|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1288
   |
Posted - 2015.02.04 03:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I like the idea of a ADS (not as a gunship, but as a platform where you can dropoff a small fireteam and give them some tempoary support fire against either infantry and maybe lightly armored vehicles, such as a LAV). Taking them away wouldn't really do anything but hurt the game. However, I don't believe them acting as gunships is a good thing. Hell, I don't think gunships acting as ADS do is a good thing. You shouldn't be able to hover and kill anything with impunity; that's just broken.
You do realise that this is exactly what ADSs do, right? They transport a small amount of mercs and support them.
Why don't you see this? Teams are too small, you just can't have five guys in one relatively fragile vehicle half the time; maps are too small, which means the transport capacity is just needed; communication is awful, because ransoms are unable to tell you where they want picked up/dropped off and blueberries are terribly unreliable passengers (often just sitting there are getting free WP) or gunners (where they alter the nearest turret or just spaff shots everywhere telling everyone about you.)
The issue is not with the ADS - which is a transport/gunship hybrid, as much as you seem to loathe that idea - it is with the core principles of the game not meshing with the bad 16v16 lobby shooter we have.
As FO hovering over everything and destroying them, that quite simply isn't true. Bad infantry (who make no evasive manoeuvres or pull out no retaliatory weapons) are of course getting 'farmed; and bad tankers who make no efforts to evade or try and reach a more defensible position are of course going to be easy meat.
But a competent AVer will easily drive off an ADS within 5 seconds if they're halfway decent, and a good tanker will make it incredibly difficult to kill them: I've had duels with good tankers that last a good five minutes, trading heavy fire and almost killing each other but usually dodging enough to keep firing or to make enough breathing room for regen to have effects.
Essentially, ADSs are doing exactly what they're supposed to, vis-+á-vis offensive firepower, the only thing lacking is the game mechanisms to fully utilise their given role in support of infantry and usually boils down to 'farming' because that directly benefits friendlies on the found hacking/pushing objectives.
Godin Thekiller wrote:No, I'm saying that a DS shouldn't be a ******* gunship, that shouldn't be its role.
Define gunship.
I've seen this argument come up before and it essentially boils down to people not liking something flying and shooting. The standard DS doesn't get the same heat, but it is almost always seen being used as a one way taxi: why aren't you complaining about there not being any standard DSs about, collecting and dropping off nerfs to where they're needed? The ADS trades resilience and transport ability for firepower and manoeuvrability.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Do you not understand that "drops off a small firemteam and gives them temporary support from infantry and lightly armored vehicles means combat support, as in shooting at stuff to support people, but not flying around killing installations and HAV's? lol
Firstly, killing installations is not easy: it takes a long time and unless it's a Railgun you actually need to hover in a small area above it, making you a prime target for AV and vehicles to hit you.
Secondly, killing HAVs that are being piloted by brain dead blueberries is not nearly as easy as you portray.
As for " dropping of a Fireteam and giving them temporary fire support" what is the issue? Why shouldn't they threaten HAVs, getting them to back off from a DZ? Are you just saying thing HAVs should be immune to small turrets? Because that's essentially what you're mandating.
Also, define temporary, because if there's no AV or other threat to the ADS, why shouldn't they stay around giving further support? If there's a threat then its a race between the AV and the ADSs Fireteam as to who can get the other first. Again, this simply smacks of someone getting bitten by an ADS giving all the support it can when the game doesn't really support teamwork bigger than squad size.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1288
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 03:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Lastly, maneuvering doesn't do jack ****, It's so easy to stay on target, and a ADS doesn't have to be right on top of you to shoot you, it's actually easier to be slightly off center as that is much more stable.
Name 10 low overpasses on each map, and are HAV's faster than ADS's?
Against a bad tanker, yeah, it is easy. A good tanker really is a different matter.
As an ADS pilot primarily,when I use HAVs I know roughly how to move to evade an ADSs gunfire, usually long enough to either drive them off by getting them in my targets or by reaching an area where I can make it hard to impossible for them to hit me.
As for 10 places:
1 - the entire Caldari Production Facility
2 - half of the Gallente Research Facility
3 - Orbital Artillery] at D3-5; J&K5-6; L-O 8-10; I 13-16. Tons on this one.
4 - Biomass at J7 curving up to F7.
5 - Boulder Rim at D6, B9-10, B11-12, I-J8.
6 - Border Gulch at E7, C8, G-H10, J-K12.
7 - Fracture Road at various low pipelines (G3, G5, H4-5, and more), F10 and H8, under the landing pad at I7.
8 - Iron Delta mostly socket dependant, socket at G5.
9 - Skim Junction
10 - Manus Peak at C8, H6, but mainly socket dependant.
11 - Spine Crescent mostly socket dependant, but the sockets at E-D8 are difficult for dropships to maintain the necessary mobility.
12 - [url=http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/news.control/65131/1/MN_Craters01_BG01_amb.jpg]Impact Ridge again, mainly socket dependant, but the small pipes at I8, F5, E6 et al are all useful for throwing off a chasing ADS.
Comfortably more than ten and most of the large sockets have areas where you can hide from an attacking ADS while many of the smaller sockets also hold protective areas.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1291
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 03:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Per map, you ******* ****. Can you read?
EDIT: Most of those the ADS can easily get into, and are also where AV will have a easy time picking you off.
Considering most maps are socket dependant, you can't do per map, unless you go through every conceivable permutation. There are plenty of areas where the HAV can take shelter and utilise cover to throw of the ADS to kick start it's regen and get the opportunity to retaliate.
Being an ******* is unnecessary. I have provided many examples where an HAV can use terrain to their advantage: it's not 'herpderp I'm a redline rail' simple, but neitheris piloting an ADS, despite what you seem to think.
Oh, and as for flying high: have you ever flown? Have you tried hitting an evading enemy from 150m+? Even a target as large as an HAV becomes very difficult to target at that kind of range.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1292
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 04:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Second, a Gunship is a arial platform that is used to attack ground targets., usually a helicopter, but sometimes being a airplane or jet. And Why I'm not complaining that a DS doesn't get a nerf for transport?
1: That's a silly ******* notion.
2: It needs buffs in that department.
My point is that the ADS is not performing outside of its role: even with an XT-1 it will take over 8 seconds to fire enough damage to consider killing a Madrugar and usually a Maddy will rep a good 600-1200 health in that time, assuming no hardeners, and a shield vehicle will be more resistant in the first place. Basically, even a max skill ADS takes a good length of time to kill a half-decent HAV fit, which means that the HAV must be exposed, poorly fit or poorly piloted to be threatened in anything resembling a small time frame.
If the ADS is using a railgun, then they have specialised into anti-vehicle turrets and are far, far less threatening to infantry/light vehicles.
