Well this is going full circle again, so how about...


Someone post a video of them single handedly downing a 'SKILLED' HAV pilot, using a single ads.


or


Someone post a video of a tank escaping a single ads.



Until this happens, nothing is solved. Because no one will budge on their opinions.
I only wish I could do it myself and show you just how simple it is to evade an ads using a tank. But until then, feel free to run an armour rep maddi, those things take so long to down, that you can slowly wander back to the redzone.

Most people who has come in here has used the exact. same. argument. How about you stop asking to be broken?

a single video wouldn't not solve anything

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.

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?

Prove it. I've only seen otherwise. Also, Being able to deal with a single person with one single person is broken? How.

So let's say you shoot down the ADS from 250 metres with a Large Railgun.

Does not the ADS, who has no opportunity for retaliation, and really, not all that much opportunity to escape, either, get to complain that they can't deal with a single person with one single person?

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?

Prove it. I've only seen otherwise.

Also, Being able to deal with a single person with one single person is broken? How.

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!





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?



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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

Again, the simple fact that ADS's can do this against Blasters and Rocket turrets is my proof. Show me evidence otherwise.

You've got it completely ass backwards. Missile tank is my main tank... I deal with ADS on a daily basis. I don't camp the redzone, unless I'm trying to blow my way out of it, so I can say with some certainty an ads is near 0 threat by itself to my tank. I can dodge enough shots to let my shields regen without even activating the hardener most of the time.

Yes you can't look up at an ads that's so high it's not seeing or doing anything. Yes you have to work a bit to get into a position where you can aim at the ads. When an ads is in the sights of a missile tank (and you can aim) you will hit them with so many god damn rockets, it wont be able to fly away until you're done. If it survives then it's once again off doing nothing. Repeat until it dies.

This is ignoring (as you already have) the fact that you can force the ads into positions (without use of teammates) with buildings and BLASTER INSTALLATIONS <---------- These are deadly to an ads.

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.



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.



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.



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.

Godin flies?

God what I wouldnt give to kill DS after poorly flown DS with my Incubus



Stay on the ground where you belong.

@Godin, you say 'only `1/3 of fits can deal with DS''.

Well, my missiles have no problem either.



So that's 2/3rds.

Now, blasters have a problem dealing with ADS thanks to dispersion and range, but ADS blasters have a problem dealing with HAV thanks to damage output so i'm willing to call that fair.

Unless you're just complaining cos you're using the wrong tool for the job?







NB: I am deeply intoxicated at the moment, excuse spelling+grammar errors, I have been correcting literally (and yes, I mean that in its dictionary definition) every single word.

Seeing as I've had no problems dealing with rocket HAV's, I don't buy that.

Also, small blasters are considered too weak to usually kill anything, that is irrelevant. Rocket and rail fitted ADS's does the job quite well however. Also, large blasters are supposed to be as good as Rails in AV in their optimal, so again, irrelevant (and why they are getting buffed).

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?

But hey, I'm just apparently wanting HAV's to be OP against everything else, right?

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. How about you find reasons to actually support your argument instead of resorting to some pretty lame denigration.



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?

I would like the Dropships to have more survivability, to be honest.

Way to easy to pop even a full-skill, well-fit dropship when it goes to engage.

Fair enough, I don't expect to shoot at a DS for two seconds and drop (that would **** me off in fact, would remind me of how paper thin LDS's were). As long as I can reasonably deal with a target, to where it's not a threat, just like I can with another HAV or AV, then what should I care if it lives? Again, I want to be able to deal with threats. That doesn't mean kill (although it can). Making it run off, or even distracting it could fit under that term. I'm not a sort of person who thinks that the only way to be safe is by killing everything (and that's why I think that the vehicle damage was a wonderful idea).

EDIT: about two minutes ago, I ripped apart a normal DS flying along with a Rail. Not sure if it was fitted, but it was broke in about 3 seconds. That's silly.

Fair enough, I don't expect to shoot at a DS for two seconds and drop (that would **** me off in fact, would remind me of how paper thin LDS's were). As long as I can reasonably deal with a target, to where it's not a threat, just like I can with another HAV or AV, then what should I care if it lives? Again, I want to be able to deal with threats. That doesn't mean kill (although it can). Making it run off, or even distracting it could fit under that term. I'm not a sort of person who thinks that the only way to be safe is by killing everything (and that's why I think that the vehicle damage was a wonderful idea).

EDIT: about two minutes ago, I ripped apart a normal DS flying along with a Rail. Not sure if it was fitted, but it was broke in about 3 seconds. That's silly.

Yeah two tank cannon rounds in 3 seconds is silly.......

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 ****.

Seeing as I've had no problems dealing with rocket HAV's, I don't buy that.

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?

Nah, means you are doing it right, I guess, with current mechanics.

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.



Again, you're pretty much the only one saying this. Can you provide links showing us videos where HAVs are incapable of defending themselves?



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?

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 ****.

What, you don't want one person to equal one person?

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.

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.