for this to work I strongly disagree. We need more fitting options, not less. Plus, how can you take away heavy modules without giving us medium modules? My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1139	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:00:00 - [48] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: TEBOW BAGGINS wrote: not really because i spent a lot of SP to be able to fit heavy plate Im not saying to change SP requirement. A medium vehicle should not be able to equip heavy modules. Just like you cant put a large turret on one. Also, we would need to implement medium turrets as well... for this to work I strongly disagree. We need more fitting options, not less. Plus, how can you take away heavy modules without giving us medium modules? There's more to it. there's more post. I stated that we would need medium modules... -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
TEBOW BAGGINS GREATNESS ACHIEVED THRU TROLLING 1552	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:43:00 - [49] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: TEBOW BAGGINS wrote: not really because i spent a lot of SP to be able to fit heavy plate Im not saying to change SP requirement. A medium vehicle should not be able to equip heavy modules. Just like you cant put a large turret on one. Also, we would need to implement medium turrets as well... for this to work as long as they keep in mind that some pilots do have some success running buffer/rep which i fear might be butchered if they assume everyone is running hardeners.. it just feels apprensive to me to have my heavy plate remove, am i able to refit to run an MCRU proto turret and 5300 armor/100 rep or am i forced to go hardeners in the new system because i loose my armor HP to medium plates? AKA Zirzo Valcyn AFKing since 2012
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6643	Posted - 2015.01.21 06:15:00 - [50] - Quote I'm actually proposing 30% increase to fitting for STD dropships. 15% to militia. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 229	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:51:00 - [51] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm actually proposing 30% increase to fitting for STD dropships. 15% to militia. Only dropships that have fitting issues currently is the ADS variants. As stated previously, giving dropships more health points will not quick fix their issues. *Gabriella Grey* "Amarr Ace Pilot" Saracen Squadron 7th Fleet Division


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.