Essentially, you seem to be complaining that an ADS is too effective against a HAV, except that if it is being particularly effective (ie, using a railgun) then it is sacrificing its anti-infantry capabilities.
Godin Thekiller wrote:(1) What it boils down to is that I don't like bullshit. Not being able to defend yourself from something is bullshit. You say all of these things, but you've not shown that they are true, as they just lead to the HAV in the end dying.
On top of that, It's not called Gunship, and it still has seats.
Why shouldn't they? Because a transport usually doesn't have enough teeth to threaten a actual combat vehicle, especially a heavily armored one, and logically, that doesn't make sense.
(2) I'm saying that it shouldn't be a real dangerous thing to a HAV, and has its focus towards lighter vehicles and infantry.
(3) I'm simply asking it to be a platform where you can fly in, drop off, shoot at some things in the area to either lower their numbers, scare them off, or put them into cover so whoever you're dropping can get into position or whatever instead of it being a flying murder machine.
There's more that they can do other than kill HAV's and farm infantry, which currently is what they're mainly used for, and not even using their passenger seats, hell, not even their gunners half the time.
(4) Temporarily would mean that if AV or a vehicle turret of some sort started firing back (I would even say heavy weapons in general, they could use a fixing)
(1) i can't defend myself against a sniper when I'm using my Assault Scrambler (or name any other light weapon) because I can't locate him/I can't shoot back because they're over 300m away, why is that not considered bullshit? An ADS leveraging height over something is not bullshit, it is using a strength (mobility) and minimising a weakness (low HP) to threaten enemies.
The thing you seem to be ignoring is that an ADS is an assault vehicle; it is there to attack and destroy targets - missiles are very good for destroying infantry and arguably too effective at vehicle work (at the same time that is,Rattati has said he's looking at two variants, one AV, one AI) while a railgun is very good at AV but fast more limited in AI potential. The main power of an ADS vs an HAV is that it can hound them by staying in their blind spot - this means that the HAV has a natural predator, but in turn the ADS is very vulnerable to infantry AV, creating a relative cycle of rock-paper-scissors.
(2) As before, if you want ADSs to be relatively toothless vs HAVs then you'll be making small turrets essentially worthless for AV work, which is what the small railgun is.
(3) This is the inverse of suggesting that Swarms should only chase of vehicles and not actually kill them. There is absolutely no reason an ADS, fitted for AV, shouldn't be capable of killing an HAV in relatively short order.
(4) This is the case. Getting fired upon by AV essentially puts a very short timer on the ADSs airtime: stay and eliminate the threat in that time, GTFO or likely die. ADSs, contrary to popular belief, aren't nearly as resilient as often made out and even ADV tier AV is liable to kill an incautious or cocksure pilot, and loitering in the area 'farming infantry' is likely to be incredibly quickly shut down by a single AVer.
Frankly, there is not an issue with how the ADS operates, only with your viewpoint of how they work. You seem to be under the impression that an ADS cannot be allowed to threaten an HAV because of some concocted notion that they are only as offensive as a standard DS when that is blatantly not the case.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1297
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tell me how often you see a Railgun ADS dominating both vehicles and infantry, and if a missile ADS is destroying every HAV in sight without any threats present, then the enemy team is simply trash.
8 seconds is the time it take to empty a small missile clip: I didn't say 8 seconds to kill, because that threatens only absolute shitfits - 8 missiles is 4004 damage. An unfit Sica takes 6 XT-1 missiles to completely strip shields and the remaining two do not destroy all of its armour. That's a completely unfit Sica. A completely unfit Soma takes three to strip shields, then the remaining five still don't kill it.
If the tank driver knows how to fit a vehicle they will either be resisting the damage much more, have a far larger buffer and/or having great regen. An ADS, and bear in mind the above numbers are assuming max ADS skills (both Racial and Base), takes a healthy length of time to actually threaten a decently fit HAV with destruction.
You continue to parade around with extreme vehemence (like constantly calling us ******* fucks) yet continue to ignore the issues and balances in place. ADSs do not completely stomp on any and everything.
Consider the following fit:
Madrugar
ADV Armour Rep (112.5/sec)
ADV Armour Plate (1450 Armour: totals 5450 armour; 1200 shields)
ADV Armour Hardener
STD Large Missile Turret
The Madrugar has god awful fitting at the moment, but the above fit takes:
3 XT-1s to break shields: 3.06 seconds for 1200 damage to shields; 18 damage to armour
5 XT-1s over 5.1 seconds deals 3030 damage to armour; -5.1 seconds worth of reps (@112.5/sec) for a total of 2456.25 damage to armour without a hardener.
3 second reload (max Small Missile Rapid Reload) is a further 337.5 reps; total damage to armour is now 2118.75.
Assuming the Maddy pilot responds within the 11.16 seconds it has now been under fire for by activating it's hardener, the following happens:
8 XT-1s deal 3636 damage to armour over 8.16 seconds; reduced by 918 to 2718 more damage and a total of 4836.75 total damage to armour done over 19.32 seconds assuming perfect accuracy on the ADSs part.
4429.5 (22.32 seconds elapsed) damage to armour after the second reload.
4884 (23.38 seconds; 17th XT-1) -112.5 = 4771.5
5226 (24.44 seconds; 18th) -112.5 = 5113.5 damage to armour.
Missile 19, at 25.5 seconds elapsed, destroys this average fit Maddy.
The Maddy is generally considered wildly underperforming considering that the Gunny has far, far superior fitting capacity, yet this relatively average Maddy fit takes a total of 25+ seconds to destroy assuming perfect accuracy/awful evasive action.
Are you seriously suggesting that ADSs are over performing? They are a hybrid Dropship/Gunship. They have a capacity smaller than the dedicated normal Dropship and have increased offensive capabilities. As shown above, an ADS fitting for anti-infantry (missiles) will not destroy even the weaker of the two main HAVs in short order, and an ADS fitting Railguns for faster HAV destruction is most definitely not destroying all forms of infantry.
Find a better argument.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1297
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:An ADS is a Dropship, yet it's preforming like a gunship, and is only used as a Gunship.
This seems to be the crux of your argument.
ADSs are primarily being used to harass and attack gunship-style because they are nigh worthless as transports and 'supporting fire' (supporting fire, aka, acting like a gunship) is something they can actually provide, because the maps and mechanisms of the game make it either irrelevant (because maps are so small) or because there are awful blocks in between players making truly useful communication nigh impossible.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1303
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 14:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'm trying to have a balanced game.
No, you're simply trying to nerf something that isn't, despite your 'refutations' (which are just you saying "No") isn't over performing.
That Maddy fit takes a long time to die, and perfect accuracy is not what happens unless the tank driver is bad. You have yet to 'prove' anything about your claim other than provide anecdotes about your experience killing HAVs with your ADs which are, frankly, laughable as proof. Ssripously, what Maddy doesn't have a rep that isn't tpuhgher in some other, major way?
You have provided no evidence with which to support your claims, like a video yours or someone else's, which demonstrates a missile ADS utterly dominating all forms of ground-based life. Until then, you're just being a whiny ***** making opinion out to be fact and constantly having a go at any trying to actually be reasonable.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1304
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:By your biased standards ADS being OP gunships while still being transport albeit not refined is okay. I give zero fucks about your standards. Your entire argument is "I like it being a floating HAV that is neigh impossible to kill because it isn't up to par on what it actually should be doing", and that's broken.
My argument is that they do behave as transports and as fire support platforms (aka, gunships) but due to the nature of the game we have, their use as a transport is severely limited, which is why you primarily see them used by solo pilots. And if you think ADS are invincible, you are delusional. Not only are ADSs very fragile, they have to account for inertia (Allowing HAVs to manoeuvre to get an angle as they turn, despite your ridiculous claim that HAVs suffer just as much) and because they are far more vulnerable (being exposed 360, having to keep aware from above, below and on the same plane.)
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've already stated my evidence, prove otherwise, you've so far haven't. What, you're denying that a HAV can aim high enough to hit a ADS?
I haven't proved what? That ADSs aren't over performing as a fire support/gunship?
Except, I showed how a fully PRO'd up Python takes over 25 seconds to kill a stupid and bad tanker, using the weaker of the two available hulls. You think that this long time frame is unreasonable but you haven't provided evidence, despite what you keep saying, to prove your point.
Anecdotally, I played a game today. An ADS attacked my missile Gunny. I turned my turret and volleyed him out of the sky because he couldn't get out of my elevation fast enough. Later, in my rail Incubus I chased off a Sica, failing to kill it due to fitting (hardeners), evasion (ie, he didn't drive in a perfectly straight line and actually attempted to throw off my aim) and, later, due to teammates attacking me.
I did manage to kill a Maddy...by getting a teammate with a Swarmer, dropping him off and harassing/chasing the HAV into my ally's AV. How is that not doing exactly what you want them to do?
Please, give me some numbers of how the ADS kills them in a fraction of the time you think reasonable, show me why those map locations are useless to a good pilot, or show us how the HAV absolutely no response: why not for a small turret for personal use? Oh, is that unfair? Why?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1304
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Brought this over here:
Godin Thekiller wrote:As for ADS's, it seems that you wnat them to be useful in some sort of wa, and since it isn't supported in its intended role, you think it's fine for it to stay as a Gunship, until it's fixed. Obviously these things would come all at once. I would never advocate that we simply nerf and buff, I want them fixed, period.
Gah! The ADS is a gunship/dropship hybrid, it should be performing like a light gunship. If it were behaving like a true gunship, HAVs would die inside ten seconds, which just isn't the case. What they do is provide moderate firepower for the cost of transport capacity and resilience, which is exactly what they do right now!
A normal DS can kill an HAV by hovering over it, but it requires a longer time (because it isn't focused on assaulting, like the ADS is) and coordination, but is actually better off because the slower speed/acceleration and disconnected pilot/gunner situation means less overflying and better shots on target.
Essentially, the ADS is not performing like a gunship unfairly, only that the other aspects of the ADS are underperforming.
EDIT: The solution isn't to nerf the gunship part of the ADS, it's to buff and incentivise the transportation parts through WP rewards and better map design.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1305
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Also, it was originally designed to be not a gunship at all, rather, as I was pointing out, a DS with a turret being able to give temporary support to infantry, but leaving at the first sight of trouble (a HAV shooting at it, or AV), which isn't currently the case for most HAV's, only rails, and that's at range. The only reason why it became more of a hybrid is because vehicles sucks, especially DS's, and instead of asking for DS role buffs, DS pilots asked for more tank, and more gank, generally anyways.
Right...where is it written that an ADS is not supposed to provide the current level of firepower? Rattati reduced it to this level and has had no reason to change it further, nor has he made any mention of such a change being needed: why do you think it does if the numbers would suggest that your position is wrong?
ADSs do run immediately upon receiving fire from AV, whether that is infantry or HAV based is irrelevant.
Godin Thekiller wrote:A normal DS using a gunner is more fair however, seeing that to do the same job, it takes two people to do it. If the ADS required two people to kill a HAV (one gunning, one flying), I really wouldn't be bitching right now, at least as far as it being unfair, rather, saying that is unnecessary, and that it needs to become one seat, and then what I've been saying otherwise.
So, to twist your words, it's okay to need more than one person to kill your HAV, but not okay to need more than one for an ADS? I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but the point is that it's exploiting the exact same weakness as the ADS, with some big advantages (better capacity to track the target being a big one) but that is somehow better?!
Why should a solo HAV take two people to kill with an ADS, but not require two people to counter the ADS? This is an unbalanced position.
Godin Thekiller wrote:And to sum it up, making it good at it's intended role is good, however like HAV's with blasters, that won't stop it from doing what it does now, which is farming everything it sees, and that still would need to be addressed.
Grrrr! I hate this absolutely baseless statement: in what way does an ADS farm everything it sees? A missile ADS takes a long time to destroy HAVs (as I showed previously, with actual numbers) and rail ADS has almost no capacity to kill infantry. And again, the ADS is far from invincible: unless it's a Python double stacking hardeners, a single Swarmer gives any ADS a great big headache.
Why do you make this utterly ridiculous claim?!
Godin Thekiller wrote:And as Thaddeus has shown me, I need to be more specific: I was more so talking about blasters and Rockets (Rails are generally fine, if you let anything get close enough to you, that's your fault) not being able to deal with ADS's. For the most part, Rails to ADS's are balanced (maybe rails could use a tad more tracking, not sure, haven't decided yet, probably should wait to see how new turrets turns out), seeing as how the concepts of a Rail works.
Missiles are bad? They apply about 5000 damage in about two seconds: how is that bad at dropping ADSs that might even a tiny mistake? They turn the second fastest and have the best elevation, why is that not good for punishing an ADS that strays ever so slightly from their safe spot directly above the HAV?
Missiles are absolutely fine for battering ADSs. The only potential issue is with the Blaster taking a long time to kill vehicles in general.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1310
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 09:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Godin, you've been basically telling everyone that you're amazing and that we're all wrong. You 'counter' our points by saying that you've countered them, but the truth is that you're unwilling to have a conversation, let alone a debate. You've decided that ADSs are performing in a way that they are not supposed to but you're pretty much alone in this - even other HAV operators are coming in and telling you that they disagree.
Maybe it's time to give it up, or maybe you could try being less of a douchebag, try listening to what people are saying without resorting to insults and unfounded, demeaning comments.
You think one thing. The vast majority of the people in this thread, including tankers you ostensibly defend, disagree because a lot of your 'points' are based on either blatant lies that you're using to push your agenda or bad game experience that is not indicative of the gameplay as a whole.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1316
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
killertojo, the redline expansion doesn't actually include the main enemy redline. The aerial redline extends out to the sides somewhat but where ADSs can go chasing a fleeing HAV, so can infantry and HAVs. The only real difference is the effect of terrain, where ground units might get stuck.
As far as ADS QQ, you do realise that ADSs have either been OP (1.8's vehiclepocalypse), extremely underpowered (like when swarms were 400m lock-on with more damage) or debatable (pretty much now: often one AV presence will render an ADS obsolete, but no AV presence renders them OP...though it's hardly OP if no one is trying to counter you.)
The current ADS balance is pretty close to spot on. HAVs need coordination to fight one off, due their blind spot, but in return are incredibly resilient (or at least are supposed to be: the HAV Hull Reintroduction should see an improvement in quality of HAV life) while infantry are fragile but have far more flexibility in their approaches to any situation (lots of cover, multiple angles of attack) AF the cost of speed and direct power. ADSs have the manoeuvrability advantage and good firepower versus infantry, but the same defences apply (cover) and have the hafddest time acquiring targets (infantry are specks, even HAVs are small from the kind of distances some people are talking about in this thread) and usually are forced to choose AV or AP, like infantry (despite what Godin says, small missiles take a long time to kill HAVs solo.)
If were talking a multi gun ADS, then that is making multiple other sacrifices: multiple turrets = less HP and a greater vulnerability to high alpha damage, as well as a lower time in a dangerous area (which, again, is lower than what Godin seems to be claiming) for the benefit of greater fire power, yet also requires more resources (ie, two players.)
In all, ADSs are pretty close to where they should be, and the primary reason they are seen most often as solo gun platforms is due to the absolute lack of need or want for a transport by most teams.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1320
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 04:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:And this is the problem. Why do I have to coordinate with others to fight one single pilot exactly?
That's the thing, you don't. Despite what you keep claiming, it is entirely possible for an HAV, regardless of turret, to manoeuvre such that the ADS can be killed.
Railguns have slow tracking, making them probably the most vulnerable to a close in ADS, since an Afterburner gives the ADS the ability to rapidly shift.
Blasters have a hard time killing vehicles in general, not specifically ADSs, but are still plenty capable of putting a lot of hurt on them - especially a Python, which you seem to be saying is setting the world on fire (even though I've shown you that it takes a good long time already to kill a HAV operator that's only half awake.)
Missiles are brilliant against ADSs and I have absolutely no idea why you constantly claim otherwise. They do a ton of damage extremely quickly (taking the most advantage of a small window of opportunity, and giving very little reaction time in return) and have the second best tracking (again, despite your claims of slow tracking, they're quite comparable to Blasters)/the best elevation. Missiles are very dangerous to an ADS.
You keep saying that HAVs are defenceless and they are, if the ADS is directly above you and you're sitting perfectly still. As others have said, it's most definitely possible to manoeuvre such that the ADS must maintain your speed, then you can use the HAV's superior breaking distance (and again, you seem to think the ADS can slow and stop incredibly quickly, which is a flat out lie) to gain shooting opportunities.
Essentially, you're completely disregarding any possible tactics that you can actually use.
Bradric Banewolf wrote:You're doing it wrong.
All of you, but mainly the guy that thinks the ADS takes a long time to kill a tank.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here Bradric. Godin is complaining that the ADS is too effective as a gunship: if it's killing an HAV quickly, then it's got rails and has focused on AV fire support; if it's killing infantry quickly, it's using missiles and it kills HAVs slowly.
I put some numbers in the thread earlier which shows that a maxed out ADS with XT-1's takes a good long time to kill a dumb HAV driver. If that HAV driver is moving and half decent, that time goes way up.
Still, an ADS can kill an HAV quickly (RailBus) but it sacrifices in other areas to do so, which to me sounds reasonable.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Also, again, ADS is a Dropship, not a gunship (and even then, it shouldn't lockdown an entire portion of a map unless the pilot is either REALLY good, or the other team sucks HARD).
Most of the times I see an ADS lock down a portion of the map, it's because it is unopposed. Usually you'll see one hovering about giving fire support and not getting shot at all, or getting shot by one Anti Armour starter fit. Sometimes it's supporting a squad, and vice versa, where AV gets pulled out and jumped on by 2-5 infantry.
If competent AV shows up, an ADS can't stay in the area, even though you constantly claim otherwise. It takes about 10 seconds to kill an ADS with a Wiyrkomi, unless they're hardening, and usually an ADS is forced to choose to run or die at about 5 seconds. If there are multiple swarms, an ADS will run in about 2-3 seconds, or it will get destroyed (unless we're talking entirely unskilled MLT fits vs proto-fit ADSs.)
So really, what the **** is your deal? When an ADS functions as an ADS (drops troops off, then kills ****) you're ok with it (even though no one actually wants transportation) but if they cut out the transportation part (...because nobody wants it) then the ADS needs fixed...but not other transport vehicles?
There's nothing wrong with the ADS's firepower capabilities, the only issue lies with the lack of demand for transportation.
What are the defining characteristics of a dropship, in the current state of the game?
- It can fly
- It can transport multiple mercs
Does the ADS meet those criteria?
Yes, absolutely. What else does the ADS do, as a specialised dropship?
- Has offensive bonuses
- Has a pilot-operated gun
- Has a reduced transport capacity
- Has reduced tank/increased mobility
Seriously, why do you feel that that is wrong? The ADS is to the Dropship what a Logistics is to a Basic Medium (capable to carrying a ton of equipment: the Basic Frame is incapable of that - the ADS can, nay must, mount a front gun) or any other specialist dropsuit or vehicle. It is a specialised form of dropship that sacrifices the main attraction of the dropship hull (transportation) and improves another area (offence.)
Godin Thekiller wrote:And What I'm asking for is to be prepared to have to dodge or run when a blaster or Rocket fitted HAV starts firing back in their optimal's (more so run due to HAv's not being able to run).
This is entirely dependant on operator skill, both ADS and HAV operator.
If a Missile HAV gets a line on the ADS, it's liable to receive a massive pounding and often go down. Otherwise, it's forced to retreat and lick it's wounds (if the HAV operator was a half decent shot) or risk getting tagged by any other unknown threats; or it can resume it's attack because the HAV missed too much.
If a Blaster HAV gets a line, it needs a fairly long amount of time to threaten any vehicle, but any Python caught by a good few shots will be forced to retreat (again, in case of unknown threats) or dodge and try and continue attacking.
Frankly, an HAV can threaten an ADS, but it has a vulnerability that only ADSs can exploit. If we turn the tables, we should be asking that infantry have a blind spot that they can exploit. An ADS does have to run, very often.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1320
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 06:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Trying to inject reason into this topic just meets with Godin's stonewall resistance to anything that doesn't immediately and utterly conform to his warped vision of the game.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1326
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 00:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Trying to inject reason into this topic just meets with Godin's stonewall resistance to anything that doesn't immediately and utterly conform to his warped vision of the game. Most people who has come in here has used the exact. same. argument. How about you stop asking to be broken?
That argument (using terrain, inertia, etc) is not invalid, despite your constant complaints.
The ADS is not broken. The only thing broken is your reasoning.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1326
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 02:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:so you're saying that a ADS can't move not at full speed to be able to easily turn faster than the HAV can stop and go, and that you can't simply climb to avoid hills while still being able to aim, both actual ways to combat an ADS?
An HAV stops in about two metres, and accelerates up to top speed in about a second, if even that long.
A HAV can comfortably stop and start going in the other direction faster than the ADS can stop and turn...unless the ADS is going slowly enough, at which point the HAV can just outrun it in the first place!
Godin Thekiller wrote:Prove it. I've only seen otherwise.
You prove it. All you ever do is say that you only see it one way. Well, here's my proof: I see it the other way. See how useful that is?
Godin Thekiller wrote:Also, Being able to deal with a single person with one single person is broken? How.
In no way, and in no way did I say that 1v1 is unfair or unreasonable. What I am saying is that 1v1 is entirely the case at the moment. A HAV can attack and kill an ADS, but it's far from easy, because they have advantages that far outweigh the vulnerability to aerial attack, and while the ADS has the positional advantage it is far from destroying an HAV easily.
An HAV that manoeuvres such that they can engage (which they are capable of doing) can down an ADS in relatively short order, due to their much higher firepower (even Blasters, though they are in a strange place.)
The ADS has to maintain that positional advantage for a reasonable length of time while they whittle down the much greater HAV resilience, giving the HAV time to manoeuvre to get a shot or to retreat/find a location where the ADS has less to no effect.
Stop outright dismissing what everyone else is saying and actively disprove it. You've done nothing to actually reinforce it, all you do is dismiss it outright without making or linking any evidence. Not to mention that you're continual crusade has no basis for support from the Dev POV. Rattati did make a balance pass when he reduced the ROF bonus and said that he'd keep an eye on it if it needed further tweaking. We've had no indication from Rattati that they are over performing since then, so can you provide evidence of why you think the are?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1332
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 03:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:And ADS's can't fly slightly slower and turn on dimes as a result? And no, I can comfortably go slow and still hover over a HAV in a ADS without it outrunning me. That is quite a silly thing.
You either don't actually fly, or you fly against awful tankers. Even flying slowly an ADS has more momentum that it has to counteract and regardless of speed the ada turns slower.
As for speed, an ADS is not that much faster than an HAV, especially if you introduce a Fuel Injector (which increases top speed, as opposed to the Afterburner, which does not.)
So yes, an ADS does have an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.
Godin Thekiller wrote:That isn't proof, and I can't show you my proof, unless you play against my pilot, or look through my eyes (I don't have a recorder).
I am also incapable of recording. So stop demanding things if you can't provide an equal level of evidence. You keep demanding proof, but at the same time haven't presented any. If you can't provide proof, or go to the effort of linking any, then why should anyone else put in that effort? You haven't proven anything, you just keep saying that our points are invalid without providing anything substantial.
Godin Thekiller wrote:ADS can out maneuver a HAV, and easily avoid their shots. Again, the only turret that can reasonably defend against a ADS is a rail in its optimal, and that's if a ADS is flying at a decent height. A blaster or Rocket can't. They can't run as you claim that they can (because you know, ADS is MUCH faster and can hover over the HAV?), and it can't defend, regardless of what you say, simply because they can't shoot back.
And again, you seem to think the Missile turret is bad at anti-ADS work, and that baffles me because the Missile turret is brilliant. It has the best elevation and the most compressed damage output.
Running doesn't involve running faster, it involves running more intelligently: getting to a relatively safe place is definitely possible considering that an ADS has to keep hitting the HAV or else it begins regenerating. Most sockets have something that can be used to throw off ADS shots and then break for more cover in a safer place. Several of the outposts are awful for an ADS attacking an HAV.
Simply put, an ADS has to maintain a certain distance (close enough to shoot accurately) but fast enough to not lose the target. An ADS doesn't get a free ride here, no matter how much you try to say it does. Constantly hitting a moving, evading target is not simple, and not easy - nor should it be - but at the same time the HAV has perfectly reasonable ability to evade, throw off the ADS and potentially get to retaliate.
Not to mention that you can do two things besides use the large turret:
- Fit a top turret and tag the ADS as they manoeuvre to reacquire after you stop.
- Use an AV suit and hop out.
Neither of these requires a second player and are optional: you can still use the large turret to fight back, but it requires more effort than using an AV suit. Just like how flying and killing with an ADS requires more effort than most people, like you, give it credit for.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Again, the simple fact that ADS's can do this against Blasters and Rocket turrets is my proof. Show me evidence otherwise.
As above, I am also incapable of producing videos. At the same time, I am completely able to provide totally anecdotal evidence (exactly the evidence that you have been using) which says that my HAVs rarely ever get even threatened by ADSs because I use my missile turret to ward them off, often killing them outright.
Thing is, the HAV is the most heavily tanked entity on the field and has the most firepower. Why is a small blind spot unwarranted, especially since an HAV can manoeuvre to still engage within that blind spot.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1332
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 04:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
I've been flying since ADSs were added. They are faster, I never said they weren't, but the truth is that they aren't so fast as to invalidate the ability for an HAV to escape.
Here's a video for you. It's from 1.8 with far more lethal ADSs than currently.
DUST 514 - PS3 - SKIRMISH - MOSTLY A.D.S GAMEPLAY - 1.8: http://youtu.be/wczCJ-0ZQI8
At 2:35 we see an already damaged Soma getting attacked. It takes about 30 seconds to kill.
At 3:20 we see another Soma under attack. It takes about 40-45 seconds to kill it, even with a second ADS and involving 3v1. We see some limited use of aerial cover here as it takes temporary cover under the pipes and later under the table.
At 6:45 we see the Python pound a Sica who uses cover to avoid being obliterated.
At 5:00, we see the ADS attacking a group of infantry. Even with the previous ROF bonus it still has a limited impact before needing to run because of a single AVer.
Now, I fully agree that this ADS is not the best fit, nor the best piloted, but neither are those HAVs. Essentially, they are of roughly equivalent skill level and the ADS has the manpower advantage, yet still takes a long time to kill the targets even when it has a better ROF bonus.
How about you provide a counter point? One that showcases how the current ADS performs better against the same level of HAV pilot?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1332
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 22:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:How about you provide a counter point? One that showcases how the current ADS performs better against the same level of HAV pilot? I never said that it took a long time to do, I said that it was the SAME time to kill a HAV as a HAV is intended to kill another HAV in, running full defensive mods and accounting for missing and regenerating health, as agreed to by many of the people in the HAV balance thread, while being in nowhere near the same amount of threat as the HAV, seeing as it's much easier to engage, disengage, and then reengage. Also, again, one example doesn't prove ****.
Except, HAV on HAV is far shorter than ADS on HAV.
What I was putting that video in for was an example, you ass, not total complete proof. How about you find some videos of HAVs being incapable of escaping, instead of being a douche and not actually contributing any evidence.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Seeing as I've had no problems dealing with rocket HAV's, I don't buy that.
Again, you're pretty much the only one saying this. Can you provide links showing us videos where HAVs are incapable of defending themselves?
Godin Thekiller wrote:And I can use a BPO scout fitted with pretty much any weapon and be able to deal with any target. That applies to pretty much any suit (because running away is a thing), and applies to LAV's and DS's as well. Only HAV's seems to not have this luxury due to ADS's moving faster than them, and being able to hover over HAV's, and yet saying that's broke is okay? That I'm wrong somehow for wanting to be able to defend myself within a HAV is for some odd reason a bad thing now? That wanting a ADS to preform like a ACTUAL ******* DS is such a evil thing?
Again, you're pretty much the only one saying this and have provide no actual evidence or form of reasoning. You just keep saying that its not true, but there HAV pilots are saying it's fine. Why is your word better than multiple other HAV users? Surely that means you just need to get good, no?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1332
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 22:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'm using several thousand hours of ingame experience to say that I haven't seen a Rocket or blaster reasonably hit a ADS firing at it. Also, that's valid reasoning, saying that a HAV pilot should be able to reasonably deal with a ADS pilot. 1=1 and all of that ****.
And everyone else is using what? Ten minutes? Of course not you belligerent ass, were all relatively experienced players too.
As has been said before, by myself and others including HAV pilots, the issue doesn't seem to stem fro! HAVs being incapable of engaging the ADS, but with your abilities as the HAV operator.
Godin Thekiller wrote:What, you don't want one person to equal one person?
That's not even vaguely what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the HAV/ADS situation is already 1v1 but you seem to be blaming poor abilities on the game.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh, just to let you know, Rockets DPS is being cut very hard. It'll have like a 1/4 of what it has now. So it'll be even worse.
Ok, fine, but that's not the case right now, so if that's an issue later then surely later is when we need to make a change. Since currently the issue is not the HAV/ADS balance, but your perceptions and abilities.
Godin Thekiller wrote:EDIT: Taking another look at that video, although most of those HAV's has rails, they didn't even get many hits in. the ADS's easily approached them (unless they were in the redline), and as far as I've seen, not a single Rocket or blaster HAV was out, so this doesn't even cover them.
Indeed, which is why its only a single example, which you said yourself is not proof. It is just that: an example. How about you show us examples of your problem instead of constantly saying its not good?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1332
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 00:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:So even though it's the very near future, It's a non issue, since it's not current balance?
Considering there are far more changes than simply the Missile turret change, the. yes. HAVs are being changed significantly, like UHAVs being far tougher and being teamwork focused. An ADS is teamwork focused also, the only reason you don't see people being transported is because of other reasons.
A UHAV under the new stats will be pretty damn resilient to an ADS, and the current HAVs are already resilient enough to make them spend a long time trying to kill a half awake HAV operator. So yes, current balance is petty close to fine, and the next stage of balance is going to favour more HAVs than ADSs, the only outlier being the DHAV, which has additional speed and mobility to protect itself.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Also, you said my reasoning is flawed. Show me examples Of Rocket and blaster HAV's being able to reasonably defend itself from an ADS. I haven't seen such.
As for the edit: again, I can't, as I can't record. I've said this several times. Again, show me that I'm wrong. I haven't seen a HAV being able to defend against a pilot without waiting for help from teammates, and relying or even requiring teamwork to handle a single person is broken.
First, why will you refuse to find a video that someone else made? I did it, why can't you? You're the one campaigning for unnecessary change: provide reasons and evidence to support them.
You're campaigning for a change to how the game operates. The onus is on you to prove why it is needed.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1332
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 02:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Marauders aren't going to be the only HAV in the game, Enforcers will have even more trouble, and HAV's will still have a hard time dealing with them, and even then, with enough time, ADS will still be able to kill a Marauder.
EDIT: Before I forget, Enforcers won't have nearly enough speed to counter not being able to shoot at targets. Hell, since it goes faster, it'll be even easier to hit it.
Why would Enforcers, who are faster (so better able to exploit ADS inertia, and to manoeuvre into/around cover better), have better damage (less time on target needed) and better turret rotation (or was that removed from the table?)
Enforcers won't necessarily outrun ADSs, but HAVs currently are capable of reaching and using cover to evade ADS fire. An Enforcer has less tank, but greater speed to actually evade shots.
And how does faster mean easier to hit? Are you serious? Faster means the ADS has to maintain an even higher speed to stay on target, making the back-and-forth tactic even more effective.
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'm not arguring about time. Time doesn't really matter. THIS EXISTING IS. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.
Time isn't an issue, even though your were complaining about ADSs killing HAVs slower than. HAVs do?
ADS are the best at exploiting the HAV blind spot, but they are hardly destroying HAVs without any response possible. Do HAVs have it easy? No, but considering they hold most of the cards on the ground, why is a weakness (and not one that cannot be countered) unreasonable?
Again, the HAV can defend itself, but it has to try harder. Just like how a Scout can't go toe-to-toe with a Sentinel (in theory) because of the massive difference in EHP and DPS. The HAV has the EHP and DPS advantage, but the ADS has the positional advantage. The HAV can manoeuvre to defend itself , but if the ADS can keep it's positional advantage then it wins, just like the Scout maintaining speed and position over the Sentinel.
If you can't understand that, that's your problem.
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've looked for some, haven't found any. You try finding some, I'm tired of looking.
Well, I've made a small effort and produced some minor evidence. You've produced no evidence to support your position. As before, the onus is on you to prove why the change is necessary.
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've also tried putting myself in situations where I could in fact try and avoid a ADS, but either one doesn't show up, or something else fights me beforehand, making it have a easy time killing me in a short period of time.
Well, considering that not only myself but several other HAV users have come in saying that they do not find the situation as difficult as you do, again, maybe you should consider that - since you seem to be pretty much alone in your position - that maybe you're looking at the whole thing wrong?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1343
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 04:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Seeing as all of you have been using pretty much the same three arguments:
1: Have a teammate help you
2: Hop out with AV and deal with it yourself
3: Drive forwards and backwards
What about using cover? Forcing the ADS to manoeuvre such that it either misses shots and gives you time to further find terrain to use to your advantage?
Line Harvest is the perfect example: the various pipes can be used as shelter, and while the ADS can attack you, they must lower themselves to well within your turret's elevation. Do all maps have that capacity? Well, depending on the sockets, yes, although not every socket is suitable.
Similarly, an HAV can fit a top turret and use that to attack the ADS, since it has a higher elevation. Not saying using teamwork, just the operator using a different tool that's already present on the HAV.
Point being that there are things that an HAV can do to respond to an ADS threat.
Godin Thekiller wrote:and I've pointed out that all three of those things are counter able, and on top of that fundamentally flawed. You've yet to cite ANYTHING ELSE that's valid. You've shown not a single example in which a HAV can reasonably deal with a ADS other than rails, one vs. one, and usually, they have to sit in the redline for that to even be valid (because some maps are small as hell, but that's map balance).
Everything is counterable, including an ADS when in an HAV.
A missile HAV has perfectly fine elevation, enough to attack an ADS, but not one that's directly overhead. Do you need 90 degree elevation? An ADS can't shoot anything above it, should the front turret have 180 degree elevation/depression? No, because an ADS can move and get the target in their sights, just like an HAV can.
You've yet to cite anything that's valid, you just continually state that a HAV can never ever ever fight off an ADS, yet others - plural - are able to.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Again, I have asked for two things:
Higher turret elevation, specifically for rockets and mostly for blasters as they simply can't engage ADS's within their intended optimals compared to Rails.
A drop in ADS flight ceiling so they can't simply avoid Rails and other long ranged targets past their optimals and make them unable to deal with them.
The first, well, they can. They can't engage an ADS that's 100m directly above them, but the ADS is barely capable of engaging any ground unit beyond 100m; infantry Swarms are capable of engaging an ADS when they are specks on the screen, is that reasonable?
The second, why is the flight ceiling at fault? A drop in the flight ceiling to anything approaching HAv engagement heights means redline rails will permanently shut down any DS on some maps. What is it about flying that makes you so angry? Does it matter if the ADS is 10m above the HAV or 50m? According to you, no, because they can never ever ever manoeuvre to shoot an ADS, so why would height make a difference?
Frankly, an elevation of the missile/blaster isn't awful, but it also isn't needed, according to anyone who isn't you. Again, maybe you should consider the fact that, as the only one asking for change, you might just be wrong?
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've also asked for SEVERAL ADS and DS buffs, ways to reward them better, etc., because as I said, they are broken, not OP. Yet you make it seem like I only want them to be trash so HAV's can simply better. No you **** nut, I want to be able to not have a ADS follow me around the map, being able to engage me easily, disengage and reengage whenever they please due to high regen (especially on Pythons currently, and when active reps comes back for the Incubus).
So, basically, you want an HAV to trash any ADS that engages it? You want sufficient elevation such that an ADS cannot exploit the HAV's top-side blind spot...which essentially makes ADS on HAV never end in favour of the ADS: HAVs are tougher and hit far harder.
An ADS has manoeuvrability and speed over the HAV's resilience and firepower. An elevation such that the ADS cannot exploit a blind spot means that the ADS has only speed, which means that they will never be able yo destroy an HAV before the HAV gets to turn its turret and insta-blap the ADS with their far greater firepower.
Godin Thekiller wrote:But it seems you think otherwise. Reasonable defense seems to not be what you want. SO I can only assume two things:
1: You clearly don't know what the **** you're talking about.
2: You are a ADS pilot that pretends to be a HAV pilot as well, and just wants ADS's to be OP.
Either way, you're a idiot.
I am an ADS pilot primarily, though recently AV has basically rendered ADSs pointless. I do, however, have reasonable experience as an HAV pilot, and have played alongside some of the better tankers I've had the fortune of meeting. No, I'm not the best HAV operator, but at the same time I have little difficulty dealing with ADSs that try and harass me: does that not say something about your abilities, if a self admitted average tanker can deal with these threats better than you can?
As for ADSs being OP, you really don't know what you're talking about: since Rattati nerfed the ROF bonus, ADSs have not been dominating matches except under two circumstances:
- AV is not present, either due to players being incapable or unwilling to use it
- AV is eliminated extremely quickly, either by the ADS (often unlikely due to rendering issues or just because AV is generally extremely effective at stopping ADSs) or because infantry discriminate and target them first.
I've yet to see a post of yours that doesn't involve being an ******* to someone because of some feeling of superiority. How about you extol the benefits of your proposal instead of trying to debase your detractors, which is usually a sign that your point is weak.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1343
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 15:37:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:So the fact that ADS can kill tanks after a minute of shooting and reloading is broken and needs to be stopped?
It will take even longer to take down a marauder because they have so much HP, and if the tanker can't escape into the redline or hide somewhere safe in that time then they should not be seen as a tanker, more like a noob on wheels.
Because God in refuses to accept that anyone else can actually shoot down an ADS, despite many people claiming to have little issue doing so, because it doesn't mesh with a single person's (Godin's) experience. I wonder how many of Godwin's 90 HAV kills in his ADS are newberries in Somas or Sivas, and I'm curious how long each kill took, because that informs us just how bad/new/shitfit they were.
@Alena:
I think most ADS pilots see the ADS as this. Please note the wings with rocket pods and the troop bay.
The ADS is more like the Hind to the DS's Blackhawk. Both are troop transports foremost. I know it's Wikipedia, but this is the Hind's role: "Attack helicopter with transport capabilities." The ADS fits that's philosophy perfectly, whereas the DS fits the Blackhawk's role better: "Utility helicopter."
@Godin, about hiding under pipes: yes, the ADS can drop altitude to attack you, but that brings them into your elevation... So they either come down to attack you and risk getting violated but eh HAV's far greater firepower or they stay at a 'safe' height and do nothing.
As Jammeh said, an ADS has to prioritise the presence of an HAV because if it ignores it to 'farm infantry', as you seem to love characterising fire support, then the HAV can come along and happily blap it with the Rail or Missiles (I think we all agree that Blasters are not working as intended with regards AV, but they still really hurt or wreck an ADS.)
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1346
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 21:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:2: Blasters and Rockets won't simply "shoot them down" in their optimals. That only applies to Rails really, and that assumes you're on one of the larger maps, or not flying at max height.
Blasters I can understand, but Missiles? Why are you incapable of using Missiles? They do far better compressed damage than the Rails and takes a small amount better aim to use.
Seriously, why aren't Missiles suitable?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1346
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:You're doing it wrong then. I've only died to the great bolas and rails so far.
