DUST Search - Why are ADS's acting as if they are Gunships?

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:

Main turret shooting up? No...

Top Small Turret Shooting up? Yes...very yes...please

The Top Gun to function as a deterrent, but not something that flat out kills it

Again, that would imply that a HAV has to rely on teamwork to deal with a target (ADS), while a ADS does not (because it can easily just run away).

An HAV fulfills the role of a Main Battle Tank correct? Last I checked, the turret elevations on an abrams tank where approx +20/-10 degrees, which is very similar to what we have currently. Additionally, simple situational awareness and target prioritization will keep any Assault Dropship platform from being able to effectively engage you, assuming it's a solo situation. If there is an event where you are too distracted, or there is a higher priority target for you to engage, than that is teamwork on the part of the ADS and team (usual other threat will be an HAV in this case), and can reasonably be expected to require teamwork to counter effectively (barring strategic thinking, such as the forward and back method, or moving to positions where the ADS would be at high risk to follow).

In short, and reasonably aware tanker should be able to eliminate any solo ADS threat, provided we assume that the HAV turrets get re-balanced to be equally effective at AV, and assuming that the tanker avoids getting tunnel visioned. Let's bear in mind Godin, that the presence of our HAVs requires infantry to consider special strategies in order to properly counter or avoid engagements, cannot we expect the same to be applied to us in at least a few circumstances?

Now I could see a case for increased elevation on turrets with closer range (such as the blaster, or possibly the missile turret) to help compensate for that range problem, but only a small amount (possibly +10 degrees on the high end of things)

Last I checked Abrams had several systems to defend against aerial attacks as well, so irrevelant.

Seeing as the only possible way to defend against them is either

1: See them coming and kill them before they get there (only possible for really the rail).

2: Get way back into the redline so it can't reach you (simply isn't possible in a reasonable amount of time on some maps)

3: Hope that someone will take them out for you (so basically getting lucky)

as you can't effectively kill it due to turret elevation, There isn't any real good, effective ways to deal with a ADS in a HAV. An ADS has much better movement and aiming, and can easily deal with a HAV shooting at it however (even a rail at range, provided the Pilot can do some maneuvering).

See, here's the problem with that statement: For infantry to deal with us, they have two choices:

1: maneuver through cover, hide, or run

2: Equip AV and either push the vehicle away, or kill it.

Both are very good options, as both leads to the HAV becoming either less of a threat (due to not being able to hit you), or not a threat at all (either it or the infantry ran, or it died). that isn't the case with ADS's, as it's faster than you, and in the air, so hiding and/or running is them impossible other than VERY few cases. Fighting back, as I have shown is not a thing, unless the pilot is for some reason flying too low. So that leaves you with little to no options other than die, which is why it's broken. Of course, you seem to be reasonable enough to understand that not every turret is able to even deal with ADS's (Rockets somewhat, and definitely blasters),

Also, I'd like to reiterate that I don't believe ADS's are OP, as that would imply that they either do their job plus some, or they do their job TOO well compared to other vehicles of the same type (for example, a Logi being a logi and assault, or a Gal Logi being the best Logi, period). It's backwards from the first one, doing a job of another vehicle type too well (Gunship), but it sucks as a actual combat-oriented DS (as in actually ferrying infantry around and supporting said infantry, not going around killing everything in sight like a flying HAV of old).