In my HAV I've never died to an ADS single handedly. So that must mean you're doing it wrong.
See how easy and pointless that kind of dickwaving is?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1350
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 23:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:XxBlazikenxX wrote:CCP Frame wrote:Guys. Please keep it civil and constructive. Otherwise I will have to lock this down. Thank you. Please lock it down, this argument is pointless in the first place. This guy is just to stubborn to see otherwise. Yes, silence the person speaking reason.
You're the only person asking for this change, and even HAV operators disagree with you. Why on earth do you think you're the one speaking reason?!
For 15 pages you've just being plugging your ears and going, "I'm not listening, blah blah blah. I'm right because I say I'm right, not listening!" And that's a mostly verbatim paraphrasing!
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1352
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 23:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:But no. Most of you, especially you thinks that it's perfectly fine, when it's clearly not. I ask you to give me examples of how, and you claim that using things that assumes that there's people ALWAYS willing to help you, that AI will ALWAYS help you, and the terrain can't be simply countered by the ADS is a thing, when ALL of those things are simply wrong. Again, prove to me that isn't the case. You've yet to, and I'm waiting to see otherwise.
Godin Thekiller wrote:So if I own a invisible unicorn that only I can detect, I say it is real and everyone else says it's not, I'm wrong? Using your logic, I am.
Just because a trillion people believe your warped opinion, that doesn't make your warped opinion right you fool. PROVE IT'S RIGHT.
That is exactly how science works: without evidence that something works/doesn't work a certain way, it's generally disregarded as a theory.
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've given my evdience
I've been able to easily kill HAV's.
I've not seen blaster and Rocket HAV's able to reasonably able to defend against ADS's.
Provide otherwise.
Your evidence has been to state that your individual experience is a certain.
Roughly half a dozen ADS pilots and/or HAV operators have entered this thread and given their experience which amounts to the opposite of your experience.
They have provided no more and no less than you have. Why do you feel that you've actually done more work than they have, and why do you feel they should do more work than you?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1352
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 23:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:A question to all: Why is it bad to not want to have to rely on teamwork?
Why, when several HAV operators have said otherwise, do you think this is an issue for everyone and not just you?
Multiple HAV operators have said that defending themselves against an ADS (even without using teamwork or hopping out with AV) is fine, yet you continue to disregard their consolidated, collective experience because it doesn't mesh with your individual experience.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1352
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 00:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:1: Science is irrelevant in that example, as only I can detect it. It is simply real, but you simply can't detect it. Answer the question: Am I wrong?
Yes, because you are incapable of supporting your claim with evidence. We cannot see in the infrared,but we know that the infrared exists, because we can use it and prove its existence: your unicorn cannot be proven by anyone other than yourself - your claim cannot be substantiated.
Without the ability to ensure something is actually real by outside determination, how do you now that the unicorn and subsequent detection is not simply your imagination?
Godin Thekiller wrote:2: Actually, that is false.There wasn't anything provided other than "You are wrong! YOU ARE WRONG!" to prove me wrong. I've tried to keep civil, and if someone explained themselves, and asked for alternatives, as well as things to help with the quality of life for ADS's and DS's in general, I provided it.
Alternatives to what? The current state of the game which everyone except you thinks is fine? Why should alternatives be posited when no one else feels that change is necessary? Your premise for change hinges on the belief that you are correct, but everyone else disagrees.
The quality of life changes for DSs are entirely mutually exclusive from this thread: the lack of demand for transportation has absolutely no impact on how effectively an ADS can engage an HAV.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Again, tell me why/and or how a turret elevation increase and a ADS ceiling height slight reduction would break any balance, or not create more balance. None of you so far has.
Why? Because it would shift the balance of power far in the favour of the HAV.
Currently an HAV can use terrain to protect itself (again, only you appear to have an issue with this notion) and can shift momentum far faster than an ADS so as to engage it, as well as being capable of fitting a top turret for personal defence. These aspects of the ADS/HAV balance require and rely on zero teamwork for either side, yet you continue to say that we demand teamwork from the HAV, which is blatantly untrue for many of us (some are saying that a HAV should use teamwork, but not most of us.)
Godin Thekiller wrote:So because I can't run a squad all the time or at all, it's clearly my fault.
Okay, if that's the case, then why does the ADS STILL not require teamwork?
And actually, I have took their experiences into account. They are however, quite ******* invalid, as I said so many ******* times already, which you seem to not understand, REQUIRING TEAMWORK AGAINST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IS BROKEN YOU IDIOT. If you can't understand that, either you simply don't care, your head is so far up your ass that you simply can't get it, or you simply refuse to get it.
Again, many of the repeated suggestions involve zero teamwork, which is why your repeated 'rebuttals' (read: tantrums) about needing teamwork are quite ridiculous.
Using terrain, momentum and/or a top turret do not require teamwork at all, and all have varying levels of effectiveness, but all do allow you to fight back on your own.
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:however, defending one's HAV against an ADS with a Blaster is considerably more difficult. Now this is both as a result of the much shorter range of the blaster turret, along with the lack of associated physics with the projectiles on-impact...and the Blasters AV utility as a whole being lower than that of the other main turrets, and isn't helped by the marginal angle increase relative to the rail. (I'm ignoring the Missile Turret because it is in a very bad place for balance right now) The scaling of the angle needs to be better is what I'm saying...and in that I agree with Godin...Short-Ranged turrets need help.
I'm not asking for Large Blasters to be able to point straight up, but giving them the ability to aim higher up in the air would do much to help mitigate the issue.
I can agree that Blasters are functioning in a strange way: they are essentially giant machine guns and gain AI power at the expense of AV power. Honestly, the Large Blaster needs redone in a lot of ways and I can't say that a Blaster elevation buff would be awful for ADS/HAV balance, but at the same time they are getting a balance pass with the HAV reintroduction (if that's still happening) and that might substantially change the balance of Blaster vs vehicles I general, which obviously includes ADSs.
I'm definitely not an expert on HAVs, so I can't say that I know best. It's a gut feeling of mine that too much elevation would essentially nullify ADSs from the game: one of the few things they can actually do better than other things is harass HAVs, and an increased elevation might make the ADS/HAV balance skew too far in favour of the HAV.
Again. I don't really have the tools to examine that properly, and it's jut a gut feeling. Personally I'd be alright with Blasters getting a look at an elevation increase once we know how the HAV introduction Blaster balance pass plays out.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1353
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 01:27:00 -
[31] - Quote
Bah, I'm done with this thread and Godin's obstinance.
I sincerely hope this does not happen, because it will mean that HAVs dominate the skies like railguns of old used to. Even with a modest elevation increase it will be nigh impossible for a dropship of any kind to engage and defeat an HAV, especially considering the rebalance of HAVs is almost unilaterally a good thing for them.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
| |
|