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 182	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:16:00 - [1] - Quote Main turret shooting up? No... Top Small Turret Shooting up? Yes...very yes...please The Top Gun to function as a deterrent, but not something that flat out kills it Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 185	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:35:00 - [2] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Main turret shooting up? No... Top Small Turret Shooting up? Yes...very yes...please The Top Gun to function as a deterrent, but not something that flat out kills it Again, that would imply that a HAV has to rely on teamwork to deal with a target (ADS), while a ADS does not (because it can easily just run away). An HAV fulfills the role of a Main Battle Tank correct? Last I checked, the turret elevations on an abrams tank where approx +20/-10 degrees, which is very similar to what we have currently. Additionally, simple situational awareness and target prioritization will keep any Assault Dropship platform from being able to effectively engage you, assuming it's a solo situation. If there is an event where you are too distracted, or there is a higher priority target for you to engage, than that is teamwork on the part of the ADS and team (usual other threat will be an HAV in this case), and can reasonably be expected to require teamwork to counter effectively (barring strategic thinking, such as the forward and back method, or moving to positions where the ADS would be at high risk to follow). In short, and reasonably aware tanker should be able to eliminate any solo ADS threat, provided we assume that the HAV turrets get re-balanced to be equally effective at AV, and assuming that the tanker avoids getting tunnel visioned. Let's bear in mind Godin, that the presence of our HAVs requires infantry to consider special strategies in order to properly counter or avoid engagements, cannot we expect the same to be applied to us in at least a few circumstances? Now I could see a case for increased elevation on turrets with closer range (such as the blaster, or possibly the missile turret) to help compensate for that range problem, but only a small amount (possibly +10 degrees) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 187	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:43:00 - [3] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Main turret shooting up? No... Top Small Turret Shooting up? Yes...very yes...please The Top Gun to function as a deterrent, but not something that flat out kills it Again, that would imply that a HAV has to rely on teamwork to deal with a target (ADS), while a ADS does not (because it can easily just run away). An HAV fulfills the role of a Main Battle Tank correct? Last I checked, the turret elevations on an abrams tank where approx +20/-10 degrees, which is very similar to what we have currently. Additionally, simple situational awareness and target prioritization will keep any Assault Dropship platform from being able to effectively engage you, assuming it's a solo situation. If there is an event where you are too distracted, or there is a higher priority target for you to engage, than that is teamwork on the part of the ADS and team (usual other threat will be an HAV in this case), and can reasonably be expected to require teamwork to counter effectively (barring strategic thinking, such as the forward and back method, or moving to positions where the ADS would be at high risk to follow). In short, and reasonably aware tanker should be able to eliminate any solo ADS threat, provided we assume that the HAV turrets get re-balanced to be equally effective at AV, and assuming that the tanker avoids getting tunnel visioned. Let's bear in mind Godin, that the presence of our HAVs requires infantry to consider special strategies in order to properly counter or avoid engagements, cannot we expect the same to be applied to us in at least a few circumstances? Now I could see a case for increased elevation on turrets with closer range (such as the blaster, or possibly the missile turret) to help compensate for that range problem, but only a small amount (possibly +10 degrees on the high end of things) Last I checked Abrams had several systems to defend against aerial attacks as well, so irrevelant. Seeing as the only possible way to defend against them is either 1: See them coming and kill them before they get there (only possible for really the rail). 2: Get way back into the redline so it can't reach you (simply isn't possible in a reasonable amount of time on some maps) 3: Hope that someone will take them out for you (so basically getting lucky) as you can't effectively kill it due to turret elevation, There isn't any real good, effective ways to deal with a ADS in a HAV. An ADS has much better movement and aiming, and can easily deal with a HAV shooting at it however (even a rail at range, provided the Pilot can do some maneuvering). See, here's the problem with that statement: For infantry to deal with us, they have two choices: 1: maneuver through cover, hide, or run 2: Equip AV and either push the vehicle away, or kill it. Both are very good options, as both leads to the HAV becoming either less of a threat (due to not being able to hit you), or not a threat at all (either it or the infantry ran, or it died). that isn't the case with ADS's, as it's faster than you, and in the air, so hiding and/or running is them impossible other than VERY few cases. Fighting back, as I have shown is not a thing, unless the pilot is for some reason flying too low. So that leaves you with little to no options other than die, which is why it's broken. Of course, you seem to be reasonable enough to understand that not every turret is able to even deal with ADS's (Rockets somewhat, and definitely blasters), Also, I'd like to reiterate that I don't believe ADS's are OP, as that would imply that they either do their job plus some, or they do their job TOO well compared to other vehicles of the same type (for example, a Logi being a logi and assault, or a Gal Logi being the best Logi, period). It's backwards from the first one, doing a job of another vehicle type too well (Gunship), but it sucks as a actual combat-oriented DS (as in actually ferrying infantry around and supporting said infantry, not going around killing everything in sight like a flying HAV of old). Last I checked, Abrams primary methods of defending itself against aircraft where: The Main 120mm Cannon, the coaxial 7.62, the pintle-mount 7.62, or the .50 cal (note: can have an optional secondary coaxial weapon: 12.7mm Machine Gun)...all of it pretty conventional and Comparable to our HAV MBTs can have the Main Turret, a Front Mounted Small Turret, and a Top Mounted Small Turret...How I wish we could have a coaxial small gun. And as stated, I could see additional turret elevation being given to the turret for having a closer range munition (on the Blaster or Missile Turret)...and my statement assumes we get comparable AV abilities (which turret elevation to maintain Anti-Aircraft Capabilities may very well be a thing) Additionally, HAV operators have options with dealing with ADSs the same way infantry have for dealing with HAVs (Socket Dependent, but common enough)...that being: Maneuver into an area with top-cover from the ADS. Anywhere with a low enough ceiling will substantially increase the risk of the ADS attacking you: Under Bridges, those large gallente "Landing Pad" looking structures, or places like the Lag Facility or Production Facility provide adequate cover, and make life a living hell for any ADS attempting to peruse you. Or Equip AV and hop out to fend off the ADS additionally the HAV has other options: The Back-and-Forth method of using the Dropship's inertia against it...works perfectly for solo engagements All-in-all I know that being picked apart by a persistent Incubis is annoying, but I've taken out far more of them whilst they where attempting to take me out than have successfully destroyed my HAV...maybe that's just the case for the pilots that have tried to take me out. Will continue in another post Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 187	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:45:00 - [4] - Quote I know what your saying about the ADS role not being well defined...originally they where supposed to be dropships with some manner of fire support, but that has largely evolved into a full gunship over time...unless we get CCP to weigh in on where they want them, I'm content with their current pseudo-dropship/pseudo-gunship role as is, but would like to see them get something more concrete before we design systems that could kill transport dropships as well, and eliminate that role in it's entirety. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 199	Posted - 2015.02.13 07:04:00 - [5] - Quote Ok... Here's an idea...we make the Turret Angle inversely proportional to Turret Range? (For the main Turrets)... So Rails have a low upward angle Missiles have a medium upward angle Blasters have a high angle Additionally, I maintain that the Top Gun on the HAV hull should have a better upwards angle. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 201	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:08:00 - [6] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. By large in-part yes, defending against an ADS is fine with the primary HAV turret I use, the Railgun, 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. Railguns have their low angle as an associated penalty for their unerring accuracy over a long distance (albeit, not as long as it used to be, and still not as long as I'd like it to be), and rails as a whole are functioning well in their intended role (but as True Adamance will tell you, they have too high of a RoF, but the DPS on the whole is OK) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal