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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Why are ADS's acting as if they are Gunships?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 21:31:00 - [1] - Quote And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1680	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:15:00 - [2] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:18:00 - [3] - Quote Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. AV
Bahirae Serugiusu Vendetta Reactionary Force 474	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:27:00 - [4] - Quote Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. The State will always survive.
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 941	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:40:00 - [5] - Quote That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. Changes to Damage mods!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16945	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:48:00 - [6] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Are they not supposed to be gunships? If so what are they supposed to be since they don't really have to fire power to be support platforms or gunships? Moreover if not Gunships now why not Gunships? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16945	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:51:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:01:00 - [8] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. I assume that is a redline rail with at least a damage mod on it. anywhere outside of the redline, the ADS will be able to hover over it and kill it with no resistance. Rails also have a somewhat short range now, so flying away the redline will prevent them from even getting shots in, as well as constantly moving. Tell me again why ADS's acting as gunships with extra seats is a good idea, I'm all ears. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:03:00 - [9] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. Was putting something out there, but how is a raised turret elevation bad exactly? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:04:00 - [10] - Quote Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:08:00 - [11] - Quote Buwaro Draemon wrote: That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:10:00 - [12] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? That too. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1681	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:17:00 - [13] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. I assume that is a redline rail with at least a damage mod on it. anywhere outside of the redline, the ADS will be able to hover over it and kill it with no resistance. Rails also have a somewhat short range now, so flying away the redline will prevent them from even getting shots in, as well as constantly moving. Tell me again why ADS's acting as gunships with extra seats is a good idea, I'm all ears. They don't?? They act like paper bags at most. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Bahirae Serugiusu Vendetta Reactionary Force 475	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:22:00 - [14] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. The State will always survive.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:27:00 - [15] - Quote Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. No, everything does not. Infantry can turn around or look up DS's can look both down and up only LAV's can't really defend against most things, which they can greatly avoid with like DS's, speed. So only HAV's has one true blind spot. Try again. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:29:00 - [16] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. I assume that is a redline rail with at least a damage mod on it. anywhere outside of the redline, the ADS will be able to hover over it and kill it with no resistance. Rails also have a somewhat short range now, so flying away the redline will prevent them from even getting shots in, as well as constantly moving. Tell me again why ADS's acting as gunships with extra seats is a good idea, I'm all ears. They don't?? They act like paper bags at most. I beg to differ, as well as any pilot who has been on either side of them. Tell you what, hover over any HAV, tell me if it shoots back and actually kills you. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 941	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:30:00 - [17] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Buwaro Draemon wrote: That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. 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. Me too. But if almost every pilot wants to treat it like Gunship, then they should have never existed. Almost every ADS thread I have read on the forums have been from wither pilots wanting to be able to hover above infantry and farm them, or ADS nerf threads (the nerf threads are gone now) but even back in their glory days, pilots still wanted more tank in order to hover and kill infantry. When the ADS was meant for that. A fast troop transport with frontal defensive capabilities. Nowadays you are lucky if you find an ADS carrying troops around since most pilots use them to farm infantry. Which was never their intended role. I use mine to clear up rooftops with the help of a friend (I drop him and give him cover fire) or for taking out that annoying ADS pilot trying to farm my teammates. Funny enough when I engage most pilots in a duel, they go back to the redline and call back the ADS. Makes you wonder who truly has skills to use them (because farming infantry isn't really that hard when no one is fighting back at you) Changes to Damage mods!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16947	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:30:00 - [18] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. No, everything does not. Infantry can turn around or look up DS's can look both down and up only LAV's can't really defend against most things, which they can greatly avoid with like DS's, speed. So only HAV's has one true blind spot. Try again. Dunno about this Godin. If they can remain hovering over me like that they kinda deserve the kill. It's our **** up as tankers, not ADS being too powerful or any such like. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:59:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. No, everything does not. Infantry can turn around or look up DS's can look both down and up only LAV's can't really defend against most things, which they can greatly avoid with like DS's, speed. So only HAV's has one true blind spot. Try again. Dunno about this Godin. If they can remain hovering over me like that they kinda deserve the kill. It's our **** up as tankers, not ADS being too powerful or any such like. You do realize that you can move and still hover over a HAV, correct? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 835	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:06:00 - [20] - Quote You mean the flying ship with guns on it is acting like a flying ship with guns on it? Weird!

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16951	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:36:00 - [21] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You do realize that you can move and still hover over a HAV, correct? Yeah what of it? That seems like a viable tactic to employ if the tanker below cannot get into a position to respond. It's not like ADS have the fire power to pop a tank in an unreasonable amount of time. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:41:00 - [22] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: You mean the flying ship with guns on it is acting like a flying ship with guns on it? Weird! No, it's a ADS acting like a Gunship. Two different things. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:44:00 - [23] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You do realize that you can move and still hover over a HAV, correct? Yeah what of it? That seems like a viable tactic to employ if the tanker below cannot get into a position to respond. It's not like ADS have the fire power to pop a tank in an unreasonable amount of time. If a ADS can hover overa HAV while moving, it can hover over it when it's still, regardless, it can hover and kill, and the HAV can't defend itself, and that itself is broken. Everything should be able to protect itself somehow. Currently there just isn't a way for a HAV to protect itself from a ADS. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2530	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:50:00 - [24] - Quote If they aren't being gunships now, then we should modify them to where they can be gunships. Buff that front turret and remove the side ones. We need an Apache-type vehicle. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16951	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:57:00 - [25] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You do realize that you can move and still hover over a HAV, correct? Yeah what of it? That seems like a viable tactic to employ if the tanker below cannot get into a position to respond. It's not like ADS have the fire power to pop a tank in an unreasonable amount of time. If a ADS can hover overa HAV while moving, it can hover over it when it's still, regardless, it can hover and kill, and the HAV can't defend itself, and that itself is broken. Everything should be able to protect itself somehow. Currently there just isn't a way for a HAV to protect itself from a ADS. I'm not one who believe that every thing should have an immediate and simple counters. Simply put there are counters but they required you get get some distance, seek cover, or otherwise manoeuvre so the drop-ship is not directly above you. It's hard but not impossible. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 941	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:57:00 - [26] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: If they aren't being gunships now, then we should modify them to where they can be gunships. Buff that front turret and remove the side ones. We need an Apache-type vehicle. No. They were never meant to be Gunships. And if you want to have an Apache style vehicle, then the frontal turret should be manned by another person. Changes to Damage mods!
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:57:00 - [27] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: If they aren't being gunships now, then we should modify them to where they can be gunships. Buff that front turret and remove the side ones. We need an Apache-type vehicle. Most games allows for turrets to be able to hit said Gunships and killing them with very little hits, so either 1: No 2: A buff to turret elevation would be needed click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:01:00 - [28] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You do realize that you can move and still hover over a HAV, correct? Yeah what of it? That seems like a viable tactic to employ if the tanker below cannot get into a position to respond. It's not like ADS have the fire power to pop a tank in an unreasonable amount of time. If a ADS can hover overa HAV while moving, it can hover over it when it's still, regardless, it can hover and kill, and the HAV can't defend itself, and that itself is broken. Everything should be able to protect itself somehow. Currently there just isn't a way for a HAV to protect itself from a ADS. I'm not one who believe that every thing should have an immediate and simple counters. Simply put there are counters but they required you get get some distance, seek cover, or otherwise manoeuvre so the drop-ship is not directly above you. It's hard but not impossible. So defending yourself should be a thing in this case. Why? And did you just say "Get some distance, or get into cover"? Name 10 low overpasses on each map, and are HAV's faster than ADS's? 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1682	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:05:00 - [29] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. I assume that is a redline rail with at least a damage mod on it. anywhere outside of the redline, the ADS will be able to hover over it and kill it with no resistance. Rails also have a somewhat short range now, so flying away the redline will prevent them from even getting shots in, as well as constantly moving. Tell me again why ADS's acting as gunships with extra seats is a good idea, I'm all ears. They don't?? They act like paper bags at most. I beg to differ, as well as any pilot who has been on either side of them. Tell you what, hover over any HAV, tell me if it shoots back and actually kills you. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure my squad shoots that thing down in seconds. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot you with my forgegun. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot with my OP swams. There are many ways to counter an ADS. Learn to be a G? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1416	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:12:00 - [30] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Buwaro Draemon wrote: That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. 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. All I can hear is "**** your role" I'm the Rayman of uplinks. 21 day EVE trial.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:14:00 - [31] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: If they aren't being gunships now, then we should modify them to where they can be gunships. Buff that front turret and remove the side ones. We need an Apache-type vehicle. Most games allows for turrets to be able to hit said Gunships and killing them with very little hits, so either 1: No 2: A buff to turret elevation would be needed, and the passenger seats taken away as well. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:17:00 - [32] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure my squad shoots that thing down in seconds. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot you with my forgegun. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot with my OP swams. There are many ways to counter an ADS. Learn to be a G? That would require a squad of teammates to back you up, which isn't the norm That would require you to get out of your vehicle, which can either outright kill you or put your HAV at risk Same as the above So you've failed. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:18:00 - [33] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Buwaro Draemon wrote: That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. 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. All I can hear is "** your role" No, I'm saying that a DS shouldn't be a ***** gunship, that shouldn't be its role. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 106	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:26:00 - [34] - Quote The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1417	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:37:00 - [35] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I'm saying that a DS shouldn't be a ******* gunship, that shouldn't be its role. Assault isn't support. The dropship supports. We had logistics dropships for a reason. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. 21 day EVE trial.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2787	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:37:00 - [36] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. so just say "**** it, the game should be broken. Why should I care?" and I'll feel better? No. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 837	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:40:00 - [37] - Quote From the in game description : "The Assault Class (Dropship) is a low level aerial attack craft. Its light frame makes it highly maneuverable while the front mounted pilot controlled turret gives it a significant advantage in aerial engagements" Seems like it's working as intended to me. Stop trying to shoehorn the vehicle into a role that you think its supposed to be and embrace the intended use of the vehicle. If they weren't meant to attack ** their skill bonus wouldn't relate to the rate of fire of the turret that they're able to equip. If I'm a tank pilot with knowledge that an ADS is out on the field I can do the following to make sure my ** isn't wrecked : Pilot with a beefy suit equipped with either swarms or forges Am aware of the places on the map where I can get cover from aerial forces Might even equip turrets so that my gunners can better protect my blind spots.
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2533	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:40:00 - [38] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: If they aren't being gunships now, then we should modify them to where they can be gunships. Buff that front turret and remove the side ones. We need an Apache-type vehicle. Most games allows for turrets to be able to hit said Gunships and killing them with very little hits, so either 1: No 2: A buff to turret elevation would be needed, and the passenger seats taken away as well. I gladly accept. Then we return the 10% ROF bonus, small buff to base HP, and tack on some extra PG/CPU. Can take a little more punishment, at the cost of transport and gunner support. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2788	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:41:00 - [39] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I'm saying that a DS shouldn't be a ******* gunship, that shouldn't be its role. Assault isn't support. The dropship supports. We had logistics dropships for a reason. Do you not understand that "drops off a small firemteam and gives them temporary support from infantry and lightly armored vehicles (AKA go DAKKA DAKKA at them, just because it seems you're that foolish)" means combat support, as in shooting at stuff to support people, but not flying around killing installations and HAV's? lol click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 107	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:42:00 - [40] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. so just say "**** it, the game should be broken. Why should I care?" and I'll feel better? No. No, not at all, the game shouldn't be broken and CCP should work hard on fixing its numerous bugs. Let me do an analogy for you. Regular Dropships = Futuristic Army Black hawk These have turrets on the side much as the Dropship is, and has the purpose of ferrying troops in and out of battle Assault Dropships = Futuristic Apache These are meant to be offensive powerhouses and support the infantry by directly influencing the battle. While it is able to carry troops on the side, this is not its main purpose. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault

XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 107	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:44:00 - [41] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I'm saying that a DS shouldn't be a ******* gunship, that shouldn't be its role. Assault isn't support. The dropship supports. We had logistics dropships for a reason. Yes the dropship does support, the Assault Dropship engages the enemy. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2790	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:48:00 - [42] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: From the in game description : "The Assault Class (Dropship) is a low level aerial attack craft. Its light frame makes it highly maneuverable while the front mounted pilot controlled turret gives it a significant advantage in aerial engagements" Seems like it's working as intended to me. Stop trying to shoehorn the vehicle into a role that you think its supposed to be and embrace the intended use of the vehicle. If they weren't meant to attack ** their skill bonus wouldn't relate to the rate of fire of the turret that they're able to equip. If I'm a tank pilot with knowledge that an ADS is out on the field I can do the following to make sure my isn't wrecked : Pilot with a beefy suit equipped with either swarms or forges Am aware of the places on the map where I can get cover from aerial forces Might even equip turrets so that my gunners can better protect my blind spots. I don't give a what a desc. says, they can be reworded (and they have). They are broken as Gunships, and either they need fixing to where they can't just hover over HAV's, or a role change, and as DS's they REALLY need a role change, as a DS isn't made to go pew pew at every ***** thing in the game. Also, read the above on why using AV and hopping out the suit is a stupid idea. There's little to no ariel cover on ANY map. Name 10 places per map, and I'll change my mind. That isn't a option for Maddies, future solo HAV's, and Enforcers. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2790	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:50:00 - [43] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. so just say "**** it, the game should be broken. Why should I care?" and I'll feel better? No. No, not at all, the game shouldn't be broken and CCP should work hard on fixing its numerous bugs. Let me do an analogy for you. Regular Dropships = Futuristic Army Black hawk These have turrets on the side much as the Dropship is, and has the purpose of ferrying troops in and out of battle Assault Dropships = Futuristic Apache These are meant to be offensive powerhouses and support the infantry by directly influencing the battle. While it is able to carry troops on the side, this is not its main purpose. That would be a gunship Does a Apache have seats? Also, does modern day tanks have defenses against gunships? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 107	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:51:00 - [44] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: From the in game description : "The Assault Class (Dropship) is a low level aerial attack craft. Its light frame makes it highly maneuverable while the front mounted pilot controlled turret gives it a significant advantage in aerial engagements" Seems like it's working as intended to me. Stop trying to shoehorn the vehicle into a role that you think its supposed to be and embrace the intended use of the vehicle. If they weren't meant to attack ** their skill bonus wouldn't relate to the rate of fire of the turret that they're able to equip. If I'm a tank pilot with knowledge that an ADS is out on the field I can do the following to make sure my isn't wrecked : Pilot with a beefy suit equipped with either swarms or forges Am aware of the places on the map where I can get cover from aerial forces Might even equip turrets so that my gunners can better protect my blind spots. I don't give a what a desc. says, they can be reworded (and they have). They are broken as Gunships, and either they need fixing to where they can't just hover over HAV's, or a role change, and as DS's they REALLY need a role change, as a DS isn't made to go pew pew at every ***** thing in the game. Also, read the above on why using AV and hopping out the suit is a stupid idea. There's little to no ariel cover on ANY map. Name 10 places per map, and I'll change my mind. That isn't a option for Maddies, future solo HAV's, and Enforcers. Do you know how much skill it takes to pilot a ADS? If you see someone in an ADS that is getting kills regularly, then they earned those kills fair and square and probably spent hours trying to figure out how to fly the thing. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 641	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:51:00 - [45] - Quote run like hell to your redline, when he is well in to the chase slam it into reverse he will fly overhead (works everytime). this is your window to shoot him down. if you don't kill him.... keep it in reverse until the window closes when you can no longer shoot him (flys behind you) slam it forward continuing your path to redline then repeat process even if you can't kill him your buying time for your mods to recharge and your hp to rep. It also helps to tell your squadmates your predicament and location. ,to have swarms/forge equipped use any overpasses or structures to slow his progress #training_the_scrubs (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs _/ \
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 107	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:54:00 - [46] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. so just say "**** it, the game should be broken. Why should I care?" and I'll feel better? No. No, not at all, the game shouldn't be broken and CCP should work hard on fixing its numerous bugs. Let me do an analogy for you. Regular Dropships = Futuristic Army Black hawk These have turrets on the side much as the Dropship is, and has the purpose of ferrying troops in and out of battle Assault Dropships = Futuristic Apache These are meant to be offensive powerhouses and support the infantry by directly influencing the battle. While it is able to carry troops on the side, this is not its main purpose. That would be a gunship Does a Apache have seats? Also, does modern day tanks have defenses against gunships? Sorry, the Apache isn't a good analogy, the Mil Mi-24 is a better equivalent. Also, is this frickin' modern day, or is this 20000 years in the future? Maybe the Caldari were too stupid to figure out how to stop ADS's. Oh wait, did someone say swarm launchers? Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2790	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:57:00 - [47] - Quote iKILLu osborne wrote: run like hell to your redline, when he is well in to the chase slam it into reverse he will fly overhead (works everytime). this is your window to shoot him down. if you don't kill him.... keep it in reverse until the window closes when you can no longer shoot him (flys behind you) slam it forward continuing your path to redline wait then repeat process even if you can't kill him your buying time for your mods to recharge and your hp to rep. It also helps to tell your squadmates your predicament and location. ,to have swarms/forge equipped use any overpasses or structures to slow his progress #training_the_scrubs 1: Yea, run to the redline, the ADS follows you into the redline, while firing on you all the way there. Doesn't matter, you still die. 2: No, it doesn't. a pilot that can actually pilot will just slightly adjust and keep firing. Also, that would assume that a- the pilot is stupid enough to ACTUALLY FLY STRAIGHT (and you never balance on the stupid people, just look at 1.7) b- you would need to be able to aim high enough to hit the ADS, which won't happen. 3: That would require for me constantly to run a squad, which isn't possible. 4: Name 10 overpasses per map 5: Training yourself? That's called practice. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2792	Posted - 2015.02.04 01:59:00 - [48] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. so just say "**** it, the game should be broken. Why should I care?" and I'll feel better? No. No, not at all, the game shouldn't be broken and CCP should work hard on fixing its numerous bugs. Let me do an analogy for you. Regular Dropships = Futuristic Army Black hawk These have turrets on the side much as the Dropship is, and has the purpose of ferrying troops in and out of battle Assault Dropships = Futuristic Apache These are meant to be offensive powerhouses and support the infantry by directly influencing the battle. While it is able to carry troops on the side, this is not its main purpose. That would be a gunship Does a Apache have seats? Also, does modern day tanks have defenses against gunships? Sorry, the Apache isn't a good analogy, the Mil Mi-24 is a better equivalent. Also, is this frickin' modern day, or is this 20000 years in the future? Maybe the Caldari were too stupid to figure out how to stop ADS's. Oh wait, did someone say swarm launchers? So humans creating pretty much similar craft to the modern day can't make countermeaures to other things? And In other games, does tanks have countermeasures to gunships, since you don't like reality? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 107	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:03:00 - [49] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sorry, the Apache isn't a good analogy, the Mil Mi-24 is a better equivalent. Also, is this frickin' modern day, or is this 20000 years in the future? Maybe the Caldari were too stupid to figure out how to stop ADS's. Oh wait, did someone say swarm launchers? So humans creating pretty much similar craft to the modern day can't make countermeaures to other things? And In other games, does tanks have countermeasures to gunships, since you don't like reality?[/quote] Yes, it is called the Trophy system used by Israeli. But it is not meant as counter to aerial vehicles, but as a counter to aerial launched rockets and this would not be possible in Dust since rockets are not actually a solid entity. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2535	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:04:00 - [50] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: The quicker you don't question how people play the game, the less you will be butthurt. so just say "**** it, the game should be broken. Why should I care?" and I'll feel better? No. No, not at all, the game shouldn't be broken and CCP should work hard on fixing its numerous bugs. Let me do an analogy for you. Regular Dropships = Futuristic Army Black hawk These have turrets on the side much as the Dropship is, and has the purpose of ferrying troops in and out of battle Assault Dropships = Futuristic Apache These are meant to be offensive powerhouses and support the infantry by directly influencing the battle. While it is able to carry troops on the side, this is not its main purpose. That would be a gunship Does a Apache have seats? Also, does modern day tanks have defenses against gunships? Sorry, the Apache isn't a good analogy, the Mil Mi-24 is a better equivalent. Also, is this frickin' modern day, or is this 20000 years in the future? Maybe the Caldari were too stupid to figure out how to stop ADS's. Oh wait, did someone say swarm launchers? To add to this, ADS should have been a light vehicle from the start. Not a lot of health, very maneuverable, uses speed and agility to survive, as opposed to withstanding the hits. Since this will never become a reality, we must make do. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me

XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 107	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:07:00 - [51] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: To add to this, ADS should have been a light vehicle from the start. Not a lot of health, very maneuverable, uses speed and agility to survive, as opposed to withstanding the hits. Since this will never become a reality, we must make do. This is exactly what it does, ADS's have small health in the first place, only slightly higher than LAVs, and have speed and agility much like the LAVs, but they are screwed over in terms of taking hits, an ADS should go down in 4-6 swarm launches and a little more with dual hardeners. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 641	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:08:00 - [52] - Quote 1.) thats why you keep going and steer towards any installations in your red line. 2.)its still throwing off his aim and buying you time for your mods/hp to refill a.) your driving straight so he has to follow your path-_- b.) thats wyy you keep it in reverse until he passes back over to either utilize the window you created, or too create one. 3.) thats your choice go to training grounds you will see 15+threads saying do squad play. 4. the map with all pipes connected to towers 5. sarcasm?no? tard i was stating i was training scrubs ie: you (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs _/ \
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:08:00 - [53] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sorry, the Apache isn't a good analogy, the Mil Mi-24 is a better equivalent. Also, is this frickin' modern day, or is this 20000 years in the future? Maybe the Caldari were too stupid to figure out how to stop ADS's. Oh wait, did someone say swarm launchers? So humans creating pretty much similar craft to the modern day can't make countermeaures to other things? And In other games, does tanks have countermeasures to gunships, since you don't like reality? Yes, it is called the Trophy system used by Israeli. But it is not meant as counter to aerial vehicles, but as a counter to aerial launched rockets and this would not be possible in Dust since rockets are not actually a solid entity.[/quote] i've seen videos of canister shells hitting a practice helicopter, and there's advanced aiming systems that can even hit helicopters with main HE shells. I wasn't referring to defense (we already alive that, barely), I'm talking about offense here. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:15:00 - [54] - Quote iKILLu osborne wrote: 1.) thats why you keep going and steer towards any installations in your red line. 2.)its still throwing off his aim and buying you time for your mods/hp to refill a.) your driving straight so he has to follow your path-_- b.) thats wyy you keep it in reverse until he passes back over to either utilize the window you created, or too create one. 3.) thats your choice go to training grounds you will see 15+threads saying do squad play. 4. the map with all pipes connected to towers 5. sarcasm?no? tard i was stating i was training scrubs ie: you 1: Relying on AI to accurately hit something, when half of the time it can't hit a slow moving HAV. Right. a- And when you stop it can turn and shoot. It's not hard. I've done it several times. b- First off, speak english. Second off, That tactic relies on the pilot being a ***** idiot, which isn't a balancing factor. You can do almost anything to a stupid person and it works. 3: Give me a squad to play with when I can play, and I will have squad play.Otherwise, ** off. 4: That map only has 6 1/2 (you can kinda shoot under the middle, there's a blind spot in the very middle unless the pilot is REALLY good), and I said each map. You failed. 5: No, you're practicing being a scrub, because you're using scrub logic. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2538	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:22:00 - [55] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: To add to this, ADS should have been a light vehicle from the start. Not a lot of health, very maneuverable, uses speed and agility to survive, as opposed to withstanding the hits. Since this will never become a reality, we must make do. This is exactly what it does, ADS's have small health in the first place, only slightly higher than LAVs, and have speed and agility much like the LAVs, but they are screwed over in terms of taking hits, an ADS should go down in 4-6 swarm launches and a little more with dual hardeners. The problem is how huge they are. I'm talking a LAV in the sky. I mean hard to hit. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 110	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:24:00 - [56] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: To add to this, ADS should have been a light vehicle from the start. Not a lot of health, very maneuverable, uses speed and agility to survive, as opposed to withstanding the hits. Since this will never become a reality, we must make do. This is exactly what it does, ADS's have small health in the first place, only slightly higher than LAVs, and have speed and agility much like the LAVs, but they are screwed over in terms of taking hits, an ADS should go down in 4-6 swarm launches and a little more with dual hardeners. The problem is how huge they are. I'm talking a LAV in the sky. I mean hard to hit. I see your point there, but it is also hard for your average ADS pilot to hit things as well. 5% of the ADS population can actually hit stuff while 95% are just there to intimidate the enemy team. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Moochie Cricket Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 986	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:25:00 - [57] - Quote It takes a long time to kill a competently fit tank, during which an ads is a sitting duck due to the low altitude and extreme focus (tracking the tank, not hitting any obstacles, timing your reloads, actually hitting multiple shots in a row, avoiding any potential av, etc). It literally takes one person in an av suit to prevent me from taking a tank out. If you don't have any av at all on your team then maybe you shouldn't have a tank out. Just like I shouldn't fly my ads if my guys on the ground can't kill enemy av for me. Plus ikillu osborne's advice to escape if there is no av is perfect and easy to do. FOR THE STATE
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 644	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:26:00 - [58] - Quote 1. have you seen the blaster ai, f'n op a. still throwing off sustained damage. b. typo. if it its a balance issue why are you the only one complaining like a little *****. 2.you skipped 2 3. even rambo has help, you bring shame to his name. 4. 5 pipes ,4 structures, tabletop and any stuctures in your redline :p 5. i'm not the one qq'ing refusing to use any of the tactics/weapons provided to counter the ads. (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs _/ \
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 839	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:28:00 - [59] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: From the in game description : "The Assault Class (Dropship) is a low level aerial attack craft. Its light frame makes it highly maneuverable while the front mounted pilot controlled turret gives it a significant advantage in aerial engagements" Seems like it's working as intended to me. Stop trying to shoehorn the vehicle into a role that you think its supposed to be and embrace the intended use of the vehicle. If they weren't meant to attack ** their skill bonus wouldn't relate to the rate of fire of the turret that they're able to equip. If I'm a tank pilot with knowledge that an ADS is out on the field I can do the following to make sure my isn't wrecked : Pilot with a beefy suit equipped with either swarms or forges Am aware of the places on the map where I can get cover from aerial forces Might even equip turrets so that my gunners can better protect my blind spots. I don't give a what a desc. says, they can be reworded (and they have). They are broken as Gunships, and either they need fixing to where they can't just hover over HAV's, or a role change, and as DS's they REALLY need a role change, as a DS isn't made to go pew pew at every *** thing in the game. Also, read the above on why using AV and hopping out the suit is a stupid idea. There's little to no ariel cover on ANY map. Name 10 places per map, and I'll change my mind. That isn't a option for Maddies, future solo HAV's, and Enforcers. "I don't give a what CCP, the developers of the game, intended for how the vehicle I'm complaining about was supposed to be used" You keep saying the DS isn't supposed to be this or that but when confronted with evidence that you're wrong about what the vehicle is supposed to be you cover your ears and keep on complaining. If you want to make yourself a harder to hit target to a Dropship then move back and forth to throw off their aim, it's harder to hit an unpredictable target than one thats moving in the same direction at the same speed (as an example). Any building with a roof big enough to fit an HAV is cover for you, go to town. Why is getting out and using AV a idea? It's hilariously effective, especially if you have a pocket sentinel suit. The only good anti-infantry turret on the Dropship is the Missile, which is explosive damage. Sentinels get explosive resistance and one of the best infantry AV based weapons available. If you're caught with your pants down in the middle of a road against an ADS and have no cover, Forging/Swarming the ** until it leaves is a damn good idea.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 323	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:49:00 - [60] - Quote Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation ADS Ramming Revenge! Should Have Stayed Inside (the Tank)

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:58:00 - [61] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: From the in game description : "The Assault Class (Dropship) is a low level aerial attack craft. Its light frame makes it highly maneuverable while the front mounted pilot controlled turret gives it a significant advantage in aerial engagements" Seems like it's working as intended to me. Stop trying to shoehorn the vehicle into a role that you think its supposed to be and embrace the intended use of the vehicle. If they weren't meant to attack ** their skill bonus wouldn't relate to the rate of fire of the turret that they're able to equip. If I'm a tank pilot with knowledge that an ADS is out on the field I can do the following to make sure my isn't wrecked : Pilot with a beefy suit equipped with either swarms or forges Am aware of the places on the map where I can get cover from aerial forces Might even equip turrets so that my gunners can better protect my blind spots. I don't give a what a desc. says, they can be reworded (and they have). They are broken as Gunships, and either they need fixing to where they can't just hover over HAV's, or a role change, and as DS's they REALLY need a role change, as a DS isn't made to go pew pew at every *** thing in the game. Also, read the above on why using AV and hopping out the suit is a stupid idea. There's little to no ariel cover on ANY map. Name 10 places per map, and I'll change my mind. That isn't a option for Maddies, future solo HAV's, and Enforcers. "I don't give a what CCP, the developers of the game, intended for how the vehicle I'm complaining about was supposed to be used" You keep saying the DS isn't supposed to be this or that but when confronted with evidence that you're wrong about what the vehicle is supposed to be you cover your ears and keep on complaining. If you want to make yourself a harder to hit target to a Dropship then move back and forth to throw off their aim, it's harder to hit an unpredictable target than one thats moving in the same direction at the same speed (as an example)./quote] Any building with a roof big enough to fit an HAV is cover for you, go to town. Why is getting out and using AV a idea? It's hilariously effective, especially if you have a pocket sentinel suit. The only good anti-infantry turret on the Dropship is the Missile, which is explosive damage. Sentinels get explosive resistance and one of the best infantry AV based weapons available. If you're caught with your pants down in the middle of a road against an ADS and have no cover, Forging/Swarming the until it leaves is a damn good idea. And I will say it again, name 10 per map in which has a overpass for HAV's in which a HAV can have complete cover from DS's. And did you seriously ask that question, especially when I've already answered it? Also, I kill sentinels with missiles all the time, direct hits aren't hard. ALSO, FG shots at close range are easy to avoid tracking. I can orbit faster than you can track, wear you down, and kill you, or someone can run up on you and kill you, or a HAV can, etc. It's a ***** stupid idea. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:00:00 - [62] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation That's not a counter if the pilot can't do it, that's another person helping the Pilot. You want me to require teamwork to shoot back, than require teamwork to shoot. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:03:00 - [63] - Quote Just going to leave this here click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 323	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:06:00 - [64] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation That's not a counter if the pilot can't do it, that's another person helping the Pilot. You want me to require teamwork to shoot back, than require teamwork to shoot. Oh, I get it. If you're going to QQ this really should be in GD along with the people complaining "that darn sniper rifle dun shot me and ma gun don't fire so far" ADS Ramming Revenge! Should Have Stayed Inside (the Tank)
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:08:00 - [65] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation That's not a counter if the pilot can't do it, that's another person helping the Pilot. You want me to require teamwork to shoot back, than require teamwork to shoot. Oh, I get it. If you're going to QQ this really should be in GD along with the people complaining "that darn sniper rifle dun shot me and ma gun don't fire so far" That isn't QQ,that is balance. If something should require teamwork to counter something that doesn't, that isn't balanced. If something has to use teamwork to fight something that has to use teamwork to counter it, that is balanced. Prove me wrong. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 323	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:18:00 - [66] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation That's not a counter if the pilot can't do it, that's another person helping the Pilot. You want me to require teamwork to shoot back, than require teamwork to shoot. Oh, I get it. If you're going to QQ this really should be in GD along with the people complaining "that darn sniper rifle dun shot me and ma gun don't fire so far" That isn't QQ,that is balance. If something should require teamwork to counter something that doesn't, that isn't balanced. If something has to use teamwork to fight something that has to use teamwork to counter it, that is balanced. Prove me wrong. Because the ADS has ambushed you, it's snuck up behind you with a shotgun and is having it's way with you In the same way that if it was across the map or engaging something else you could railgun it oblivion Edit apply your reasoning to tanks and you have my point ADS Ramming Revenge! Should Have Stayed Inside (the Tank)
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1288	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:24:00 - [67] - 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 - [68] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:40:00 - [69] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation That's not a counter if the pilot can't do it, that's another person helping the Pilot. You want me to require teamwork to shoot back, than require teamwork to shoot. Oh, I get it. If you're going to QQ this really should be in GD along with the people complaining "that darn sniper rifle dun shot me and ma gun don't fire so far" That isn't QQ,that is balance. If something should require teamwork to counter something that doesn't, that isn't balanced. If something has to use teamwork to fight something that has to use teamwork to counter it, that is balanced. Prove me wrong. Because the ADS has ambushed you, it's snuck up behind you with a shotgun and is having it's way with you In the same way that if it was across the map or engaging something else you could railgun it oblivion Edit apply your reasoning to tanks and you have my point 1: a ADS can fly really high and avoid your shots, and even flying relatively low can avoid both rockets and blasters, so you're only applying that to Rails it seems. 2: This isn't comparable to a shotgun sneaking up on a person, as shotgun kills are usually instant, while this isn't; more like it's like a scout with a scrambler pistol shooting at a Heavy with a HMG, but the Heavy can't possibly hit the scout, because the heavy simply can't aim high enough, and can't run, because it's too slow to. This is while in a area where it's SUPPOSED to engage in. 3: That implies the only large turret is the railgun, and that you only should be sitting in the redline with said Railgun. 4:No, if I applied my logic to it, I could aim just high enough to hit the ADS and either kill it or scare it off. I can't. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:41:00 - [70] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1291	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:52:00 - [71] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 04:28:00 - [72] - Quote For your first point, that is a map problem that concerns all vehicles. Maps do need to be bigger and more dynamic to help balance all vehicles. However, just because they aren't, doesn't excuse the ADS to be a heavy armor killer. You point out That you have long fights with Pilots in HAV's, and the HAV almost even killing you. I don't buy that. In either a ADS myself or in a HAV, the only way the HAV can hit the ADS is if it for some reason flies too far off (in which it's pilot error for either flying so fast, or your far enough away in which it can hit you, but blasters or rockets won't do much to affect the ADS, you it must be a rail. On top of that, I'm going to assume it's a Gunnlogi, as 1: They can tank far superior than Maddies, which are twigs at this point 2: Maddies can barely fit rails, especially the upper tiered ones So assuming those two things, you can't count those battles, as you're taking the best gear with a decent pilot. I could last several minutes in a Gunnlogi if I felt like using them, but I don't (usually, unless i'm doing testing on things). Or rather, you can't use those battles to say that this is fine (when it's not) when you're only using a specific fit type to cover all fits. That statement is just wrong in that sense. 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. 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. If you want it to be a gunship, then take away the seats, and allow for a higher turret elevation (as I said several times already, you're using the same argument as like 7 other people in a longer format), and I won't ***. Otherwise, I will. If at any point I said installiation, as they do take awhile. I was only trying to focus main on HAV's and other future heavily armored vehicles. But even then, they actually used to be able to kill turrets with ease in about 15 seconds. 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. I'm not saying that it shouldn't bother a HAV at all, nor have I intended for you to assume that (although usually when someone says change this as it's broken whoever uses it thinks that, even if it's a user themself), I'm saying that it shouldn't be a real dangerous thing to a HAV, and has its focus towards lighter vehicles and infantry. 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. Hell, I've even said that it should get bonuses to whoever it's dropping. 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. 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), or if it got a pickup request of some sort (that needs to be a thing, like a command of some sort that any player can do, like the attack/defend commands the squad leader has). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2794	Posted - 2015.02.04 04:47:00 - [73] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Edit: To add to the sniper analogy: so you never get killed by snipers? Like, ever? So, you have perfect situational awareness that borders on prescience because you're able to maintain awareness 360 degrees out to about 300m? Are you even thinking before you type. Essentially, you don't like the ADS role and want it changed. Evidently, considering this thread's responses, many more people disagree, including some tankers that you ostensibly defend, disagree with you vehemently. Seeing as most of the spots you put a ADS can fly into, you haven't even found 10, and on top of that, you've failed to point out these areas. apologetics annoys the hell out of me, forgive me. And no, you haven't. The spots you've pointed out don't give cover from a ADS. I know this because I've seen and been in those spots with a ADS, as well as shot at people in said spots. And yes, it comes down to "herr durr rail snipe" Can you show me examples of a equal pilot and pilot in a ADS and blaster of recent times dueling and the ADS is getting consistently hit by a blaster Maddy? I doubt you'll find one, but I bet you can easily find a ADS beating the out of a blaster Maddy. Pilot a ADS feels natural after awhile, almost simple, but not quite. more so leaning on simple. You didn't understand what I meant by high flying then. Simply a raise in altitude. I sometimes get hit by snipers, and I sometimes die by snipers. Other times, I take note of where they are shooting me from, hunt the general area that it came from, and kill them. If I can't find them, I ask, and if they say redline, I'll get pissed, because that's bullshit. However, if they say a place where I could have reached them, I tell them well played. Why? Because that player outsmarted me, and killed me. I refuse to say that to someone I can't even shoot back at, and will refuse to until I can, or they can't do much of jack to me. Yes, I think all the time. Yes, because it's *** broken as is, being a monster of two roles, one of which it doesn't support, which by name should be its main role, and the other it does way too well in, comparing it to other games where it's reasonably balanced according to the players whom play the game. Also, I haven't defended anyone, simply agreed with what they said, or disagreed with what they said. I don't give a ** who you are, if you say something stupid, even if I like you, I will call you out on it, and if I hate you, but you say something smart, I will agree with you. That goes with quantity as well. Riddle me this: I don't own a magic cube. I convince people that I do. You don't believe me. everyone that agreed with me told you that you're wrong. would you, seeing as there's many people agreeing with your disagreement change your mind? Or would you stand with your statement? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1292	Posted - 2015.02.04 04:56:00 - [74] - 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.
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 112	Posted - 2015.02.04 05:55:00 - [75] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation But Assault Dropship just sounds cool. I totally agree with taking the seats off the ADS though, but if that were to happen I would like there to be a slight buff to the upgrade to ROF. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 615	Posted - 2015.02.04 06:25:00 - [76] - Quote EDIT: Redacted. I don't have enough knowledge on HAVs and ADS's to make a reasonable statement.
Skyline Lonewolf Ancient Exiles. 244	Posted - 2015.02.04 06:35:00 - [77] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure my squad shoots that thing down in seconds. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot you with my forgegun. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot with my OP swams. There are many ways to counter an ADS. Learn to be a G? That would require a squad of teammates to back you up, which isn't the norm That would require you to get out of your vehicle, which can either outright kill you or put your HAV at risk Same as the above So you've failed. Do you even tank outside of DUST brah? Almost every gun game in which someone has to man a tank is driven by an Engineer related class so that they could fallback and repair their tank when it gets damaged or a Heavy Assault who can jump out and finish the opposing infantry/tanker/vehicle in a duel. And yes, ADS - Assault Dropship is meant to assault. They buffed the regular dropship so it could transport infantry and there used to be a Logi dropship which could function in a similar manner. There's nothing OP about ADS right now. It can be destroyed in seconds as the rep rate doesn't outpace the damage being done to it, so I think you failed. Swarms and Installations on the other hand, are a different story. I see you coming from a mile away. 18 KDR. Twittter: SkylineExplicit
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 3099	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:40:00 - [78] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. No, everything does not. Infantry can turn around or look up DS's can look both down and up only LAV's can't really defend against most things, which they can greatly avoid with like DS's, speed. So only HAV's has one true blind spot. Try again. Dunno about this Godin. If they can remain hovering over me like that they kinda deserve the kill. It's our ** up as tankers, not ADS being too powerful or any such like. So much this. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire**
Stupid Blueberry State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 993	Posted - 2015.02.04 22:26:00 - [79] - Quote I think OP is a bad tank pilot. I also think OP doesn't realize ADS costs the same as his proto'd up tank with a much, much lower TTK. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Haajakin Kalen. Blueberry smokin' that crack y'all
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2803	Posted - 2015.02.04 23:37:00 - [80] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation But Assault Dropship just sounds cool. I totally agree with taking the seats off the ADS though, but if that were to happen I would like there to be a slight buff to the upgrade to ROF. At that point it's not a Dropship. Do you not know what a Dropship is? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2803	Posted - 2015.02.04 23:40:00 - [81] - Quote Skyline Lonewolf wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure my squad shoots that thing down in seconds. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot you with my forgegun. Hover over my HAV and i'll make sure to jump out and 3 shot with my OP swams. There are many ways to counter an ADS. Learn to be a G? That would require a squad of teammates to back you up, which isn't the norm That would require you to get out of your vehicle, which can either outright kill you or put your HAV at risk Same as the above So you've failed. Do you even tank outside of DUST brah? Almost every gun game in which someone has to man a tank is driven by an Engineer related class so that they could fallback and repair their tank when it gets damaged or a Heavy Assault who can jump out and finish the opposing infantry/tanker/vehicle in a duel. And yes, ADS - Assault Dropship is meant to assault. They buffed the regular dropship so it could transport infantry and there used to be a Logi dropship which could function in a similar manner. There's nothing OP about ADS right now. It can be destroyed in seconds as the rep rate doesn't outpace the damage being done to it, so I think you failed. Swarms and Installations on the other hand, are a different story. All of those games also has a far higher turret elevation, so shooting a Gunship down with the main cannon is a thing. turret rotation is usually much higher as well. But all of those vehicles are free but flimsy, and don't have internal repairs and defense systems, only avoidance systems. Also ADS is a Assault DROPSHIP. It is meant for a combat role more than a DS is, but it is STILL MEANT TO BE A DROPSHIP. Is that so hard for you to understand you ****? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2803	Posted - 2015.02.04 23:44:00 - [82] - Quote Stupid Blueberry wrote: I think OP is a bad tank pilot. I also think OP doesn't realize ADS costs the same as his proto'd up tank with a much, much lower TTK. You think, you think, you think. First off, I was looking from the persepective of BOTH sides (something most of you fail to do), and I observe as well. This is my conclusion, which you fucks seem to not understand: An ADS hovering over a HAV will have an absolute advantage, as the HAV can't fight back, only hope that the ADS can't fly worth a **** to stay on target (a easy thing to do). An ADS is a Dropship, yet it's preforming like a gunship, and is only used as a Gunship. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2803	Posted - 2015.02.05 00:11:00 - [83] - Quote Are you trying to imply that 8 seconds is a long time? You do realize that through the balance pass HAV's is going through, average battle times will be closer to 30 seconds, right? Also, that doesn't excuse the fact that HAV's can't shoot back, and jumping out isn't a excuse, as you can still be outright killed, ambushed, or otherwise. Anything shorter than 30 seconds would be ******* stupid, and that's WITH the HAV being able to shoot back. You shouldn't to be able to just sit there and fire upon a HAV while it can only run, which won't help. Rails are odd cases, and needs looking at. Small rails should be more akin to rail rifles than Forge guns, as they should be better AI than AV weapons. Yes, I'm complaining that it's too effective, and yes, I think that small rails under preform. That's why I think ADS's are BROKEN. 1: Yes you can. Get under cover, find out where the shots are coming from, get a cloaked suit, hunt it down and kill it. You simply can't say the same of a HAV. You simply are ignoring that it is a Dropship. Yes, I can do the same thing as you. And you say rely on infantry to protect me. YOU CAN RUN FROM YOUR TARGETS. A HAV CAN'T. Is that so ***** hard for you to understand? Can you not understand a simple thing like that? 2: Wrong. I don't want it to compare to a HAV sort of threat, a serious priority one threat. If it flies in and I shoot at it, it will go away or die, much like AV will. If I ignore it, I will die eventually, like AV. It shouldn't have a intentional tank of infinity. It also shouldn't be out of my reach, as that means that I would have to rely on someone to deal with the threat, which should be clear to you doesn't *** work. 1 person should equal one person, as in one person should be able to deal with another. You're twisting my words, don't do that. 3: You *** **. If you want ADS's to be AV, fine. But don't think I'm going to sit here and say that it's fine that I can't possibly shoot back. If you want to stay AV, I better be able to shoot at you. 4: Point out where I said that I didn't want ADS's to be a threat period. You won't find it, and if you do, it's a miswording. You simply can't understand what I'm saying, because YOU want to be able to kill anything easily. I refuse. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1297	Posted - 2015.02.05 01:27:00 - [84] - 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 - [85] - 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.
Stupid Blueberry State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 994	Posted - 2015.02.05 02:39:00 - [86] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: I think OP is a bad tank pilot. I also think OP doesn't realize ADS costs the same as his proto'd up tank with a much, much lower TTK. You think, you think, you think. First off, I was looking from the persepective of BOTH sides (something most of you fail to do), and I observe as well. This is my conclusion, which you fucks seem to not understand: An ADS hovering over a HAV will have an absolute advantage, as the HAV can't fight back, only hope that the ADS can't fly worth a **** to stay on target (a easy thing to do). An ADS is a Dropship, yet it's preforming like a gunship, and is only used as a Gunship. You aren't looking from the perspective of both sides, I can tell you aren't an ADS pilot. The HAV can absolutely fight back, you're either just too stupid or lazy to actually get in a position to shoot it. If killing tanks with an ADS is so easy then why don't you do it? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Haajakin Kalen. Blueberry smokin' that crack y'all
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 182	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:16:00 - [87] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16994	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:20:00 - [88] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. I haven't seen one since before the ADS bonus nerf when Cyrius and his three buddies alpha'd Aero and Myself off field in a triple stacked Cal ADS nightmare fit. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 119	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:32:00 - [89] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation But Assault Dropship just sounds cool. I totally agree with taking the seats off the ADS though, but if that were to happen I would like there to be a slight buff to the upgrade to ROF. At that point it's not a Dropship. Do you not know what a Dropship is? I'm trying to have a decent conversation here okay. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 79	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:51:00 - [90] - Quote Didn't read it all but... Forward and back, forward and back. To turn around quickly and keep aim, the dropship's nose goes down. THAT MOMENT is the scariest moment of a rail ADS challenging a tank. That's a "pew!........pew! warning klaxon blaring away" you need to put the pilot's shoes on.. a skilled tanker can win that engagement by abusing terrain and making hills increase the turret's elevation. Just like an ADS must pick a suitable place to engage the enemy tank. It's fair game... i've lost to tanks because i guessed wrong on how far they'll go forward (end up hovering by the tank's side late) and i've won a few by the tank pilot losing his/her calm. In the end, the tank pilot has something the dropship pilot doesn't: AV weapons and solid ground. I can't jump out my ship to finish the job. I need AB if my nose dips too low in the "back" phase. I'm a flying wp Box that can get swarmed from any direction and draws way too much attention. Hell, people call in LAVs and launch swarms at me at the same time nowadays. I've gotten to know bobby the Bolas pilot quite well because of that. Moral of the story: Forward and back -- exploit our inertia while we exploit your elevation. ^ my tips to a tank pilot who gets into that situation, i think everyone knows it by know though. Plus, i usually float real high waiting for a squad member to cry about too many enemies or an enemy vehicle is surpressing them, while ensuring enemy dropships don't drop uplinks in high places. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 05:18:00 - [91] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Teamwork Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 05:19:00 - [92] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. God forbid one vehicle should be efficient at taking out another. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 807	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:59:00 - [93] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB I'm not going to rage back you, i'm going to edumacate you. You want AAA defense? Thats what small turrets are for. Top turret gives excellent elevation and protection against Dropships, and can be just as powerful as the weapon the dropship is firing at you with. If you don't want to fit some Anti air defense, tanks still have cover from the air with buldings and and sockets to drive under and around, friendly turret installations are enough to drive away any ADS, and a massive eHP buffer to find recover from any alpha damageand get away. I've never had a problem in a tank vs Dropships because i know how they (dropships) move. Python are inefecctual, and even rail incubus are not a problem, once you get into an area that forces the pilot to manuever around you, he's lunch meat. Killed far more dropships with tanks than ever having being killed by a dropship in a tank. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 10:33:00 - [94] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Didn't read it all but... best. Your first point is ivalid, as a- scary is not the word to use, as I'm not scared by doing manuvers that looks to be hard, but really are not, just looks to be so. b- the ADS can raise slightly higher or circle around to the other side of the HAV, making the hills pointless. If you're losing to HAV's in an ADS, that's your fault for being scrubby, that however doesn't mean the game isn't broken. ADS's still shouldn't be gunships, and gunships, if they are added in or the ADS is made into one (which means bye bye to the passenger seats), they still shouldn't be able to just hover over a HAV. I've already refuted the AV thing. If you were to read the entire thread (like everyone else before you), you would know that. Again, hopping out of a HAV against a ADS not only makes yo a easy target to kill for the ADS due to highly reduced tank, it makes the HAV a big ass vulernable target. I bet you're going to say "Then just bring gunners", in which you're implying to deal with a ADS on equal grounds, a HAV pilot has to make itself a big ass target, or killable by a ADS. No, unless the turret can only be controlled by a gunner. That has nothing to do with hovering over HAV's, and LAV's are commonly used as AV transport, that matters why? Exploiting inertia is a thing in both cases. I can easily stop and turn in a very short time in a ADS (not true about a HAV however, so really, a ADS has more movement freedoms to exploit). However, the ADS can also abuse elevation, making the HAV not even able to fire back, which is simply broken. Missile fit Python does pretty much any job I want it to do, I don't really care for special fits on ADS's. What does this exactly have to do with hovering ADS's killing HAV's? If you want to be AV, then I should be able to shoot back. turret elevation needs to be raised, and the problem is solved. Bullshit. Show me a large amount of examples of such happening (note: From 1.7 to now, I've only seen 2).. To end my post, I don't care. you either are a gunship, or a ADS (not a gunship). Regardless, it needs changing. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 10:36:00 - [95] - Quote 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). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 10:42:00 - [96] - Quote Stupid Blueberry wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: I think OP is a bad tank pilot. I also think OP doesn't realize ADS costs the same as his proto'd up tank with a much, much lower TTK. You think, you think, you think. First off, I was looking from the persepective of BOTH sides (something most of you fail to do), and I observe as well. This is my conclusion, which you fucks seem to not understand: An ADS hovering over a HAV will have an absolute advantage, as the HAV can't fight back, only hope that the ADS can't fly worth a ** to stay on target (a easy thing to do). An ADS is a Dropship, yet it's preforming like a gunship, and is only used as a Gunship. You aren't looking from the perspective of both sides, I can tell you aren't an ADS pilot. The HAV can absolutely fight back, you're either just too stupid or lazy to actually get in a position to shoot it. If killing tanks with an ADS is so easy then why don't you do it? So even though I have every last turret skill to 5, all supporting skills to 5, and both ADS's to 5, I don't pilot ADS's. Cool . I don't believe you're a Pilot by the way, seeing as you're only looking from the side of the ADS, and not the HAV. Oh, and for the reasons I've for at least 7 times pointed out, no, they can't. the ADS has a counter for every move a HAV can make. Try to anuver? ADS can slightly adjust. Try to shoot back via a hill? either climb in elevation so it hav no effect, or go to the opposite side of the HAV. Pilot is AV? He's a ** nut, shoot the HAV, and even if you have to fly away, the HAV is now a sitting duck (especially now that entering/exit delays might come in SOONtm). I think YOU'RE either too lazy or too stupid to figure out these things, which is why amny people shouldn't really talk about balance when they have absolutely no clue what the hell they are talking about. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 10:46:00 - [97] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. So because it's under preforming in one role, break it elsewhere so it's okay. That isn't balance. Fixing **** IS. I never denied that ADS's were broke, if you simply asked me that, I would had said so. That is apparent (and again why I made this.). But to have that as a reasoning to simply break balance is uncalled for. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 11:03:00 - [98] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Than mathz I don't. I've already stated that this doesn't happen, as small rails are odd cases that needs restructing into more akin to a rail rifle, said to you iirc. As for missiles, I've killed 4 HAV's in a game with a missile Python last night. It wasn't particularrly hard. "XT-1 it will take over 8 seconds to fire enough damage to consider killing a Madrugar" Direct from you. For the record, not all HAV fits has reps, and some of which is quite slow (and will be even slower SOONtm, seeing as Master Splinter is going to add active reps back, and nerf the **** out of passive reps). Going off your average TTK now, that's still under average, assuming perfect accuracy (which isn't hard to have, I hardly miss due to HAV's either trying to turn a lot to get away and they lose all their speed) and a particular fit (which again won't necessarily exist after patches). So yes, that's overpreforming, considering that the ADS can easily deploy and get into position rapidly, then kill a HAV under a average time of 30 seconds that we're trying to go for, and on top of that still can be a transport. It's essentially a flying Enforcer, but with extra smalls, as well as passenger seats, but the HAV can't shoot back. Also, as you said, railguns are much shorter timeframe comparing the two (missiles and rails), and today, I'm going to test how well the rails really are on an ADS (never tried it really, I like missiles more). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 11:04:00 - [99] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation But Assault Dropship just sounds cool. I totally agree with taking the seats off the ADS though, but if that were to happen I would like there to be a slight buff to the upgrade to ROF. At that point it's not a Dropship. Do you not know what a Dropship is? I'm trying to have a decent conversation here okay. I'm trying to have a balanced game. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2808	Posted - 2015.02.05 11:10:00 - [100] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB I'm not going to rage back you, i'm going to edumacate you. You want AAA defense? Thats what small turrets are for. Top turret gives excellent elevation and protection against Dropships, and can be just as powerful as the weapon the dropship is firing at you with. If you don't want to fit some Anti air defense, tanks still have cover from the air with buldings and and sockets to drive under and around, friendly turret installations are enough to drive away any ADS, and a massive eHP buffer to find recover from any alpha damageand get away. I've never had a problem in a tank vs Dropships because i know how they (dropships) move. Python are inefecctual, and even rail incubus are not a problem, once you get into an area that forces the pilot to manuever around you, he's lunch meat. Killed far more dropships with tanks than ever having being killed by a dropship in a tank. So force teamwork onto the HAV, but not the ADS. No Already refuted the buildings thing, it just doesn't work. If you can't do basic manuvers like fly sideways, Then you shouldn't really be telling me how to fly. Also, going into cities is a trap for HAV's due to AV (as I've said at least 3 times here). I usually ignore turrets, or kill them with my ADS in spare time (also broken). You must fight against ****** pilots, a ADS can easily outmaneuver any HAV. You know, absolute advantage due to height. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 807	Posted - 2015.02.05 11:52:00 - [101] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB I'm not going to rage back you, i'm going to edumacate you. You want AAA defense? Thats what small turrets are for. Top turret gives excellent elevation and protection against Dropships, and can be just as powerful as the weapon the dropship is firing at you with. If you don't want to fit some Anti air defense, tanks still have cover from the air with buldings and and sockets to drive under and around, friendly turret installations are enough to drive away any ADS, and a massive eHP buffer to find recover from any alpha damageand get away. I've never had a problem in a tank vs Dropships because i know how they (dropships) move. Python are inefecctual, and even rail incubus are not a problem, once you get into an area that forces the pilot to manuever around you, he's lunch meat. Killed far more dropships with tanks than ever having being killed by a dropship in a tank. So force teamwork onto the HAV, but not the ADS. No Already refuted the buildings thing, it just doesn't work. If you can't do basic manuvers like fly sideways, Then you shouldn't really be telling me how to fly. Also, going into cities is a trap for HAV's due to AV (as I've said at least 3 times here). I usually ignore turrets, or kill them with my ADS in spare time (also broken). You must fight against ****** pilots, a ADS can easily outmaneuver any HAV. You know, absolute advantage due to height. Teamwork is already required for an ADS to score tank kills. I can solo some crap fit tanks, but almost all of my tank kills are making a straffing past on a heavily weakened tank. Regen on a shield tank is high enough that by the time i cool down from rail overheat, their shields are already back up. The cities are far more dangerous for dropships than tanks. A direct AV hit wil not send a tank into the side of a building, especially shield tanks can take hard corners and break line of sight from infantry. Every map that has sockets that provide cover from the air, theres only a few maps that has reall good open fields to catch a tank out in thats Border Gulch, and the northern roads on Skim Junction. Every other map has ample cover, close enough to get too considering the TTK under fire from a dropship. We are talking in the minutes here. Well if your the kind of pilot that ignores large blasters shooting at you to try to nail a tank, yeah, i'm going to educate you on how to fly, because that large blaster will have killed your DS long before you killed the tank. If you are focusing on killing the turret before the tank, then the tank gets away and can reposition to have a shot at you wile you are hovering trying to kill the installation. ADS can obviously out manuever a tank. The tanker has to use his own strengths and exploit the DS weakness. Small turrets are an effective counter against dropships. 9/10 times the dropship is reacting to the tankers movements, dancing back and forth will force the majority of pilots to lower into your Large turret elevation angle as the tend to overshoot. Terrain can give solo tanks the elevation angle they need. Worst case scenario, the redline will save a tankers butt because there is no way for a dropship to do enough damage in our current build to kill a redline tank and escape before exploding. There are counters that involve using your head more, and asking for nerfs less. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2540	Posted - 2015.02.05 12:13:00 - [102] - Quote ADS as they should be balanced now, should focus on the assault part of their name, to the exclusion of transport. Right now we are giving them too many hats to wear: transport, assault, etc. We need to give them one job, and have them do that job well. That leads to combined arms tactics; various people who specialize in different areas come together to become something more than the sum of their parts. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1303	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:27:00 - [103] - 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.
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 119	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:15:00 - [104] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Why not rename the ADS to gunship, get rid of the extra seats then everyone can stop pissing and moaning about it's intended role. Dropping off passengers is for the normal DS, the ADS doesn't have enough tank. A tanks counter to an ADS if directly above should be the use of small turrets, which should be given higher elevation But Assault Dropship just sounds cool. I totally agree with taking the seats off the ADS though, but if that were to happen I would like there to be a slight buff to the upgrade to ROF. At that point it's not a Dropship. Do you not know what a Dropship is? I'm trying to have a decent conversation here okay. I'm trying to have a balanced game. Well at least you have a game in the first place. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 185	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:35:00 - [105] - 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
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 390	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:00:00 - [106] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Dropships have to sit there and hit tanks forever to kill them. Dropships have to get very low to the ground to do this, so unless the tank is alone, they will almost certainly start taking fire from something very quickly and have to stop attacking the tank. Tanks are much, much, much, much better than anything else in the game at demolishing dropships. There is no balance problems with dropships attacking tanks. There are huge balance problems with tanks attacking dropships (they kill them faster than 2 forge gunners working together, which I think is way, way overboard). The Dropship/Tank dynamic does need a nerfing, but not on the dropship side.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2815	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:29:00 - [107] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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. 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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2815	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:42:00 - [108] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Dropships have to sit there and hit tanks forever to kill them. Dropships have to get very low to the ground to do this, so unless the tank is alone, they will almost certainly start taking fire from something very quickly and have to stop attacking the tank. Tanks are much, much, much, much better than anything else in the game at demolishing dropships. There is no balance problems with dropships attacking tanks. There are huge balance problems with tanks attacking dropships (they kill them faster than 2 forge gunners working together, which I think is way, way overboard). The Dropship/Tank dynamic does need a nerfing, but not on the dropship side. Seeing as the longest reasonable time is comparable to that of what a HAV should be killing another HAV in, nowhere near forever. What, you want it to be shorter? **** no. Seeing as you want to balance on assuming the HAV will have backup (lots of the time that isn't the case, and you can't balance around assuming something). No, they are not. AV is better, but AV already setup, as in not hopping out of the HAV, or the pilot itself, in which doesn't really work, as the AV will probably die (unless the pilot sucks) as the AV will be disoriented from hopping out (and there is possibly going to be a delay in the future). Umm, ADS's can hover over HAV's, in which the HAV can't shoot at them due to too low of a turret elevation? They do die to fast, that has always been a problem. It is quite easy to snipe them out of the air sitting back with a rail (unless you see the rail first, hit the AB, and then climb in a diagonal movement, then circle to the other side of the HAV, so kinda like dealing with a sniper). Rocketsand blasters however don't kill them nearly as fast, so that's not completely true (they also suffer much more in fighting them due to much shorter range). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1304	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:07:00 - [109] - 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.
Jammeh McJam Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 181	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:12:00 - [110] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. No, everything does not. Infantry can turn around or look up DS's can look both down and up only LAV's can't really defend against most things, which they can greatly avoid with like DS's, speed. So only HAV's has one true blind spot. Try again. Have you ever tried looking directly up in a DS, normally you're crashing into the ground a*s first before you get to fire a shot "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2815	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:14:00 - [111] - Quote 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). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2815	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:20:00 - [112] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: ADS as they should be balanced now, should focus on the assault part of their name, to the exclusion of transport. Right now we are giving them too many hats to wear: transport, assault, etc. We need to give them one job, and have them do that job well. That leads to combined arms tactics; various people who specialize in different areas come together to become something more than the sum of their parts. It is a Dropship first and foremost. What does DS's do? Troop transport. SO what should a combat version of a Dropship do? Transport people, and support them with fire. By your logic, it's they're an assault platform. Therefore they should kill everything. What are they based on? Doesn't matter. Your design of it is poor, it doesn't make an sense. And above all, it makes broken **** happen. And combined arms will happen, but only in certain situations, usually on premade teams (pubs won't have such, and therefore, you can't really rely on pubs to have such. Seeing as that's where most of the game is, you can't really on assuming combined arms, and really can't assume for balance in general). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 84	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:22:00 - [113] - Quote Well if you have such a problem with the assault dropship, what do you think will solve the problem? Raise in elevation? Then how is it fair to a dropship that only has elevation as it's only advantage? While one can work smart and use swarms/forge if it's that much of a bother, a dropship has one thing: AB. If it's too hot? AB. Got too low? AB. Same mistake again? Sucks, you're on cooldown. Can a dropship be two shot by rails? Possibly. Can a missile turret flip your dropship? Yes. Does a missile turret have higher elevation? Yes. Does a missile turret have the alpha to catch a dropship during the "back" phase? Yes. Does the dropship have less ehp? Yes. Does it have more agility? Yes. In all honesty, the TTK of a dropship by a tank, is far shorter than the TTK of a tank by a dropship. Also, flying directly over can be countered by forward-back... If you make yourself a hard catch they'll leave eventually. The only true float in place dropships, are dropships w/ a gunner. And, the one tank i see no solo dropship can pop is a triple rep maddy. Burst firing the rail won't pull it off... They'll rep up from the charge up + trigger release. Straight fire will cause overheat; Cannot alpha strike. Missiles have long reload + higher chance of missing. I encounter a triple rep, i get a damage points and leave it alone... Nothing i can do to it. Also! If more than one tank is on the field, i have to get the weak link first. I cant even pick up/drop off if tanks are in the field. A sica could be the strongest link while a 5300 shp xt gunny could be the weakest. Anyways, i'll ask you this: If a tank can 3 shot or flip a dropship w/ missiles, why can't a dropship shoot back while floating over your turret? If you want higher elevation, it's only fair to ask for an ehp buff or large rail/missile damage nerf. You agree with that? Even goliath was defeated by david... Large and powerful weaponry, slower Vs small and weak weaponry, quicker. A dropship cannot be a dropship till the area is safe. You are a threat. Some tanks sit in the redline and boom boom redrails. you can also get first movers advantage with the tank. ESPECIALLY, a missile tank. Either i flipped, or was alpha struck out the air. Missile tanks also have higher elevation than rails. And, i was just responding... To say you don't care simply means you don't want others to care. People will disagree with you in life. Be positive and positivity will come back. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2815	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:30:00 - [114] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? EVERYTHING has a blindspot in this game why should tanks not have one? Missiles turrets aim higher then blaster and rail turrets so equip one and kite the ADS. Or drive around in a Sentinel suit with a Swarm launcher and scare them into fleeing. No, everything does not. Infantry can turn around or look up DS's can look both down and up only LAV's can't really defend against most things, which they can greatly avoid with like DS's, speed. So only HAV's has one true blind spot. Try again. Have you ever tried looking directly up in a DS, normally you're crashing into the ground a*s first before you get to fire a shot I do loops in DS's, and sometimes I look straight up in specific maneuvers. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 187	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:43:00 - [115] - 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 - [116] - 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
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2815	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:45:00 - [117] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. I guess I'm sick of waiting for some progress to come. I've been waiting since 2013 for some decent vehicles (not even good, some kind of decent BASELINE), as they took a dive around May, and has been the same ****** vehicles since. Bitter vet syndrome, forgive me. However, if I came off as a "I move that we as quickly as possible change this and that", no. I'm waiting for HAV's to be finished first. However, I want to see discussion about it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 84	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:53:00 - [118] - Quote I do hate when ads pilots retreat to redline and recall... Other than derrith... I know he'd be switching to a rail inky to 1v1. ^ i do enjoy a good challege after all. Edit: honestly godin, i agree with your last post. I'm not a vet no no, but balance is something we all want to achieve. Man, if i ever came off like i was attacking you I apologize. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2818	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:08:00 - [119] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: I do hate when ads pilots retreat to redline and recall... Other than derrith... I know he'd be switching to a rail inky to 1v1. ^ i do enjoy a good challege after all. Edit: honestly godin, i agree with your last post. I'm not a vet no no, but balance is something we all want to achieve. Man, if i ever came off like i was attacking you I apologize. Things get heated when we talk about what we love. Insults, threats, and sometimes laz0Rs and bullets are thrown. I don't care. You need not apologize my friend, I know you had good intentions behind it all. You're not Xel, or Taka (or one of their clones). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1304	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:44:00 - [120] - 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.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2821	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:00:00 - [121] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. If HAV's were dying within 10 seconds, they would be removed, as there's noway in hell that a gunship ashould be able to kill a HAV faster than a actual HAV. 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. 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. 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. 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. I would agree however that making it into a REAL DS would be a priority that needs to be fixed as well, both changes would need to happen at the same time imo (otherwise either ADS's become OP, or they become pretty much pointless, well other than farming infantry that is). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1305	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:15:00 - [122] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2821	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:31:00 - [123] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Seeing as Master Splinter's first runs on anything vehicle was to try to create some sight of balance (to be honest, it was even worse). Again, I'm not saying nerf it period, than make it good later, I'm saying fix ADS, and DS's at once. But Riddle me this: Where does it say that it does? From AV, yes. If a rail at range is shooting at it, sure. Show me a ADS that runs from Rockets or Blasters. If both HAV's and ADS's could eacily deal with each other (in the ADS case, either fight or run, and seeing as HAV's can't really run, kill it or make the ADS run away), it would be pointless for there to be two seats. That, however isn't the case for around 2/3 of the fits possible to make for a HAV however. Which is why I made this post. That is broken. It is not a baseless assumption, that is usually how it is used. You might not use them that way (in which you would be in the minority), but the majority does (and this has been like this, more so against vehicle over time, but since day 1). Again, I've seen at least a 100 ADS's since 1.7 and 50 I've actually observed, and only 2 of those actually transported people in them. Point out where I said that they were (oh, and I've found people that would disagree with you, although for the most part that is true, but seeing as swarms are pushing the OP border again as far as damage output goes, makes sense). That's not why Rockets are bad, it's more of the fact that due to they shoot so fast, blocking your view, and track so slow, unless something flies straight at you, you won't relaly hit them (although hitting them WILL hurt, too much in fact, which is why they have almost sub 1k DPS in the upcoming HAV update). Missiles elevation isn't enough to counter hovering ADS's either (and the tracking is still really slow, even though it's the second best), and therefore can't really track them well enough to scare them off (note: I'm not saying that they should outright kill them, only if they decide to stick around for too long, and the pilot is able to hit the ADS enough). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 324	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:16:00 - [124] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB As an experienced vehicle operator, I think that ADS's being able to hurt HAVs is just fine. It is a valid tactic with hard counters. Perhaps you should consider putting seats on your tank and have gunners in your squad with AV. I hear that dropships really hate getting hit with forges. Try that! As for your thought as to why they are acting like gunships... THEY ARE GUNSHIPS! Not as armoured as I would like but they are built around assault and transport. Getting from A to B and harassing/killing enemies along the way.
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 324	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:18:00 - [125] - Quote Also -- if you are really dying to ADS's right now, you need to put more tank on your HAV and less gank. Sure, you MAY get away with that multi-damage mod build for a bit, but ADS LOVE seeing low HPbuffer/resistance tanks. Your lack of flexibility in this game does not constitute a problem in the design. We could definitely use some additional aircraft but that is another issue entirely.
Dergle 78	Posted - 2015.02.06 09:14:00 - [126] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? Yes you are. I could complain "oh these structures make it too easy for tanks to hide" or "you mean I have to get out to put an uplink and risk getting killed?" Ect. Ect. Ignore your instincts at your peril.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2822	Posted - 2015.02.06 11:38:00 - [127] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB As an experienced vehicle operator, I think that ADS's being able to hurt HAVs is just fine. It is a valid tactic with hard counters. Perhaps you should consider putting seats on your tank and have gunners in your squad with AV. I hear that dropships really hate getting hit with forges. Try that! As for your thought as to why they are acting like gunships... THEY ARE GUNSHIPS! Not as armoured as I would like but they are built around assault and transport. Getting from A to B and harassing/killing enemies along the way. I've countered every single point you've made already, and I'm sick of doing so. Read the ******* thread. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2822	Posted - 2015.02.06 11:40:00 - [128] - Quote Dergle wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? Yes you are. I could complain "oh these structures make it too easy for tanks to hide" or "you mean I have to get out to put an uplink and risk getting killed?" Ect. Ect. So cities, where movement is limited for HAV's and AV can esily gank you in? Do you people like using the same arguments over and over? EDIT: Why are you putting out uplinks? That's an infantry's job, not a pilot. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 89	Posted - 2015.02.06 12:59:00 - [129] - Quote I know if a tank is going into a city, it's a no go zone for me (AV knockback + wall touch = instant death) I've also had stalemates with tanks when they a going around objects + forward-back. I don't know... If a dropship can stay above a tank for a long enough time to kill it, i guess that's kinda your fault? Exploit elevation; exploit inertia. As for drop off pick up, it doesn't happen often because: - Small distance between some objectives. - If near a supply depot, everyone and their mother switches to swarms. - No need for pick up often. Rare case. - Fitting a mCRU is suicidal on a python. - mCRU only works on clones which have been term'd. - some people rather stay in dropships rather than jumping out. - sometimes, due to the lack of communication, people aren't leaving because they are at the "wrong" place. - insta-pop hazards like the ground, - "assume there is always a red rail" Generally, you'll see a DS with gunners and well, rare chance of pick-ups and dropoffs too. The rail has also been nerfed and the ADSs ability also to achieve balance. ROF nerf of the turret and 70% skill nerf (3% rof increase now) the turret's damage has been buffed, nevertheless. Proto rail does 390; (110% + ads skill)a / (90% + ads skill)s compared to 430; (77% + ads skill)s / (63% + ads skill)a Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Dergle 80	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:58:00 - [130] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Dergle wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? Yes you are. I could complain "oh these structures make it too easy for tanks to hide" or "you mean I have to get out to put an uplink and risk getting killed?" Ect. Ect. So cities, where movement is limited for HAV's and AV can esily gank you in? Do you people like using the same arguments over and over? EDIT: Why are you putting out uplinks? That's an infantry's job, not a pilot. If you don't understand why I'm putting out links then you don't understand this game well enough. Ignorance always breeds QQ Ignore your instincts at your peril.

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 706	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:06:00 - [131] - Quote I can't think of the last time an ADS took out my tank. I think it was back in the days before swarm launchers existed and there were enough people willing to fly them on both teams regularly. I'm gonna be honest here. 1v1 I'd rather be in the tank (and I don't carry swarms in mine.) Missiles can look up, I can scare away an ADS with a lot less effort than I put in to scare away a tank, when I'm in the ADS. You gotta learn to maneuver the tank and outwit the pilot. A dropship doesn't turn that well, it can point it's turret sideways and it can't shoot you in first person without moving forwards. At best an ADS can stay out of range, but in a fight, if you do the right things, it wont kill your tank and you wont even have to go to the redzone. Also if an ADS isn't meant to be a gunship... Why do I have to fit a turret on it?
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2833	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:31:00 - [132] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: I know if a tank is going into a city, it's a no go zone for me (AV knockback + wall touch = instant death) I've also had stalemates with tanks when they a going around objects + forward-back. I don't know... If a dropship can stay above a tank for a long enough time to kill it, i guess that's kinda your fault? Exploit elevation; exploit inertia. As for drop off pick up, it doesn't happen often because: - Small distance between some objectives. - If near a supply depot, everyone and their mother switches to swarms. - No need for pick up often. Rare case. - Fitting a mCRU is suicidal on a python. - mCRU only works on clones which have been term'd. - some people rather stay in dropships rather than jumping out. - sometimes, due to the lack of communication, people aren't leaving because they are at the "wrong" place. - insta-pop hazards like the ground, - "assume there is always a red rail" Generally, you'll see a DS with gunners and well, rare chance of pick-ups and dropoffs too. The rail has also been nerfed and the ADSs ability also to achieve balance. ROF nerf of the turret and 70% skill nerf (3% rof increase now) the turret's damage has been buffed, nevertheless. Proto rail does 390; (110% + ads skill)a / (90% + ads skill)s compared to 430; (77% + ads skill)s / (63% + ads skill)a An HAV going into a city is a dead HAV (maneuvering them isn't a thing, and AV in the city). Not a option. If you're having trouble with a AHV going around things, you're a terrible pilot, because you know, trying to turn a HAV usually stops it, or overshoots it. forward and back only works with a nitro, and doesn't even deal with the ADS, only delays the death. Exploiting Inertia is possible on ADS's as well, seeing as unless you're using your AB or going full speed (in which case you're an idiot), turning on a dime is easy. Also, exploiting inertia on a stupid pilot in a HAV doesn't change the fact that the ADS is still there, and you still can't shoot it down, or scare it off. Those issues are irrelevant to the ADS acting as a Gunship, and more so on how DS's in general as a role sucks, in which I already covered, twice now (as well as the rest of your post, more so). If you read the thread, you would know that. And because rails are fine against them, Rockets and Blasters are too, huh? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2833	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:33:00 - [133] - Quote Dergle wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Dergle wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Bahirae Serugiusu wrote: Turrets are fine, everything has a blind spot. And equip a Swarm Launcher even the ADV would do and ADS are running like Kenyans. So I'm supposed to hop out of my HAV and risk getting outright killed by a ADS or some other infantry/vehicle, or get ambused? Yes you are. I could complain "oh these structures make it too easy for tanks to hide" or "you mean I have to get out to put an uplink and risk getting killed?" Ect. Ect. So cities, where movement is limited for HAV's and AV can esily gank you in? Do you people like using the same arguments over and over? EDIT: Why are you putting out uplinks? That's an infantry's job, not a pilot. If you don't understand why I'm putting out links then you don't understand this game well enough. Ignorance always breeds QQ So after several years of playing the game, I still don't understand it. Cool story bro. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2833	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:35:00 - [134] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: I can't think of the last time an ADS took out my tank. I think it was back in the days before swarm launchers existed and there were enough people willing to fly them on both teams regularly. I'm gonna be honest here. 1v1 I'd rather be in the tank (and I don't carry swarms in mine.) Missiles can look up, I can scare away an ADS with a lot less effort than I put in to scare away a tank, when I'm in the ADS. You gotta learn to maneuver the tank and outwit the pilot. A dropship doesn't turn that well, it can point it's turret sideways and it can't shoot you in first person without moving forwards. At best an ADS can stay out of range, but in a fight, if you do the right things, it wont kill your tank and you wont even have to go to the redzone. Also if an ADS isn't meant to be a gunship... Why do I have to fit a turret on it? 1: Swarms have existed since the beginning of the game, and ADS's didn't come in since UP 1.0 iirc. Uh huh. 2: I circle around Rocket fitted HAV's and they can't hit be. Explain. Blasters are even worse. Shortest range, but a still ****** elevation. 3: Explain that to the 37 HAV's I've killed in the last 3 days then. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 652	Posted - 2015.02.07 01:12:00 - [135] - Quote has this thread attracted any attention from a dev/gm........... don't see blue tag so stfu, you have made your argument and others has made their counter arguments so if a dev wanted to make a change he would have said so by now. (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs _/ \
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 96	Posted - 2015.02.07 03:13:00 - [136] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: I know if a tank is going into a city, it's a no go zone for me (AV knockback + wall touch = instant death) I've also had stalemates with tanks when they a going around objects + forward-back. I don't know... If a dropship can stay above a tank for a long enough time to kill it, i guess that's kinda your fault? Exploit elevation; exploit inertia. As for drop off pick up, it doesn't happen often because: - Small distance between some objectives. - If near a supply depot, everyone and their mother switches to swarms. - No need for pick up often. Rare case. - Fitting a mCRU is suicidal on a python. - mCRU only works on clones which have been term'd. - some people rather stay in dropships rather than jumping out. - sometimes, due to the lack of communication, people aren't leaving because they are at the "wrong" place. - insta-pop hazards like the ground, - "assume there is always a red rail" Generally, you'll see a DS with gunners and well, rare chance of pick-ups and dropoffs too. The rail has also been nerfed and the ADSs ability also to achieve balance. ROF nerf of the turret and 70% skill nerf (3% rof increase now) the turret's damage has been buffed, nevertheless. Proto rail does 390; (110% + ads skill)a / (90% + ads skill)s compared to 430; (77% + ads skill)s / (63% + ads skill)a An HAV going into a city is a dead HAV (maneuvering them isn't a thing, and AV in the city). Not a option. If you're having trouble with a AHV going around things, you're a terrible pilot, because you know, trying to turn a HAV usually stops it, or overshoots it. forward and back only works with a nitro, and doesn't even deal with the ADS, only delays the death. Exploiting Inertia is possible on ADS's as well, seeing as unless you're using your AB or going full speed (in which case you're an idiot), turning on a dime is easy. Also, exploiting inertia on a stupid pilot in a HAV doesn't change the fact that the ADS is still there, and you still can't shoot it down, or scare it off. Those issues are irrelevant to the ADS acting as a Gunship, and more so on how DS's in general as a role sucks, in which I already covered, twice now (as well as the rest of your post, more so). If you read the thread, you would know that. And because rails are fine against them, Rockets and Blasters are too, huh? A HAV can turn w/o stopping, and if it's going around tall buildings or inside a bridge area, hitting a hav is far harder than the usual forward and back. Those issues are relevant, you were saying why don't ADS behave like a dropship. I told you why. Blasters only work on shield dropships, where damage output is actually 100%. Anything else it falls below 50%. A dropship cannot turn immediately. It slips and slides like it's ice. Forward back becomes godlike with nitro, it is still effective w/o nitro. Idk man, i'm tired of arguing semantics. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2838	Posted - 2015.02.07 03:31:00 - [137] - Quote iKILLu osborne wrote: has this thread attracted any attention from a dev/gm........... don't see blue tag so stfu, you have made your argument and others has made their counter arguments so if a dev wanted to make a change he would have said so by now. It took several months for the devs to say anything about HAV's alone, twice. Don't tell me what to do. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2838	Posted - 2015.02.07 03:36:00 - [138] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: I know if a tank is going into a city, it's a no go zone for me (AV knockback + wall touch = instant death) I've also had stalemates with tanks when they a going around objects + forward-back. I don't know... If a dropship can stay above a tank for a long enough time to kill it, i guess that's kinda your fault? Exploit elevation; exploit inertia. As for drop off pick up, it doesn't happen often because: - Small distance between some objectives. - If near a supply depot, everyone and their mother switches to swarms. - No need for pick up often. Rare case. - Fitting a mCRU is suicidal on a python. - mCRU only works on clones which have been term'd. - some people rather stay in dropships rather than jumping out. - sometimes, due to the lack of communication, people aren't leaving because they are at the "wrong" place. - insta-pop hazards like the ground, - "assume there is always a red rail" Generally, you'll see a DS with gunners and well, rare chance of pick-ups and dropoffs too. The rail has also been nerfed and the ADSs ability also to achieve balance. ROF nerf of the turret and 70% skill nerf (3% rof increase now) the turret's damage has been buffed, nevertheless. Proto rail does 390; (110% + ads skill)a / (90% + ads skill)s compared to 430; (77% + ads skill)s / (63% + ads skill)a An HAV going into a city is a dead HAV (maneuvering them isn't a thing, and AV in the city). Not a option. If you're having trouble with a AHV going around things, you're a terrible pilot, because you know, trying to turn a HAV usually stops it, or overshoots it. forward and back only works with a nitro, and doesn't even deal with the ADS, only delays the death. Exploiting Inertia is possible on ADS's as well, seeing as unless you're using your AB or going full speed (in which case you're an idiot), turning on a dime is easy. Also, exploiting inertia on a stupid pilot in a HAV doesn't change the fact that the ADS is still there, and you still can't shoot it down, or scare it off. Those issues are irrelevant to the ADS acting as a Gunship, and more so on how DS's in general as a role sucks, in which I already covered, twice now (as well as the rest of your post, more so). If you read the thread, you would know that. And because rails are fine against them, Rockets and Blasters are too, huh? A HAV can turn w/o stopping, and if it's going around tall buildings or inside a bridge area, hitting a hav is far harder than the usual forward and back. Those issues are relevant, you were saying why don't ADS behave like a dropship. I told you why. Blasters only work on shield dropships, where damage output is actually 100%. Anything else it falls below 50%. A dropship cannot turn immediately. It slips and slides like it's ice. Forward back becomes godlike with nitro, it is still effective w/o nitro. Idk man, i'm tired of arguing semantics. Just barely, at a semi truck-level turning arc. Those things has nothing to do with why a HAV can't hit a ADS, but rather in general problems/balance things of DS that needs to be addressed. It is a entirely seperate issue that is only connected through the fact that it's a DS, and again, covered it already. Small turrets shouldn't really be for AV in the first place, and on top of that, blasters in general sucks. That still has to do with the fact that 2/3 of the ADS fits can easily kill a HAV? If you're flying too fast or lose control, it slips and slides. I have no issues stopping and turning in combat in a ADS. No it doesn't, and nitro is not unlimited. It's not even effective without, you're just simply a scrub. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 654	Posted - 2015.02.07 09:34:00 - [139] - Quote you claim too have killed 37 havs the other day with an ads but i don't see no proof i went 120/0 the other day........see what i did there? (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs _/ \
Stupid Blueberry State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 997	Posted - 2015.02.07 11:16:00 - [140] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: I think OP is a bad tank pilot. I also think OP doesn't realize ADS costs the same as his proto'd up tank with a much, much lower TTK. You think, you think, you think. First off, I was looking from the persepective of BOTH sides (something most of you fail to do), and I observe as well. This is my conclusion, which you fucks seem to not understand: An ADS hovering over a HAV will have an absolute advantage, as the HAV can't fight back, only hope that the ADS can't fly worth a ** to stay on target (a easy thing to do). An ADS is a Dropship, yet it's preforming like a gunship, and is only used as a Gunship. You aren't looking from the perspective of both sides, I can tell you aren't an ADS pilot. The HAV can absolutely fight back, you're either just too stupid or lazy to actually get in a position to shoot it. If killing tanks with an ADS is so easy then why don't you do it? So even though I have every last turret skill to 5, all supporting skills to 5, and both ADS's to 5, I don't pilot ADS's. Cool . I don't believe you're a Pilot by the way, seeing as you're only looking from the side of the ADS, and not the HAV. Oh, and for the reasons I've for at least 7 times pointed out, no, they can't. the ADS has a counter for every move a HAV can make. Try to anuver? ADS can slightly adjust. Try to shoot back via a hill? either climb in elevation so it hav no effect, or go to the opposite side of the HAV. Pilot is AV? He's a ** nut, shoot the HAV, and even if you have to fly away, the HAV is now a sitting duck (especially now that entering/exit delays might come in SOONtm). I think YOU'RE either too lazy or too stupid to figure out these things, which is why amny people shouldn't really talk about balance when they have absolutely no clue what the hell they are talking about. Have you ever thought of leaving for a few seconds and coming back when he's busy farming infantry or LAVs? You're over thinking it, really. Or since you say you're a pilot, you could just get a railbus out and shoot them down? And tell me what you think the word "Assault" means? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Haajakin Kalen. Blueberry smokin' that crack y'all

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2840	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:22:00 - [141] - Quote iKILLu osborne wrote: you claim too have killed 37 havs the other day with an ads but i don't see no proof i went 120/0 the other day........see what i did there? I've seen higher kill counts. And Now it's 42 HAV's. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 98	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:22:00 - [142] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: ...It's not even effective without, you're just simply a scrub. If you are supposed to be persuading me then why the hell do you want to insult me? Seriously how do you expect someone to have a rational discussion with you when you cannot even respect one? I'm not mad, but i'm making you know insulting someone removes the context of what you're saying. "you may be the smartest person in the world; however, if you're rude, nobody will listen." Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2840	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:26:00 - [143] - Quote Stupid Blueberry wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: I think OP is a bad tank pilot. I also think OP doesn't realize ADS costs the same as his proto'd up tank with a much, much lower TTK. You think, you think, you think. First off, I was looking from the persepective of BOTH sides (something most of you fail to do), and I observe as well. This is my conclusion, which you fucks seem to not understand: An ADS hovering over a HAV will have an absolute advantage, as the HAV can't fight back, only hope that the ADS can't fly worth a ** to stay on target (a easy thing to do). An ADS is a Dropship, yet it's preforming like a gunship, and is only used as a Gunship. You aren't looking from the perspective of both sides, I can tell you aren't an ADS pilot. The HAV can absolutely fight back, you're either just too stupid or lazy to actually get in a position to shoot it. If killing tanks with an ADS is so easy then why don't you do it? So even though I have every last turret skill to 5, all supporting skills to 5, and both ADS's to 5, I don't pilot ADS's. Cool . I don't believe you're a Pilot by the way, seeing as you're only looking from the side of the ADS, and not the HAV. Oh, and for the reasons I've for at least 7 times pointed out, no, they can't. the ADS has a counter for every move a HAV can make. Try to anuver? ADS can slightly adjust. Try to shoot back via a hill? either climb in elevation so it hav no effect, or go to the opposite side of the HAV. Pilot is AV? He's a ** nut, shoot the HAV, and even if you have to fly away, the HAV is now a sitting duck (especially now that entering/exit delays might come in SOONtm). I think YOU'RE either too lazy or too stupid to figure out these things, which is why amny people shouldn't really talk about balance when they have absolutely no clue what the hell they are talking about. Have you ever thought of leaving for a few seconds and coming back when he's busy farming infantry or LAVs? You're over thinking it, really. Or since you say you're a pilot, you could just get a railbus out and shoot them down? And tell me what you think the word "Assault" means? Are you implying that escaping from a ADS is possible within a HAV? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Also, why should I have to switch to a railgun to shoot them down? Assault implies that whatever the thing is has a more combat oriented approach. Seeing as it is a DS first and foremost, it means that it's a DS (transport vehicle) that can have some assault features. Seeing as a DS isn't made to be a assault platform in the first place, it shouldn't transform into a Gunship, but rather a more combat oriented platform that mainly does transport. How to do that exactly? WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2840	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:28:00 - [144] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: ...It's not even effective without, you're just simply a scrub. If you are supposed to be persuading me then why the hell do you want to insult me? Seriously how do you expect someone to have a rational discussion with you when you cannot even respect one? I'm not mad, but i'm making you know insulting someone removes the context of what you're saying. "you may be the smartest person in the world; however, if you're rude, nobody will listen." If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. Life is harsh, deal with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 98	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:32:00 - [145] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: ...It's not even effective without, you're just simply a scrub. If you are supposed to be persuading me then why the hell do you want to insult me? Seriously how do you expect someone to have a rational discussion with you when you cannot even respect one? I'm not mad, but i'm making you know insulting someone removes the context of what you're saying. "you may be the smartest person in the world; however, if you're rude, nobody will listen." If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. Life is harsh, deal with it. Oh no, i can. I need to be able to say it for everyone and anyone. Life is harsh, but that isn't an excuse to be disrespectful. Edit: anyways, the best way to forward back is when the dropship is turning, you forward against it (now it's a 360 the ship makes) and keep doing that. By the next turn around, one could have "potentially" backed up far enough to fire at the dropship. Then there is hitting nitro and just going ><><><>< Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2840	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:42:00 - [146] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: ...It's not even effective without, you're just simply a scrub. If you are supposed to be persuading me then why the hell do you want to insult me? Seriously how do you expect someone to have a rational discussion with you when you cannot even respect one? I'm not mad, but i'm making you know insulting someone removes the context of what you're saying. "you may be the smartest person in the world; however, if you're rude, nobody will listen." If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. Life is harsh, deal with it. Oh no, i can. I need to be able to say it for everyone and anyone. Life is harsh, but that isn't an excuse to be disrespectful. Edit: anyways, the best way to forward back is when the dropship is turning, you forward against it (now it's a 360 the ship makes) and keep doing that. By the next turn around, one could have "potentially" backed up far enough to fire at the dropship. Then there is hitting nitro and just going ><><><>< Are you denying that you're a scrub, seeing as you can't even track a HAV going back and forward without nitro then? Because that's simply the truth of the matter. Or is it that you don't want me to tell you the truth? Turning isn't a issue in a ADS. I turn on HAV's easily, and if I somehow mess up (almost hit something), flying higher invalidates them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 98	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:24:00 - [147] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: ...It's not even effective without, you're just simply a scrub. If you are supposed to be persuading me then why the hell do you want to insult me? Seriously how do you expect someone to have a rational discussion with you when you cannot even respect one? I'm not mad, but i'm making you know insulting someone removes the context of what you're saying. "you may be the smartest person in the world; however, if you're rude, nobody will listen." If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. Life is harsh, deal with it. Oh no, i can. I need to be able to say it for everyone and anyone. Life is harsh, but that isn't an excuse to be disrespectful. Edit: anyways, the best way to forward back is when the dropship is turning, you forward against it (now it's a 360 the ship makes) and keep doing that. By the next turn around, one could have "potentially" backed up far enough to fire at the dropship. Then there is hitting nitro and just going ><><><>< Are you denying that you're a scrub, seeing as you can't even track a HAV going back and forward without nitro then? Because that's simply the truth of the matter. Or is it that you don't want me to tell you the truth? Turning isn't a issue in a ADS. I turn on HAV's easily, and if I somehow mess up (almost hit something), flying higher invalidates them. I've killed many tanks in many different situations. My way is to try to put myself in situations where i can use first person (far more accurate). I wait until the tank goes into a place where it is easier for me to defeat. Usually alone, away from other vehicles, at the back of a group etc. As for the forward back, i stay slightly to the side opposite to my escape route. Should they forward back, it's easier to follow the person. I prefer being right over because it's far more accurate... By the time i'm near o.h, the 1 - 2 burst feels better from above in my opinion. The problem with being right above is with the relative speed + the change in direction. The speed will carry the dropship forward so it's a stop and turn. I turn by putting my nose down so i can keep some speed. If the forward back move is chaotic, reading the tank's movement is harder in general. (you'll keep going -> till you stop and go <-. No matter how much <- force you apply) Now, the time you can be shot by the rail is in the back phase because the turn around time a dropship takes is more than the time it takes for a tank reverse. This is the time where i see people AB to go back into the tank's blind spot. This is why the missile turret is better. higher elevation so less back up time. And after all of that there is one thing a tank pilot can do: AV. I don't pilot a tank but i see my friend Tarlock fighting off dropships whenever we are together and i'm footing it. I see him doing that sometimes. Sigh, i really don't care anymore. I thought we'd have a productive discussion but meh, guess not. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 155	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:39:00 - [148] - Quote iKILLu osborne wrote: you claim too have killed 37 havs the other day with an ads but i don't see no proof i went 120/0 the other day........see what i did there? I call BS Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 338	Posted - 2015.02.08 07:41:00 - [149] - Quote I fly ADS and shoot them down with relative ease with a double/triple damage-mod rail tank from afar while they are engaging infantry. I can two shot even well equipped ones before he can engage after-burners. L2Patience and Strategy.
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 338	Posted - 2015.02.08 07:44:00 - [150] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB As an experienced vehicle operator, I think that ADS's being able to hurt HAVs is just fine. It is a valid tactic with hard counters. Perhaps you should consider putting seats on your tank and have gunners in your squad with AV. I hear that dropships really hate getting hit with forges. Try that! As for your thought as to why they are acting like gunships... THEY ARE GUNSHIPS! Not as armoured as I would like but they are built around assault and transport. Getting from A to B and harassing/killing enemies along the way. I've countered every single point you've made already, and I'm sick of doing so. Read the ******* thread. But you haven't. You are a scrub. I hardly ever die to a Dropship, even good ones. ONLY when dropship has a second companion, with multi-ground AV and an orbital emp pulse have I ever lost a tank to an ADS. Get. Good.

THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1447	Posted - 2015.02.08 08:48:00 - [151] - Quote Jesus Godin just deal with it. Assault dropships being able to easily kill tanks has been dead since the RoF nerfs. If you lose your tank to one, it's because you were weak or bad. In either case, good for the pilot. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. AIV member. 21 day EVE trial.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1310	Posted - 2015.02.08 09:51:00 - [152] - 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.
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 662	Posted - 2015.02.08 10:36:00 - [153] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: iKILLu osborne wrote: you claim too have killed 37 havs the other day with an ads but i don't see no proof i went 120/0 the other day........see what i did there? I've seen higher kill counts. And Now it's 42 HAV's. proof? (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs _/ \
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 712	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:03:00 - [154] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. If you can't out-think the dropship pilot when in a tank, I'm sorry, but you need to stop whining and get some practice. Yes there are bad tankers that make it easy to kill them with a dropship. In the same way there are bad pilots that can't track a tank going backwards and forward. Godin Thekiller wrote: Life is harsh, deal with it. Mary Sedillo wrote: I fly ADS and shoot them down with relative ease with a double/triple damage-mod rail tank from afar while they are engaging infantry. I can two shot even well equipped ones before he can engage after-burners. L2Patience and Strategy. I'm not sure a redzone rail-tank is the best answer here, since the redzone is a problem that needs solving.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2847	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:20:00 - [155] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. If you can't out-think the dropship pilot when in a tank, I'm sorry, but you need to stop whining and get some practice. Yes there are bad tankers that make it easy to kill them with a dropship. In the same way there are bad pilots that can't track a tank going backwards and forward. Godin Thekiller wrote: Life is harsh, deal with it. Mary Sedillo wrote: I fly ADS and shoot them down with relative ease with a double/triple damage-mod rail tank from afar while they are engaging infantry. I can two shot even well equipped ones before he can engage after-burners. L2Patience and Strategy. I'm not sure a redzone rail-tank is the best answer here, since the redzone is a problem that needs solving. Whatever you do in a HAV, there's a easy counter. You can't escape (the ADS is faser than you). You can't shoot back within the optimal of Rockets and blasters (ADS can easily vaoid you due to tracking speed and height advantage). About the only thing yo can do is dodge and hope that a infantry will switch to AV, or there's a HAV with a rail sniping at it, and relying on people doesn't work too well. Yea, try the same with a blaster or Rocket fitted HAV. If your comeback is (use a Rail), then I don't care, that's a ****** argument. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 971	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:29:00 - [156] - Quote Bottom line is. Assault Dropships are NOT gunships. Simply because they have a frontal turret for the pilot to use does not make it a gunship. Which is why it was nerfed. It was never meant to fill the role of a gunship and never will. A gunship would have more offensive capabilities than an ADS. And if you go out, treating that fragile ADS like a Gunship expecting to get massive amounts of kills and tank damage. Well you are wrong. The ADS is a dropship first, Assault thingy later. You are meant to use that frontal turret to protect the guys you dropped in a hot zone, or clear up an area before dropping your guys off. Like I said, my thoughts are that the ADS should have never existed. It brings some AV vs Vehicle issues, pilots won't stop crying that it is a weak POS while wanting it to behave like a moving gun platform. If the Gunship role ever comes to Dust. I would expect it to behave like this bad boy but without the ability to carry troops around. Until then, do not treat the ADS like a gunship. Do NOT go to that huge pile of infantry so that you can easily farm kills. You are weak, you do not have your old offensive and defensive capabilites. Stopp treating the ADS like a gunship and they will survive more often. I If you decide to treat it like a gunship, prepare to be forged by me, I will make you run to your redline bringing out my ADS as well. Or be prepared to have volleys upon volleys of swarms at your tail. With love, ADS Pilot since Uprising 1.0 Changes to Damage mods!
Jason1 Black FACTION WARFARE ARMY FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 0	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:21:00 - [157] - Quote Buwaro Draemon wrote: That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. But they are ASSAULT dropships, they are meant for ASSAULTING.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 716	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:07:00 - [158] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 3: Explain that to the 37 HAV's I've killed in the last 3 days then. Read it here 37 HAV's he's killed in the last 3 days... You're not very good at tanking. Much like this guy. Good enough?
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 972	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:33:00 - [159] - Quote Jason1 Black wrote: Buwaro Draemon wrote: That's the thing. Every pilot treats it like a Gunship. When in reality, CCP made them so pilots could transport units around AND still manage to defend themselves do to Dropship QQ back in beta plus a "temporary" place holder for jets. In my opinion ADSs should have never existed. But they are ASSAULT dropships, they are meant for ASSAULTING. Yeah no. Treat it like a hovering death machine and you are sure to loose it or have 5+ swarms aiming at you. It works first as a DROPSHIP and later as an Assault thingy. That turret was meant for you, the pilot to help clear out areas for you to leave your troops on or to give them cover while leaving them in a hot zone. And if we are going by names, I believe Scouts should have little to no offensive capabilitie. Because a Scout is supposed to be for reconnaissance and not like assassins, the way almost everyone use them now. Changes to Damage mods!
SgtMajSquish MLBJ Consolidated Dust 338	Posted - 2015.02.08 22:05:00 - [160] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? legitimate strategy Rise and shine CCP. It's time to implement ping based match making.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17029	Posted - 2015.02.08 22:33:00 - [161] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? legitimate strategy Not really..... being able to deal 10554 explosive AV damage on a magic guided missile for potentially only the cost of your Remote Explosives. At one point it was one broken mechanic to control another broken mechanic. All it is now is is yet another reason the Armour HAV is worse than useless. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 718	Posted - 2015.02.09 00:13:00 - [162] - Quote True Adamance wrote: SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? legitimate strategy Not really..... being able to deal 10554 explosive AV damage on a magic guided missile for potentially only the cost of your Remote Explosives. At one point it was one broken mechanic to control another broken mechanic. All it is now is is yet another reason the Armour HAV is worse than useless. Bull twoddle, both HAV's can avoid being blown up with ease by a JLAV, it's even been nerfed down to the point that you can only have 5 remotes at a time on it. All but 2 will disappear if you change suits. Basically now JLAVing takes more skill than anything as you actually have to avoid blowing up on the hardener. Not to mention, a beefy JLAV was the only real counter to redzone tanks in the game, now they have a free for all at the back half of the map (which on half the maps is the whole god damn area.) Still don't get why so many people couldn't just reverse the tank. I've seen about 2 JLAV's coming at my tank since the nerf and I'm hellishly bored at the lack of them, they were fun to deal with! Because they kept you on your toes & were so damn easily countered.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2853	Posted - 2015.02.09 02:15:00 - [163] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: True Adamance wrote: SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? legitimate strategy Not really..... being able to deal 10554 explosive AV damage on a magic guided missile for potentially only the cost of your Remote Explosives. At one point it was one broken mechanic to control another broken mechanic. All it is now is is yet another reason the Armour HAV is worse than useless. Bull twoddle, both HAV's can avoid being blown up with ease by a JLAV, it's even been nerfed down to the point that you can only have 5 remotes at a time on it. All but 2 will disappear if you change suits. Basically now JLAVing takes more skill than anything as you actually have to avoid blowing up on the hardener. Not to mention, a beefy JLAV was the only real counter to redzone tanks in the game, now they have a free for all at the back half of the map (which on half the maps is the whole god damn area.) Still don't get why so many people couldn't just reverse the tank. I've seen about 2 JLAV's coming at my tank since the nerf and I'm hellishly bored at the lack of them, they were fun to deal with! Because they kept you on your toes & were so damn easily countered. You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17030	Posted - 2015.02.09 02:43:00 - [164] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. At one point I was able to use my blaster to pick the remotes off the hull of the oncoming LAV. However my capacity to aim was apparently too good because when I fired at someone 200m away they were too stupid to move. It is not a simple matter of reversing to counter JLAV it's a matter of 8000-10000 potential damage delivered by means of a 80kmph platform which can effectively by a large proportion of the player based be performed free of charge excluding the Remote Explosives. Infantry did not like it when Large Railguns had range and could snipe them from across the map in a single hit. Tankers do not like JLAV's for the same reason. I'm cool with JLAV's if perhaps you could use inertia to ram them into me and follow that up with AV. But they should not be instant killers. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 723	Posted - 2015.02.09 04:04:00 - [165] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. They can... Infantry - Small blaster beats swarms and forgers. Scout tries to run around you, you reverse, switch and fire. Multiple AV - You see something coming at you, you harden and you run keeping as much terrain between you and them as you can, small mounds in the ground will soak up swarms and a forge has a lot less to aim at. Come back later and try to take them from cover with range. JLAV - You move directly away from them, the jeep doesn't detonate, they can't jump out and detonate before you're out of range and it also leaves them as easy prey. When they try to go around the side and get behind you change direction. All the while looking for the opportune moment to blast them to oblivion, 1 hit on a remote does it, failing that it's a friggin' LAV they don't have decent hp. Large Turret Installation - Anything other than rails, you keep a distance. Unmanned rails are useless, manned rails are useless because you go round to where the dropsuit is and pop it. Enemy Tank - Take 'em from behind to deal stupid damage. Expect a hardener (if they don't have one they're screwed anyway) make them waste it, then avoid using yours as long as you can dodge the shots. Always try to out maneuver them, the harder you are to hit the more ammo they'll waste. Damage avoided is better than damage tanked. Or be a rail ***** and shoot from out of their range with easy escape to the redzone, this is for the unskilled. This is the big one! Dropship - So many ways... Blow them out of they sky before they see you coming. Use Large turret installations to your advantage, position yourself so either you or the turret is able to hit them. Use buildings and such to force them to one side or limit their effective locations. Be unpredictable, yes back and forward is easy to hit, but not if you have to guess when and where the tank is chosing to move, you can taunt them into flying too far forward, then they fly up and by the time they've got you back in the sights your shields are back at full, you can buy time to get to a turret, hide under something, get to the redzone, or just bore them to death/maybe they run out of ammo, there are sooooooo many ways to deal with a dropship depending on the map. Sorry for the wall 'o' text, but people never seem to use things that are really quite obvious... Feel free to come at me with a dropship, if you don't have backup, you wont do much. Yes things can be countered and double countered, that's where the 'out-thinking' an opponent comes in.
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 139	Posted - 2015.02.09 05:02:00 - [166] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Problem is CCP originally intended missile turrets on tanks to be able to lock on to drop ships until ADSs completely QQed back in open beta, that is why the rail tank ended up as the main ADS killer of the tanks, blaster was supposed to be anti-infantry, rail as anti-armor and missile as anti-air, if things were done as intended tank warfare and vehicle warfare would be balanced but ADSs cry about everything dangerous to them Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 139	Posted - 2015.02.09 05:10:00 - [167] - Quote Oh and any experienced rail tanker will tell you there is a sweet spot at a certain height where rail tankers can't even attempt to hit an ADS but it can easily hit anything unless oddly angled on a perfect small hill or on a large hill and both actions are easy to spot if a pilot isn't just being oblivious, it's ADSs that still play like scrubs that get shot down Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 139	Posted - 2015.02.09 05:41:00 - [168] - Quote By the way the concept that makes the jihad jeep work is a broken mechanic, it is a friendly explosion setting off a friendly explosion, place an RE, then throw a locus grenade at it, then try a flux, then try a proxy and let a red walk over it and lastly blowing up the RE doesn't damage the car itself and if the front end is properly strapped the REs can potentially eat a couple rail gun rounds for you when you hit a tank Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
Caeli SineDeo Imperfects Negative-Feedback 730	Posted - 2015.02.09 06:27:00 - [169] - Quote @ Killertojo you really need to revise your post. Not even in closed alpha where Small Missile turrets ment to be lock on. They have and always will be ment to be how they are. Now there was talk about creating a new turret that in the missle turret line that allowed lock ons. Back when this talk happened dropship pillots did not care about swarms. CCP never really took interest in it and had bigger issues for ballancing on there plate
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 139	Posted - 2015.02.09 06:45:00 - [170] - Quote Caeli SineDeo wrote: @ Killertojo you really need to revise your post. Not even in closed alpha where Small Missile turrets ment to be lock on. They have and always will be ment to be how they are. Now there was talk about creating a new turret that in the missle turret line that allowed lock ons. Back when this talk happened dropship pillots did not care about swarms. CCP never really took interest in it and had bigger issues for ballancing on there plate Drop ships begged for not having a lock on missile turret and they also cried about rail turrets until they got nerfed, I gave up caring about balance in vehicles when I saw ADSs QQ over my rail turret, seriously I'm tired of damn whiney ADS pilots and by way the assault refers to point assault meaning it is meant to be only good at helping infantry and pushing back and suppressing the enemy like the assault, its for when taking points, its name ends any argument Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit

killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 139	Posted - 2015.02.09 06:48:00 - [171] - Quote By the way caeli you better have been in closed beta or in open beta within the first week of open beta opening to tell me anything Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
TEC N9ne KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 5	Posted - 2015.02.09 08:02:00 - [172] - Quote HAVs Can easily run, it takes so many rounds solo to take a good tank, plenty of time for them to roll into their redline as they always do, unless youre referring to when you also have multiples of AV firing in which case it should die. if you wanna take away my ability to hover over you and fire then you must also at the same time remove an HAVs ability to hide like a coward in the redline behind a hill and snipe an ads with a particle accelerator where there is no ability to return fire. What up all
TEC N9ne KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 5	Posted - 2015.02.09 08:03:00 - [173] - Quote HAVs Can easily run, it takes so many rounds solo to take a good tank, plenty of time for them to roll into their redline as they always do, unless youre referring to when you also have multiples of AV firing in which case it should die. if you wanna take away my ability to hover over you and fire then you must also at the same time remove an HAVs ability to hide like a coward in the redline behind a hill and snipe an ads with a particle accelerator where there is no ability to return fire. What up all
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 347	Posted - 2015.02.09 08:17:00 - [174] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. If you can't out-think the dropship pilot when in a tank, I'm sorry, but you need to stop whining and get some practice. Yes there are bad tankers that make it easy to kill them with a dropship. In the same way there are bad pilots that can't track a tank going backwards and forward. Godin Thekiller wrote: Life is harsh, deal with it. Mary Sedillo wrote: I fly ADS and shoot them down with relative ease with a double/triple damage-mod rail tank from afar while they are engaging infantry. I can two shot even well equipped ones before he can engage after-burners. L2Patience and Strategy. I'm not sure a redzone rail-tank is the best answer here, since the redzone is a problem that needs solving. Redzone is a necessary staging point and safe area for infantry and vehicles. I've played PvP games such as Starhawk which had NO safe zone and it is a FAR less enjoyable experience. I prefer my roaming tanks, engaging on the field, but I do not find the ability to fight and avoid a pub-stomp without feeding kills a bad thing. Anyways. That is for a different discussion.
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 347	Posted - 2015.02.09 08:20:00 - [175] - Quote Also -- keeping clear paths of escape in mind in tank engagements isn't for the unskilled. It almost speaks for a yearning for tanks to practically stay there as you beat them senseless... Anyways.
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 347	Posted - 2015.02.09 08:23:00 - [176] - Quote killertojo42 wrote: By the way caeli you better have been in closed beta or in open beta within the first week of open beta opening to tell me anything lol, because current meta has anything to do with meta from that point in the game. I've been around since mid-open beta and it was different then.
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 191	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:00:00 - [177] - Quote killertojo42 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Problem is CCP originally intended missile turrets on tanks to be able to lock on to drop ships until ADSs completely QQed back in open beta, that is why the rail tank ended up as the main ADS killer of the tanks, blaster was supposed to be anti-infantry, rail as anti-armor and missile as anti-air, if things were done as intended tank warfare and vehicle warfare would be balanced but ADSs cry about everything dangerous to them That's because everything's dangerous to an ADS pilot... What AV don't understand is that ADS can be destroyed by immobile objects (buildings) and RDVs, meanwhile a swarm user isn't going to trip up on a rock and die... "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 348	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:01:00 - [178] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: killertojo42 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Problem is CCP originally intended missile turrets on tanks to be able to lock on to drop ships until ADSs completely QQed back in open beta, that is why the rail tank ended up as the main ADS killer of the tanks, blaster was supposed to be anti-infantry, rail as anti-armor and missile as anti-air, if things were done as intended tank warfare and vehicle warfare would be balanced but ADSs cry about everything dangerous to them That's because everything's dangerous to an ADS pilot... What AV don't understand is that ADS can be destroyed by immobile objects (buildings) and RDVs, meanwhile a swarm user isn't going to trip up on a rock and die... I know right? Wish they could get with random debris from an exploding vehicle and die sometimes, like in Battlefield.
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 191	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:06:00 - [179] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If you can't track the sluggish movements of a HAV moving forward and backwards, I'm sorry, but you need to practice. That's simply all it comes down to. If you can't out-think the dropship pilot when in a tank, I'm sorry, but you need to stop whining and get some practice. Yes there are bad tankers that make it easy to kill them with a dropship. In the same way there are bad pilots that can't track a tank going backwards and forward. Godin Thekiller wrote: Life is harsh, deal with it. Mary Sedillo wrote: I fly ADS and shoot them down with relative ease with a double/triple damage-mod rail tank from afar while they are engaging infantry. I can two shot even well equipped ones before he can engage after-burners. L2Patience and Strategy. I'm not sure a redzone rail-tank is the best answer here, since the redzone is a problem that needs solving. Whatever you do in a HAV, there's a easy counter. You can't escape (the ADS is faser than you). You can't shoot back within the optimal of Rockets and blasters (ADS can easily vaoid you due to tracking speed and height advantage). About the only thing yo can do is dodge and hope that a infantry will switch to AV, or there's a HAV with a rail sniping at it, and relying on people doesn't work too well. @ Mary- Yea, try the same with a blaster or Rocket fitted HAV. If your comeback is (use a Rail), then I don't care, that's a ****** argument. You can escape an ADS in a tank actually... it's called FINDING SOMETHING WITH A ROOF "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 348	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:09:00 - [180] - Quote So what he was also saying is that falling back, and bringing rail to take down a dropship is a bad idea? You know what is bad? Being inflexible. ADS needs to kill you more until you realize you adapt to the game and not the other way around.

Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 192	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:10:00 - [181] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: So what he was also saying is that falling back, and bringing rail to take down a dropship is a bad idea? You know what is bad? Being inflexible. ADS needs to kill you more until you realize you adapt to the game and not the other way around. Exactly, ppl have complained so much about things in this game that the phrase 'Adapt or Die' means nothing now "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 348	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:14:00 - [182] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: True Adamance wrote: SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Broken mechanics do not justify other bad mechanics. JLAV's huh? legitimate strategy Not really..... being able to deal 10554 explosive AV damage on a magic guided missile for potentially only the cost of your Remote Explosives. At one point it was one broken mechanic to control another broken mechanic. All it is now is is yet another reason the Armour HAV is worse than useless. Bull twoddle, both HAV's can avoid being blown up with ease by a JLAV, it's even been nerfed down to the point that you can only have 5 remotes at a time on it. All but 2 will disappear if you change suits. Basically now JLAVing takes more skill than anything as you actually have to avoid blowing up on the hardener. Not to mention, a beefy JLAV was the only real counter to redzone tanks in the game, now they have a free for all at the back half of the map (which on half the maps is the whole god damn area.) Still don't get why so many people couldn't just reverse the tank. I've seen about 2 JLAV's coming at my tank since the nerf and I'm hellishly bored at the lack of them, they were fun to deal with! Because they kept you on your toes & were so damn easily countered. If you don't get why some tanks are in the redline, you don't get the current issue with AV atm.
Lorhak Gannarsein nos nothi 4256	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:36:00 - [183] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: If you don't get why some tanks are in the redline, you don't get the current issue with AV atm. A bit off topic, but I'm going to have to get you to describe what the 'current issue with AV at the moment" (woah redundancy!) is? Because I don't get why some tanks are in the redline. Well, here goes nothing!!!
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 140	Posted - 2015.02.09 10:58:00 - [184] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: killertojo42 wrote: By the way caeli you better have been in closed beta or in open beta within the first week of open beta opening to tell me anything lol, because current meta has anything to do with meta from that point in the game. I've been around since mid-open beta and it was different then. He brought up closed beta as if he knew more than me so I was just shutting him down Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 140	Posted - 2015.02.09 11:01:00 - [185] - Quote TEC N9ne wrote: HAVs Can easily run, it takes so many rounds solo to take a good tank, plenty of time for them to roll into their redline as they always do, unless youre referring to when you also have multiples of AV firing in which case it should die. if you wanna take away my ability to hover over you and fire then you must also at the same time remove an HAVs ability to hide like a coward in the redline behind a hill and snipe an ads with a particle accelerator where there is no ability to return fire. Flying drop ships get a pretty big expansion to the redline so yeah you already got your wish Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 140	Posted - 2015.02.09 11:06:00 - [186] - Quote My problem with AV right now is so many damn starter AV suits getting used I'm the brink on asking for the removal of that starter fit, I get I'll just end up seeing militia suits replace the starter fits but damn Its getting rediculous, whether winning or losing I keep seeing it everywhere and honestly tankers and ADSs alike are both hurting from it Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 192	Posted - 2015.02.09 11:31:00 - [187] - Quote killertojo42 wrote: TEC N9ne wrote: HAVs Can easily run, it takes so many rounds solo to take a good tank, plenty of time for them to roll into their redline as they always do, unless youre referring to when you also have multiples of AV firing in which case it should die. if you wanna take away my ability to hover over you and fire then you must also at the same time remove an HAVs ability to hide like a coward in the redline behind a hill and snipe an ads with a particle accelerator where there is no ability to return fire. Flying drop ships get a pretty big expansion to the redline so yeah you already got your wish But ADS can't shoot ppl from the redline, in fact it can't do anything from the redline, but it's the only place that it won't be completely destroyed "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Hellsatano Academy Inferno E-R-A 470	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:54:00 - [188] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB top turret is very iseful againts ADS. also squad member woth forge\sqwarm very helpful Protostomper Twich Youtube
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1316	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:07:00 - [189] - 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.
Caeli SineDeo Imperfects Negative-Feedback 730	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:48:00 - [190] - Quote killertojo42 wrote: He brought up closed beta as if he knew more than me so I was just shutting him down Name the first build and what it was liked if you know so much. You also forget the other end that benifited dropship pilots. High in the sky being able to vehicle lock also with swarm type missle launchers. As I said dropship pilots did not shut down that idea. We did say balancing needs to take precidence over adding new modules. Saying dropships are OP against tanks is laughable. Just ****** tank drivers would think that. Also if you need more Look at my Tag and Look up Tester tournament.

DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15670	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:57:00 - [191] - Quote Its almost as if the ship has guns for assaulting My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 737	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:05:00 - [192] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: meanwhile a swarm user isn't going to trip up on a rock and die... That would be hilarious to read on the kill feed. [so and so] - tripped and died on a small rock. What a way to go, a truly brave clone. DUST Fiend wrote: Its almost as if the ship has guns for assaulting No bro, my turrets are just there for show, that's why no one uses them properly (if they even spawn in my derpship at all, lol.) Mary Sedillo wrote: Redzone is a necessary staging point and safe area for infantry and vehicles. I've played PvP games such as Starhawk which had NO safe zone and it is a FAR less enjoyable experience. I don't see them as necessary, everyone is 'safe' at the start of a battle (excluding PC with eve support, but redzone does nothing against that.) Teams that get pushed into the redzone have already lost the rest of the battle field and are unlikely going to have any chance in the match anyway, this has nothing to do with proto pub stomps, it's simply due to a bad team, in the same way me getting downed by 6 av at once is my mistake and also the rest of my teams mistake if they don't manage to take advantage of the extra 'anti-infantry' manpower that they have during that time. Once the match is under way, you should have your team creating safe places to bring in people on the map, which is easier on the maps with a large playable area (almost always unused space you can hide spawns and call vehicles in from.) With more spawns spread across the back of the maps, we wouldn't need the red zone, because camping 4 spawns isn't going to be possible by 1 proto squad. Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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.) We also ignore the fact that 2 or 3 turrets in a an ads can only point the same direction when facing forwards, forcing the pilot to always be pointing the nose at the ground if they want to take care of a tank... Orrrr hovering low (well within the range of a close by rail tank) to avoid having to float forwards at quite a speed and pullup after to avoid crashing. Better also ignore that the side turrets on a dropship will jump to front facing if you try to look too far down as well.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 401	Posted - 2015.02.09 20:20:00 - [193] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Dropships have to sit there and hit tanks forever to kill them. Dropships have to get very low to the ground to do this, so unless the tank is alone, they will almost certainly start taking fire from something very quickly and have to stop attacking the tank. Tanks are much, much, much, much better than anything else in the game at demolishing dropships. There is no balance problems with dropships attacking tanks. There are huge balance problems with tanks attacking dropships (they kill them faster than 2 forge gunners working together, which I think is way, way overboard). The Dropship/Tank dynamic does need a nerfing, but not on the dropship side. Seeing as the longest reasonable time is comparable to that of what a HAV should be killing another HAV in, nowhere near forever. What, you want it to be shorter? ** no. Seeing as you want to balance on assuming the HAV will have backup (lots of the time that isn't the case, and you can't balance around assuming something). No, they are not. AV is better, but AV already setup, as in not hopping out of the HAV, or the pilot itself, in which doesn't really work, as the AV will probably die (unless the pilot sucks) as the AV will be disoriented from hopping out (and there is possibly going to be a delay in the future). Umm, ADS's can hover over HAV's, in which the HAV can't shoot at them due to too low of a turret elevation? They do die to fast, that has always been a problem. It is quite easy to snipe them out of the air sitting back with a rail (unless you see the rail first, hit the AB, and then climb in a diagonal movement, then circle to the other side of the HAV, so kinda like dealing with a sniper). Rocketsand blasters however don't kill them nearly as fast, so that's not completely true (they also suffer much more in fighting them due to much shorter range). Im not sure what you are trying to say here, but my post basically says Dropship attacking a HAV is fine right now, but HAV attacking dropship is not. In summary: *** please.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 402	Posted - 2015.02.09 20:36:00 - [194] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Infantry did not like it when Large Railguns had range and could snipe them from across the map in a single hit. Tankers do not like JLAV's for the same reason. You realize this comparison is bullshit because the JLAV literally has to physically hit you to kill you right? Characterizing that as hitting you "from across the map" is pretty much lying.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2854	Posted - 2015.02.09 22:46:00 - [195] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Its almost as if the ship has guns for assaulting And again, another person comes and misses the entire point. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2854	Posted - 2015.02.09 22:49:00 - [196] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: The current ADS balance is pretty close to spot on. HAVs need coordination to fight one off And this is the problem. Why do I have to coordinate with others to fight one single pilot exactly? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2854	Posted - 2015.02.09 22:53:00 - [197] - Quote Hellsatano wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB top turret is very iseful againts ADS. also squad member woth forge\sqwarm very helpful Against. One. Single. Pilot. Yes, I don't like forcing teamwork just to be able to survive, or rely on luck. I'd rather be able to deal with each encounter. Seeing as I can't ran (faster than me), and I can't shoot at it (blasters and rockets in their specific optimal's at least, only rails in their optimal can due to range, and that's if it's flying reasonably low). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17046	Posted - 2015.02.09 22:54:00 - [198] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: The current ADS balance is pretty close to spot on. HAVs need coordination to fight one off And this is the problem. Why do I have to coordinate with others to fight one single pilot exactly? Irony alert! Irony alert! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2854	Posted - 2015.02.09 22:56:00 - [199] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: The current ADS balance is pretty close to spot on. HAVs need coordination to fight one off And this is the problem. Why do I have to coordinate with others to fight one single pilot exactly? Irony alert! Irony alert! What are you referring to exactly? One person equals one person, that's obvious. Also, one person should be able to deal with one person, whether that's killing them, running away, distracting them, whatever you can do. That's currently not the case between ADS's and HAV's. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2854	Posted - 2015.02.09 22:59:00 - [200] - Quote killertojo42 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB Problem is CCP originally intended missile turrets on tanks to be able to lock on to drop ships until ADSs completely QQed back in open beta, that is why the rail tank ended up as the main ADS killer of the tanks, blaster was supposed to be anti-infantry, rail as anti-armor and missile as anti-air, if things were done as intended tank warfare and vehicle warfare would be balanced but ADSs cry about everything dangerous to them Are you talking about large turrets? If so, no. Large turrets of all kinds needs to be able to deal with both HAV's and any other big things (which is why blasters are getting buffed big time). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:03:00 - [201] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: True Adamance wrote: Infantry did not like it when Large Railguns had range and could snipe them from across the map in a single hit. Tankers do not like JLAV's for the same reason. You realize this comparison is bullshit because the JLAV literally has to physically hit you to kill you right? Characterizing that as hitting you "from across the map" is pretty much lying. It doesn't take long to cross the map in a lAV (same as ADS, which is fine), and it's quite easy to just straight ram the HAV without getting shot (same as ADS, which isn't). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 404	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:46:00 - [202] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: True Adamance wrote: Infantry did not like it when Large Railguns had range and could snipe them from across the map in a single hit. Tankers do not like JLAV's for the same reason. You realize this comparison is bullshit because the JLAV literally has to physically hit you to kill you right? Characterizing that as hitting you "from across the map" is pretty much lying. It doesn't take long to cross the map in a lAV (same as ADS, which is fine), and it's quite easy to just straight ram the HAV without getting shot (same as ADS, which isn't). Oh ok. So when a scout kills you with nova knives, its equivalent to a sniper killing you from 400 meters because scouts dont take long to cross the map? Seems legit.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:52:00 - [203] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: True Adamance wrote: Infantry did not like it when Large Railguns had range and could snipe them from across the map in a single hit. Tankers do not like JLAV's for the same reason. You realize this comparison is bullshit because the JLAV literally has to physically hit you to kill you right? Characterizing that as hitting you "from across the map" is pretty much lying. It doesn't take long to cross the map in a lAV (same as ADS, which is fine), and it's quite easy to just straight ram the HAV without getting shot (same as ADS, which isn't). Oh ok. So when a scout kills you with nova knives, its equivalent to a sniper killing you from 400 meters because scouts dont take long to cross the map? Seems legit. It's not the same thing, you simply don't get it. See, if I say aimed a HMG at a scout running at me with NK's, that little ***** will die easily. I can easily track it too, so that's not a problem. That's simply not the case when it comes to JLAV's. Also, finding and engaging snipers is although simple, it could be better via a somewhat long lasting sniper trail, making the sniper having to relocate a lot, or be attacked and killed. Also, neither of these things compares to snipers, more like shotguns, but against unkillable scouts, similar to that of early closed beta. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 404	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:53:00 - [204] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: True Adamance wrote: Infantry did not like it when Large Railguns had range and could snipe them from across the map in a single hit. Tankers do not like JLAV's for the same reason. You realize this comparison is bullshit because the JLAV literally has to physically hit you to kill you right? Characterizing that as hitting you "from across the map" is pretty much lying. It doesn't take long to cross the map in a lAV (same as ADS, which is fine), and it's quite easy to just straight ram the HAV without getting shot (same as ADS, which isn't). Oh ok. So when a scout kills you with nova knives, its equivalent to a sniper killing you from 400 meters because scouts dont take long to cross the map? Seems legit. It's not the same thing, you simply don't get it. See, if I say aimed a HMG at a scout running at me with NK's, that little ***** will die easily. I can easily track it too, so that's not a problem. That's simply not the case when it comes to JLAV's. Also, finding and engaging snipers is although simple, it could be better via a somewhat long lasting sniper trail, making the sniper having to relocate a lot, or be attacked and killed. Also, neither of these things compares to snipers, more like shotguns, but against unkillable scouts, similar to that of early closed beta. Yeah just double down on that, you wouldnt want anyone to suspect that you just suck at situational awareness, aim, and positioning. Just keep beating that drum, it kills my tank so its not legit.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17058	Posted - 2015.02.10 00:13:00 - [205] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Yeah just double down on that, you wouldnt want anyone to suspect that you just suck at situational awareness, aim, and positioning. Just keep beating that drum, it kills my tank so its not legit. That's not the issue. I'd be fine with JLAV's as long as they did not constitute a OHKO of the tank. I can essentially fit a Suicide fit for all of 50,000 ISK and then run my free BPO LAV and Suit. My tanks cost 13x that. I could care less about KDR and losing tanks. What is an immersion breaking tactic that costs so little for such powerful effect. It would be absolutely fine if the JLAV damage the tank severely allowing a player to ram the tank using the LAV's inertia and then they could follow up with AV grenades or something similar. It's just another reason the Armour HAV is worthless. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 00:29:00 - [206] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Yeah just double down on that, you wouldnt want anyone to suspect that you just suck at situational awareness, aim, and positioning. Just keep beating that drum, it kills my tank so its not legit. Seeing as I easily use both ADS's and JLAV's, that's clearly not the case. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Bradric Banewolf D3ATH CARD RUST415 736	Posted - 2015.02.10 01:19:00 - [207] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. You're doing it wrong. All of you, but mainly the guy that thinks the ADS takes a long time to kill a tank. To the OP, a little situational awareness goes a long way. Why are you in the middle of the battlefield knowing an ads, or even a transport dropship with gunners, is about? Defense against ads is good position, and teamwork. JLAV's.... yeah now there's an issue. Deliberately suicide should be severely punished. Another thread altogether though. "Anybody order chaos?"
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 01:32:00 - [208] - Quote Bradric Banewolf wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And Gunships that HAV's can't defend against. You can seriously hover over them and blow them up. Running away doesn't even help it seems, as you can still just fire away at them to kill them. This is highly unreasonable and needs to get fixed (a raise in turret elevation would help). BLUB It takes about a day to kill a gunnlogi with an ADS, seems fine to me. Not to mention that a gunnlogi can literally two shot kill a python without warning. You're doing it wrong. All of you, but mainly the guy that thinks the ADS takes a long time to kill a tank. To the OP, a little situational awareness goes a long way. Why are you in the middle of the battlefield knowing an ads, or even a transport dropship with gunners, is about? Defense against ads is good position, and teamwork. JLAV's.... yeah now there's an issue. Deliberately suicide should be severely punished. Another thread altogether though. Yea, a Blaster HAV can definitely sit beside a Rail and snipe. Same for Rockets. 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). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:39:00 - [209] - Quote Games with no safe staging zones throughout the match are HORRIBLE, especially when one side has overwhelming victory conditions.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17062	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:47:00 - [210] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: Games with no safe staging zones throughout the match are HORRIBLE, especially when one side has overwhelming victory conditions. Shouldn't you guys.....I don't know...be protecting those staging zones? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:49:00 - [211] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Mary Sedillo wrote: Games with no safe staging zones throughout the match are HORRIBLE, especially when one side has overwhelming victory conditions. Shouldn't you guys.....I don't know...be protecting those staging zones? Sound in theory, horrid in practice. Otherwise AFK becomes HORRIBLE. Watch. Remove red zones and enjoy fighting a team chilling in the MCC lol.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:57:00 - [212] - Quote I'd rather not have redlines removed. Pushed back? Yea. Maps are way too small to make transport really attractive (which is why I'm not saying ADS's are OP, rather broken). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 353	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:59:00 - [213] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd rather not have redlines removed. Pushed back? Yea. Maps are way too small to make transport really attractive (which is why I'm not saying ADS's are OP, rather broken). With this, I agree. Also, give maps with natural obstacles hard to traverse, like water, or complicated to traverse mountains. Then you'd see higher demand in pilots for transport. I still like using them to aggress ground targets when AV is light. lol
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:12:00 - [214] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd rather not have redlines removed. Pushed back? Yea. Maps are way too small to make transport really attractive (which is why I'm not saying ADS's are OP, rather broken). With this, I agree. Also, give maps with natural obstacles hard to traverse, like water, or complicated to traverse mountains. Then you'd see higher demand in pilots for transport. I still like using them to aggress ground targets when AV is light. lol 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). EDIT: Mountains shouldn't take up a full portion of a map, but would work really nice on larger maps for intense infantry based locations, with more open places below it. I'd love different environments to fight in as wells. Mud, ice, and deep snow to screw with wheeled vehicles, but excels for tracked vehicles (and rigs or variations of wheeled vehicles with tracks that are slightly slower, but don't lose any speed when tracked :D), and makes it hell for infantry to just traverse. Also would make DS's extremely attractive due to being able to go regular speed regardless of the environment (but maybe grounded on some maps barring a few dangerous missions, like say lightning/plasma storms making flying hard due to bolts everywhere). Too bad unless we either get a bunch of new Jesus devs that can somehow pull that off without nuking our PS3's, we won't see such until a move to either PS4 or PC. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 176	Posted - 2015.02.10 18:07:00 - [215] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. A counter is supposed to be countered so one thing isn't too OP. Its like pokemon. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2858	Posted - 2015.02.10 18:17:00 - [216] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. A counter is supposed to be countered so one thing isn't too OP. Its like pokemon. How ironic how you don't understand that is what I'm asking for click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 180	Posted - 2015.02.11 01:19:00 - [217] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. They can... Infantry - Small blaster beats swarms and forgers. Scout tries to run around you, you reverse, switch and fire. Multiple AV - You see something coming at you, you harden and you run keeping as much terrain between you and them as you can, small mounds in the ground will soak up swarms and a forge has a lot less to aim at. Come back later and try to take them from cover with range. JLAV - You move directly away from them, the jeep doesn't detonate, they can't jump out and detonate before you're out of range and it also leaves them as easy prey. When they try to go around the side and get behind you change direction. All the while looking for the opportune moment to blast them to oblivion, 1 hit on a remote does it, failing that it's a friggin' LAV they don't have decent hp. Large Turret Installation - Anything other than rails, you keep a distance. Unmanned rails are useless, manned rails are useless because you go round to where the dropsuit is and pop it. Enemy Tank - Take 'em from behind to deal stupid damage. Expect a hardener (if they don't have one they're screwed anyway) make them waste it, then avoid using yours as long as you can dodge the shots. Always try to out maneuver them, the harder you are to hit the more ammo they'll waste. Damage avoided is better than damage tanked. Or be a rail ***** and shoot from out of their range with easy escape to the redzone, this is for the unskilled. This is the big one! Dropship - So many ways... Blow them out of they sky before they see you coming. Use Large turret installations to your advantage, position yourself so either you or the turret is able to hit them. Use buildings and such to force them to one side or limit their effective locations. Be unpredictable, yes back and forward is easy to hit, but not if you have to guess when and where the tank is chosing to move, you can taunt them into flying too far forward, then they fly up and by the time they've got you back in the sights your shields are back at full, you can buy time to get to a turret, hide under something, get to the redzone, or just bore them to death/maybe they run out of ammo, there are sooooooo many ways to deal with a dropship depending on the map. Sorry for the wall 'o' text, but people never seem to use things that are really quite obvious... Feel free to come at me with a dropship, if you don't have backup, you wont do much. Yes things can be countered and double countered, that's where the 'out-thinking' an opponent comes in. *Clap Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 180	Posted - 2015.02.11 01:20:00 - [218] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Assault Dropships are OP blah blah blah. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1320	Posted - 2015.02.11 04:12:00 - [219] - 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.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 412	Posted - 2015.02.11 04:18:00 - [220] - Quote This thread is the most amusing thing out there, we got HAV users, who already have the most powerful and durable units on the field, bitching about the 3 of the 4 things that can kill them if they dont pay attention, make a ****** fitting, and completely suck. You better be careful, if those things get nerfed all you will have left to nerf is other HAVs, then what excuse will you have for dying?

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2873	Posted - 2015.02.11 04:29:00 - [221] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: This thread is the most amusing thing out there, we got HAV users, who already have the most powerful and durable units on the field, bitching about the 3 of the 4 things that can kill them if they dont pay attention, make a ****** fitting, and completely suck. You better be careful, if those things get nerfed all you will have left to nerf is other HAVs, then what excuse will you have for dying? And you're again misunderstanding what I'm saying, which you obviously would. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 412	Posted - 2015.02.11 05:17:00 - [222] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: This thread is the most amusing thing out there, we got HAV users, who already have the most powerful and durable units on the field, bitching about the 3 of the 4 things that can kill them if they dont pay attention, make a ****** fitting, and completely suck. You better be careful, if those things get nerfed all you will have left to nerf is other HAVs, then what excuse will you have for dying? And you're again misunderstanding what I'm saying, which you obviously would. And what are you trying to say? Ill put my reasonable person face on, I promise.
Beast gameplay1 jr Ahrendee Mercenaries 103	Posted - 2015.02.11 06:27:00 - [223] - Quote U do know that all I have to do is take a Min Commando and a adv swarm launcher and then I will have him down in 2-3 swarms I play ads and it's almost impossible to take out a Gungolgi I spent have a match trying to take 1 out missing once. And another thing is normally if u hover your a dead ads a large railguj will have u down o7 Scout Mk,0
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1320	Posted - 2015.02.11 06:53:00 - [224] - 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.
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4266	Posted - 2015.02.11 07:48:00 - [225] - Quote 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. It's a waste of time trying to contribute to a Godin thread. Better to just troll it. Especially cos he's clearly a bad. I mean, what was that? "Should only take one guy to kill one guy?" I can basically guarantee that Godin has begged for HAV to be equal to 2+ AV in the past (can't be arsed searching, though). Hell, I have begged such myself (though not since tank prices got cut). I don't understand why he thinks that his blaster tank should be able to kill anything that comes within its range. If it outmanouevres him, he loses. If he tracks it efficiently, it dies. Hard. If he doesn't feel like it, he ought to try the turret that was so good against ADS that they nerfed its range (i.e. Large Railgun). Wrecks them. Isn't hard to get the shots off, again, unless you're terribad. And to be quite honest, I find it easiest to kill DS and ADS with an Ishukone AFG, far more so than even my damage modded Particle Cannon. I still think we should change the name to gunship. Well, here goes nothing!!!
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 11:56:00 - [226] - Quote 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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
killertojo42 KnightKiller's inc. 148	Posted - 2015.02.11 13:15:00 - [227] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. It includes the main red line, unless changed extremely recently I can confirm this through experience Because both of us dying as I'm in my nomad BPO is to my benefit
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15683	Posted - 2015.02.11 14:56:00 - [228] - 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? How about you drive forward and backwards, and abuse terrain? Top turrets could stand to have a little more elevation, and HAVs shouldnt be forced to fit a front turret in order to fit a top turret, but other than that it just sounds like you're whining cuz you can't sit out in the open and kill all the things. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 184	Posted - 2015.02.11 15:53:00 - [229] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. A counter is supposed to be countered so one thing isn't too OP. Its like pokemon. How ironic how you don't understand that is what I'm asking for HAV is supposed to counter infantry and other GROUND vehicles. As in other HAVs and LAVs. If you somehow manage to get a potshot on a DS, than good for you. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 21:52:00 - [230] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein 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. It's a waste of time trying to contribute to a Godin thread. Better to just troll it. Especially cos he's clearly a bad. I mean, what was that? "Should only take one guy to kill one guy?" I can basically guarantee that Godin has begged for HAV to be equal to 2+ AV in the past (can't be arsed searching, though). Hell, I have begged such myself (though not since tank prices got cut). I don't understand why he thinks that his blaster tank should be able to kill anything that comes within its range. If it outmanouevres him, he loses. If he tracks it efficiently, it dies. Hard. If he doesn't feel like it, he ought to try the turret that was so good against ADS that they nerfed its range (i.e. Large Railgun). Wrecks them. Isn't hard to get the shots off, again, unless you're terribad. And to be quite honest, I find it easiest to kill DS and ADS with an Ishukone AFG, far more so than even my damage modded Particle Cannon. I still think we should change the name to gunship. I have not. I've certainly said that 2 AV should have a easy time killing a HAV, or a very skilled AV should have a easy time killing scrub HAV (or in both cases at least dealing with them, such as distracting them, making them run, escaping them, etc.). If you thought otherwise, either: 1: It wasn't me, but the Kitty trolling 2: You weren't talking to me 3: You wildly misunderstood what I said. 4: You're just trollin, and you do get what I'm sayin. Or something along the lines of those things. Is it so bad that I want to be able to shoot at a ADS hovering over me with my Blaster to stop it from hovering over me? Am I so twisted to like to not be able to do such a thing to simple minded pilots? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 21:57:00 - [231] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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? How about you drive forward and backwards, and abuse terrain? Top turrets could stand to have a little more elevation, and HAVs shouldnt be forced to fit a front turret in order to fit a top turret, but other than that it just sounds like you're whining cuz you can't sit out in the open and kill all the things. An ADS can just fly higher, or slow down and easily track the movement of the HAV. Top turrets require another person, or would make you highly vulnerable to approaching threats. I agree, a front turret is mostly unneeded. Deal with doesn't mean kill. I'd like to have options without forcing teamwork on a one on one basis is all, for any situation, whether it be a infantry sitting in front of a HAV, a DS maneuvering from AV, a Heavy being jumped by a infantry hotdropped by a ADS, etc. You and others here clearly don't understand that,, probably because you refuse to not be OP. Hell, irrc many DS pilots claimed to want to be able to kill installations as easy as HAV's (I'm talking RU's and such) because it took too long, so this resistance makes sense. I care not however. Deal with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 21:58:00 - [232] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. A counter is supposed to be countered so one thing isn't too OP. Its like pokemon. How ironic how you don't understand that is what I'm asking for HAV is supposed to counter infantry and other GROUND vehicles. As in other HAVs and LAVs. If you somehow manage to get a potshot on a DS, than good for you. So I'm not supposed to defend myself from a target? Okay, remove all AV weapons from the game, and anything smaller than a HAV can't damage one then, if that's how you want to play it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 890	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:00:00 - [233] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. A counter is supposed to be countered so one thing isn't too OP. Its like pokemon. How ironic how you don't understand that is what I'm asking for HAV is supposed to counter infantry and other GROUND vehicles. As in other HAVs and LAVs. If you somehow manage to get a potshot on a DS, than good for you. if the hav is supposed to counter infantry and most av basically is infantry. then shouldnt i be capable of easily taking out multiple av "infantry" units?. i prefer gta 5s terms of vehicles game play a bit better. the tank is the most powerful out of nearly all of them. with the best defense as well. and it can easily dispatch all those helicopters as they tend to eventually fly low into tanks line of fire. but said tanks ultimate weakness seems to be those cannons from the p996 lazor jet. even a strafing run is deadly in a pretty big area. but that air craft is fast and cannot hover thus it can be difficult to take out said tank and ground targets. but is still very cable of ground attack and killing helicopters like the buzzard. but the buzzard is essentialy useless against said tank. as the tank can easily aim high enough to kill the buzzard. if only dusts vehicle combat could be made to be somewhat similar. oh and the other thing. that tank has an unusable mounted machine. it would be nice to use it but i guess the highly explosive main cannon is good enough which is very capable at killing pretty much everything save for another tank as that turns into a brawling match. im talking about the dull and boring combat in general nevermind the fits. if only we could pilot the mcc. id end the matches real quick.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:15:00 - [234] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You seem to think HAV's can easily counter pretty much everything when it's known that said things can in fact counter the counter. A counter is supposed to be countered so one thing isn't too OP. Its like pokemon. How ironic how you don't understand that is what I'm asking for HAV is supposed to counter infantry and other GROUND vehicles. As in other HAVs and LAVs. If you somehow manage to get a potshot on a DS, than good for you. if the hav is supposed to counter infantry and most av basically is infantry. then shouldnt i be capable of easily taking out multiple av "infantry" units?. i prefer gta 5s terms of vehicles game play a bit better. the tank is the most powerful out of nearly all of them. with the best defense as well. and it can easily dispatch all those helicopters as they tend to eventually fly low into tanks line of fire. but said tanks ultimate weakness seems to be those cannons from the p996 lazor jet. even a strafing run is deadly in a pretty big area. but that air craft is fast and cannot hover thus it can be difficult to take out said tank and ground targets. but is still very cable of ground attack and killing helicopters like the buzzard. but the buzzard is essentialy useless against said tank. as the tank can easily aim high enough to kill the buzzard. if only dusts vehicle combat could be made to be somewhat similar. oh and the other thing. that tank has an unusable mounted machine. it would be nice to use it but i guess the highly explosive main cannon is good enough which is very capable at killing pretty much everything save for another tank as that turns into a brawling match. im talking about the dull and boring combat in general nevermind the fits. That system is balanced around one single cannon, and even then, I should be able to deal with the jet. If I see it coming, I should be able to take cover, or fire back. I think people's missing the point. I'm asking for balance on a one person to one person basis. That doesn't exist for HAV's and ADS's (Rails don't account for all HAV's, seeing as it's only 1/3 of the turrets fitable to a HAV, although is generally balanced to ADS's unless they are flying REALLY high, so maybe a flight ceiling reduction?), and I'm simply saying that shouldn't be the case. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15692	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:43:00 - [235] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: 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? How about you drive forward and backwards, and abuse terrain? Top turrets could stand to have a little more elevation, and HAVs shouldnt be forced to fit a front turret in order to fit a top turret, but other than that it just sounds like you're whining cuz you can't sit out in the open and kill all the things. An ADS can just fly higher, or slow down and easily track the movement of the HAV. Top turrets require another person, or would make you highly vulnerable to approaching threats. I agree, a front turret is mostly unneeded. Deal with doesn't mean kill. I'd like to have options without forcing teamwork on a one on one basis is all, for any situation, whether it be a infantry sitting in front of a HAV, a DS maneuvering from AV, a Heavy being jumped by a infantry hotdropped by a ADS, etc. You and others here clearly don't understand that,, probably because you refuse to not be OP. Hell, irrc many DS pilots claimed to want to be able to kill installations as easy as HAV's (I'm talking RU's and such) because it took too long, so this resistance makes sense. I care not however. Deal with it. You do realize that a DS could NEVER engage you if you had no vulnerable zone....right...? My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:50:00 - [236] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: 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? How about you drive forward and backwards, and abuse terrain? Top turrets could stand to have a little more elevation, and HAVs shouldnt be forced to fit a front turret in order to fit a top turret, but other than that it just sounds like you're whining cuz you can't sit out in the open and kill all the things. An ADS can just fly higher, or slow down and easily track the movement of the HAV. Top turrets require another person, or would make you highly vulnerable to approaching threats. I agree, a front turret is mostly unneeded. Deal with doesn't mean kill. I'd like to have options without forcing teamwork on a one on one basis is all, for any situation, whether it be a infantry sitting in front of a HAV, a DS maneuvering from AV, a Heavy being jumped by a infantry hotdropped by a ADS, etc. You and others here clearly don't understand that,, probably because you refuse to not be OP. Hell, irrc many DS pilots claimed to want to be able to kill installations as easy as HAV's (I'm talking RU's and such) because it took too long, so this resistance makes sense. I care not however. Deal with it. You do realize that a DS could NEVER engage you if you had no vulnerable zone....right...? And a HAV can't when they do. Also, there would still be those zones, it's called the opposite direction of what the large turret is. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15693	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:13:00 - [237] - Quote It takes all of one second to pivot your tank and turn your turret.... Im sorry that you're being outplayed since you clearly cant outmaneuver them or use terrain to gain elevation. The only way more elevation for a main turret would ever be close to balanced is if turret rotation took a big hit, so you can't just effortlessly engage dropships at all times. Hovering above a tank leaves you wide open to attack from enemy AV, and still leaves you vulnerable if you dont immediately disengage when the HAV alters direction on you, buying the tank time to fall back, or kill the DS if the dont immediately respond. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:38:00 - [238] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It takes all of one second to pivot your tank and turn your turret.... Im sorry that you're being outplayed since you clearly cant outmaneuver them or use terrain to gain elevation. The only way more elevation for a main turret would ever be close to balanced is if turret rotation took a big hit, so you can't just effortlessly engage dropships at all times. Hovering above a tank leaves you wide open to attack from enemy AV, and still leaves you vulnerable if you dont immediately disengage when the HAV alters direction on you, buying the tank time to fall back, or kill the DS if the dont immediately respond. So By doing it, seeing it happen, and having it happen to myself is clearly being outplayed? Cool. Also, gaining elevation doesn't help if the ADS can simply raise higher while still being able to shoot. If they couldn't, this wouldn't be a issue, but sadly, it is, which you clearly don't understand. Relying on AV (which again would mean that I would need teamwork to counter one person, which isn't balanced still) would mean you would have to assume that 1: AV is present at all times 2: That AV evenly covers the entire map Neither is the case. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17119	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:41:00 - [239] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It takes all of one second to pivot your tank and turn your turret.... Im sorry that you're being outplayed since you clearly cant outmaneuver them or use terrain to gain elevation. The only way more elevation for a main turret would ever be close to balanced is if turret rotation took a big hit, so you can't just effortlessly engage dropships at all times. Hovering above a tank leaves you wide open to attack from enemy AV, and still leaves you vulnerable if you dont immediately disengage when the HAV alters direction on you, buying the tank time to fall back, or kill the DS if the dont immediately respond. Not strictly true but I probably should measure the horizontal traversal of the turrets, their current elevations, and hull tracking speed. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 754	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:52:00 - [240] - Quote 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.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.12 00:04:00 - [241] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: 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. a single video wouldn't not solve anything, nor does it prove anything. Also, those requirements are very vague. Showing a lone ADS and a HAV of equal skill and on several different skill levels in the same circumstances being able to counter each other in some way to survive several times, or kill each other about an equal amount of times several times (so at least 20-50 times) would however. Show me that video, and it showing that it leads to the HAV would show me otherwise. I dobt you'll be able to show me this however, so I won't hold my breath. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1326	Posted - 2015.02.12 00:12:00 - [242] - 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.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 755	Posted - 2015.02.12 00:14:00 - [243] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: a single video wouldn't not solve anything So it would solve it then o.O? You state repeatedly that a HAV can't escape an ads, or even stop it from landing hits. You state that if an ads pilot can't down a HAV then the pilot is bad. You refuse to accept that a HAV pilot that can't evade it, somehow isn't as bad as the ads pilot that can't hit the HAV. You make no sense to me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.12 00:36:00 - [244] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4273	Posted - 2015.02.12 00:45:00 - [245] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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? Well, here goes nothing!!!
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.12 00:54:00 - [246] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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? The ADS in fact can deal with a Railgun. Simply Fly high and fast and not in a straight line in any direction (curves and short, quick turns works very well). If the ADS didn't know that the HAV was on the map, that's the pilots fault (much like it's the fault of the railgun HAV for letting ANYTHING get close to it). Now, does that apply to Rocket and Blaster fits, seeing as with those turrets regardless makes up 2/3 of the possible fits (at least currently does)? Vastly different story. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1326	Posted - 2015.02.12 02:34:00 - [247] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.12 02:56:00 - [248] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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? 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 761	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:31:00 - [249] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. 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. Simply park up near it and the ads is no threat what so ever.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1332	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:35:00 - [250] - 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.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:44:00 - [251] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. 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. No, I haven't. A solid 1/5 of the HAV's I've so far killed (around 60-70, stopped counting) were Rocket HAV's, and they seem to not be able to aim at me due to speed, I can easily dodgle rockets that they shoot at me, and then kill them. I never said that you did camp the redline, nor has I regarded doing such is as a balance point (That's more of a exploit). That line, " I can dodge enough shots to let my shields regen", that implies that you're using a Gunnlogi, the HAV already confirmed to be OP at facing both AV and vs. Madrugars, and even then, I've still been able to kill Gunnlogis with rails (although there was one, and it just wouldn't die, until it used all three hardeners up, and I bombed it ). Cool **. No, I've been able to hover fairly low, maybe 20-35m off the ground, and easily hit targets without them being able to fire on me. No, you won't hit them. IF they are say floating over something else, then yea, no **. You could do the same with a railgun. And again, that's only if the ADS either fucks up, or is simply too much of a scrub to fly correctly. Buildings are easily avoided, and you can simply climb to avoid them. If you're sitting around a building though, you yourself aren't doing anything either by the way. Also, trusting AI is as bad as trusting bluedots (sometimes turrets don't even seem to notice my vehicles, regardless of kind, more so when I'm in Gal Vehicles), and that would be assuming teamwork between the turret and the HAV just to deal with the single pilot. Just a question though: What's exactly wrong with being able to shoot back at a ADS without the ADS pilot being stupid or jumping through 2000 hoops and then getting lucky enough to get a 2 seconds pot shot in which the ADS will just climb, correct its shot, and then refire at the HAV? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2874	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:46:00 - [252] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. I've been flying since day 1 of CB. You? Wait, pause. Did you just say that a ADS isn't that much faster than a HAV? Okay, I think I'm done here. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 995	Posted - 2015.02.12 04:03:00 - [253] - Quote Did he seriously just said that an ADS is not that faster than a tank? Okay this guy clearly has been flying an ADS for about a few days. Changes to Damage mods!
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1332	Posted - 2015.02.12 04:27:00 - [254] - 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.
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15709	Posted - 2015.02.12 05:12:00 - [255] - Quote Godin flies? God what I wouldnt give to kill DS after poorly flown DS with my Incubus Stay on the ground where you belong. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4275	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:11:00 - [256] - Quote @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. Well, here goes nothing!!!
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 370	Posted - 2015.02.12 19:25:00 - [257] - Quote ADS's are so simple to shoot down... less lone wolfing folks and you can swat the away.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:33:00 - [258] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Godin flies? God what I wouldnt give to kill DS after poorly flown DS with my Incubus Stay on the ground where you belong. You wish you could kill me. I've down you once, only by chance, a lucky shot. You tried coming back on me however, and although skilled as you are, you couldn't down me (reps were the bomb digity). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:40:00 - [259] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 387	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:42:00 - [260] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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 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.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:45:00 - [261] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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 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 ****. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:50:00 - [262] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 388	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:53:00 - [263] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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 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. Nah, means you are doing it right, I guess, with current mechanics.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17134	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:54:00 - [264] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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 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. Yeah three tank cannon rounds in 3.6 seconds is silly....... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:55:00 - [265] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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 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. Yeah two tank cannon rounds in 3 seconds is silly....... I wouldn't consider Rails to be traditional MBT cannons, however, I did think of one that might interest you. Give me a couple minutes. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mary Sedillo Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 388	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:57:00 - [266] - Quote These are advanced, futuristic projectiles fired from a Rail Cannon. There is no reason they can't fire at a high rate. Nerf ROF and you ******* KILL the rail turret in terms of everything it does with the current meta.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1332	Posted - 2015.02.12 22:05:00 - [267] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 22:23:00 - [268] - Quote Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Mary Sedillo wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: @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 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. Nah, means you are doing it right, I guess, with current mechanics. It does mean that I'm doing it right. Still, that's WAY too fast. I'd say at least 7 seconds to kill one. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 22:27:00 - [269] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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? 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1332	Posted - 2015.02.12 22:59:00 - [270] - 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.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 23:36:00 - [271] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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? So even though it's the very near future, It's a non issue, since it's not current balance? 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
JAKE REDBLOOD T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 25	Posted - 2015.02.12 23:39:00 - [272] - Quote You guys just don't understand how hard it is to fly a drop ship these days, even when you have them maxed out. I don't care what anyone says swarms are op! I always find it funny as well that there's normally always more than one guy. This means that you fly over a building; then suddenly your dead from two sets of invisible swarms hitting you simultaneously, of course you then turn your shield booster on but then wait... You get hit by the swarms again because they have managed to fire three rounds by the time you've gotten 150m away. Then of course you can't out run them... But I suppose it must be really hard to aim with those things... Point in the general direction and hold r1. Python down :( My YouTube Channel
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.12 23:44:00 - [273] - Quote JAKE REDBLOOD wrote: You guys just don't understand how hard it is to fly a drop ship these days, even when you have them makes out. I don't care what anyone says swarms are op! I always find it funny as well that there's normally always more than one guy. This means that you fly over a building and suddenly your dead from two sets of invisible swarms hitting you simultaneously, of course you then turn your shield booster on but then wait... You get hit by the swarms again because they have managed to fire three rounds by the time you've gotten 150m away. Then of course you can't out run them... But I suppose it must be really hard to aim with those things... Point in the general direction and hold r1. Python down :( Seeing as I fly them, I den this. Also you say swarms. This has nothing to do with swarms. Again, as I said like 10 pages ago, jumping out of a HAVV to defend it isn't valid. the ADS can easily kill you that way, and soon enough, that won't even be a thing with enter/exit delays. Otherwise, that would mean that you're implying that the HAV has to use teamwork to deal with a ADS, in which 1: That's broken 2: You can't rely on teamwork. Bluedots are ******* useless. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game RUST415 364	Posted - 2015.02.12 23:58:00 - [274] - Quote Proto tanker Proto forger Proto ads PC regular From my wide experience in this field it's honestly a non issue. The only way a dropship can get into that sort of position is if the tanker is way outside his teams support range, there are no installations on the field, no other enemy vehicles, no obstacles or buildings or roofs, no av present and the tank concerned is fit poorly or caught with modules down. With a rep tanked madrugar it's actually almost impossible to die to an ads unless you stand still and let it empty most of its ammo reserves into you. As a python, ever since the rof nerf I am unable to take down madrugars simply because In the time I reload they can rep up again. A gunnlogi is a little easier to kill if it has no modules available, however my hardened gunnlogi would take a minute+ to kill, in which time I would most definitely be in cover or in my redline. The ads is far from a gunship given its lack of sufficient firepower and ehp in most engagements, it can't stand up to a proto forge or swarm for more than a few av shots, let alone hover tanking all sorts of av. From a pc perspective, I tend to lose 3/5 pythons a match due to the fact that tanks and av can kill me within 3-4 shots individually, and when combined the ads turns into a joke. Nonetheless, pilots are resilient, and I and a minute portion of the community continue to fly in the hope for change in the future. And in conclusion your argument only applies to extremely rare situations where the tank is seemingly isolated without any cover around or team mates. "If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.13 00:25:00 - [275] - Quote manboar thunder fist wrote: Proto tanker Proto forger Proto ads PC regular From my wide experience in this field it's honestly a non issue. The only way a dropship can get into that sort of position is if the tanker is way outside his teams support range, there are no installations on the field, no other enemy vehicles, no obstacles or buildings or roofs, no av present and the tank concerned is fit poorly or caught with modules down. With a rep tanked madrugar it's actually almost impossible to die to an ads unless you stand still and let it empty most of its ammo reserves into you. As a python, ever since the rof nerf I am unable to take down madrugars simply because In the time I reload they can rep up again. A gunnlogi is a little easier to kill if it has no modules available, however my hardened gunnlogi would take a minute+ to kill, in which time I would most definitely be in cover or in my redline. The ads is far from a gunship given its lack of sufficient firepower and ehp in most engagements, it can't stand up to a proto forge or swarm for more than a few av shots, let alone hover tanking all sorts of av. From a pc perspective, I tend to lose 3/5 pythons a match due to the fact that tanks and av can kill me within 3-4 shots individually, and when combined the ads turns into a joke. Nonetheless, pilots are resilient, and I and a minute portion of the community continue to fly in the hope for change in the future. And in conclusion your argument only applies to extremely rare situations where the tank is seemingly isolated without any cover around or team mates. That would imply that the team helps even within range, in which I can say even when I played PC unless the team had AV running 24/7, that simply didn't happen, and that's with a organized team. The same can apply to AI. Also, making it to where unless I have someone to back me up I can't defend myself is fundmentally broken, so still no. That isn't a good argument, period. Rep fitted HAV's are broken against blasters too, but passive reps will soon enough be disappearing, or at least getting nerfed, and active reps will be coming back. That is a non argument. Also, against anything with decent alpha, rep fitted HAV's are terrible, I don't see why people would even use them. That's neither here nor there though, so meh. Regardless, I've still been able to kill a couple that I have seen (which is not many), so moot. They aren't rare. You're assuming a LOT of things o say that this is fine. Even if they were rare as you say they are, that's still broken. If a ADS starts bothering me, I should be able to deal with it on my own. If others want to help,say I'm already shooting at something, great. But that shouldn't be the ONLY solution, especially since that's definitely not the case. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1332	Posted - 2015.02.13 00:36:00 - [276] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.13 01:43:00 - [277] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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. I'm not arguring about time. Time doesn't really matter. THIS EXISTING IS. If you can't understand that, that's your problem. I've looked for some, haven't found any. You try finding some, I'm tired of looking. 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. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1332	Posted - 2015.02.13 02:14:00 - [278] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2875	Posted - 2015.02.13 02:57:00 - [279] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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? 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 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). 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. 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). 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15740	Posted - 2015.02.13 03:33:00 - [280] - Quote Ok Godin Lower the alpha damage of large railguns and missiles a little and tone back the optimal range of large blasters a bit, and you can have your increased elevation for HAV turrets. I feel bad killing helpless targets. So long as they cant pop me in two shots, let them shoot me. But you still cant look straight up. Your dead zone should be almost impossible to shoot you from, so we both get periods of invulnerability to each other. Blaster optimal is to keep you from tracking us from everywhere and dealing strong damage. You should be annoying at range, and fierce up close. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1343	Posted - 2015.02.13 04:08:00 - [281] - 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.
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 186	Posted - 2015.02.13 04:14:00 - [282] - Quote I'm willing to bet that this guy has only ever been killed by an ADS maybe once or twice, and as soon as he did he came to the forums to whine and complain. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault

CCP Frame C C P C C P Alliance 5706	Posted - 2015.02.13 06:47:00 - [283] - Quote Guys. Please keep it civil and constructive. Otherwise I will have to lock this down. Thank you. CCP Frame, CCP Community Team

Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4281	Posted - 2015.02.13 07:01:00 - [284] - Quote I die to ADS every now and then, but since they were nerfed I've not been soloed a single time. Not one. single. time. They can't break through my hardened shields before I do haxx0r things like hiding under buildings, or moving next to a turret, or have a friend with a swarm launcher. Most of the time he dies because I can shoot him from way further than he can shoot me. If I'm in a tank, and he's in an ADS, he is now forced to pay all his attention to me, and I can do whatever I want. All he can do is finish me when actual AV whittles me down. Your argument seems to be this, and I am honestly trying to summarise it in as beneficial (to you) a way as possible: the speed and mobility of a dropship, combined with its killing power and the dead-zone above a HAV make it incredibly easy for an ADS to kill a HAV with no chance of retaliation. Is that a reasonable summary? Now, I absolutely concede all of those points except the last one are accurate. Terrain makes it easy to avoid a dropship, and when it's trying to remain in the deadzone it's straight-forward to fox it back and forth. ADSes are also a popular target for infantry players to shoot, because they have serious issues hiding. So yes, if you allow an ADS to take position above you while you're well and truly out in the open (and therefore pretty incompetently positioned, as far as I'm concerned), it might be able to solo you - but that's what countermeasures (like hardeners) are for. It should not be able to destroy you through a hardener, considering the enormous amount of cover around. Once that ADS accepts that he's going to have to stay out in the open to destroy you, he's meat. If he stays in your deadzone someone else can kill him (hell, carry a forge gun in your tank - you can survive a direct hit and make him back off) and if he leaves, well, he's now primary target. If that's not a good enough (anecdotal) refutation for your (anecdotal) assertion, I want to see some numbers to back up your argument so I can counter those instead. Well, here goes nothing!!!
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 199	Posted - 2015.02.13 07:04:00 - [285] - 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
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2901	Posted - 2015.02.13 11:39:00 - [286] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: I'm willing to bet that this guy has only ever been killed by an ADS maybe once or twice, and as soon as he did he came to the forums to whine and complain. About 17 times. I've so far killed about 90. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2901	Posted - 2015.02.13 11:52:00 - [287] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: I die to ADS every now and then, but since they were nerfed I've not been soloed a single time. Not one. single. time. They can't break through my hardened shields before I do haxx0r things like hiding under buildings, or moving next to a turret, or have a friend with a swarm launcher. Most of the time he dies because I can shoot him from way further than he can shoot me. If I'm in a tank, and he's in an ADS, he is now forced to pay all his attention to me, and I can do whatever I want. All he can do is finish me when actual AV whittles me down. Your argument seems to be this, and I am honestly trying to summarise it in as beneficial (to you) a way as possible: the speed and mobility of a dropship, combined with its killing power and the dead-zone above a HAV make it incredibly easy for an ADS to kill a HAV with no chance of retaliation. Is that a reasonable summary? Now, I absolutely concede all of those points except the last one are accurate. Terrain makes it easy to avoid a dropship, and when it's trying to remain in the deadzone it's straight-forward to fox it back and forth. ADSes are also a popular target for infantry players to shoot, because they have serious issues hiding. So yes, if you allow an ADS to take position above you while you're well and truly out in the open (and therefore pretty incompetently positioned, as far as I'm concerned), it might be able to solo you - but that's what countermeasures (like hardeners) are for. It should not be able to destroy you through a hardener, considering the enormous amount of cover around. Once that ADS accepts that he's going to have to stay out in the open to destroy you, he's meat. If he stays in your deadzone someone else can kill him (hell, carry a forge gun in your tank - you can survive a direct hit and make him back off) and if he leaves, well, he's now primary target. If that's not a good enough (anecdotal) refutation for your (anecdotal) assertion, I want to see some numbers to back up your argument so I can counter those instead. Hiding under a bridge doesn't save you, they can drop altitude. The other two implies hat you have to use teamwork to deal with them. What don't you understand about that? Are you a broken record? That's the gist of it, sorta. It's not super easy, it's unreasonably easy (looking at how many kills I've had so far), or more so, unreasonably hard for the HAV to fight back. All the things people's said to do I've been able to counter in my ADS by simply orbiting them in a really small circle (that's some hard **** to do though), or slow down (depends on how they're doing it). Also, as I've pointed out already, carrying AV as the pilot simply won't work. enter/exit delays will probably come soon, and that greatly exposes you. On top of that, you can easily kill someone who does that (whenever it happens in both my HAV or ADS it's a easy kill), and make them lose even more ISK on top of their hull. That's not only seriously dangerous, that's downright foolish. Also, you've only pointed out anecdotal evidence for why they're fine, a lot of which proving my point in the first place (having to force teamwork just to deal with them, or otherwise not really being able to, because whatever you do, they can counter). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2901	Posted - 2015.02.13 11:54:00 - [288] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. That would be reasonable. They just need to be high enough to hit the ADS's in their optimals. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 205	Posted - 2015.02.13 12:51:00 - [289] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: JAKE REDBLOOD wrote: You guys just don't understand how hard it is to fly a drop ship these days, even when you have them makes out. I don't care what anyone says swarms are op! I always find it funny as well that there's normally always more than one guy. This means that you fly over a building and suddenly your dead from two sets of invisible swarms hitting you simultaneously, of course you then turn your shield booster on but then wait... You get hit by the swarms again because they have managed to fire three rounds by the time you've gotten 150m away. Then of course you can't out run them... But I suppose it must be really hard to aim with those things... Point in the general direction and hold r1. Python down :( Seeing as I fly them, I den this. Also you say swarms. This has nothing to do with swarms. Again, as I said like 10 pages ago, jumping out of a HAVV to defend it isn't valid. the ADS can easily kill you that way, and soon enough, that won't even be a thing with enter/exit delays. Otherwise, that would mean that you're implying that the HAV has to use teamwork to deal with a ADS, in which 1: That's broken 2: You can't rely on teamwork. Bluedots are ******* useless. Noone expects you to work with bluedots. If you want teamwork, run in a squad and don't tank alone. You won't find many (if any) people who ADS without a squad helping to take out AV. Also, you'll find that a large majority of tankers can either escape ADSs (by driving into the redline or simply hiding under a roof), kill the ADS (by either jumping out with AV - which despite how much you say it isn't, it is a valid way to defend your tank from ADS - or just shooting the ADS out of the sky). Personally I've shot ADS out of the sky countless times while they were flying over my tank, and not just with rails, either that or I've escaped them by looking for the nearest thing with a roof or large buildings to make it harder for the ADS to follow. If you're having so much trouble with ADS, then run in groups of 2 or more, that way if one of you is being attacked by an ADS from your blind spot (which is a valid counter to tanks) then the other tank can shoot the ADS out of the sky. "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 205	Posted - 2015.02.13 12:58:00 - [290] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. 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. I'm not arguring about time. Time doesn't really matter. THIS EXISTING IS. If you can't understand that, that's your problem. I've looked for some, haven't found any. You try finding some, I'm tired of looking. 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. 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. 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. "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet

Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2546	Posted - 2015.02.13 13:44:00 - [291] - Quote Here's the thing: The regular DS acts like this. Pilots want the ADS to act like this. But people seem to be insisting that the ADS act like this with a gun crammed into the nose. The ADS should behave like this because each dropsuit/vehicle/variant should specialize in an area, and be very good at that one job. The ADS currently is trying to wear too many hats, so it's either doing those jobs well and OP, or doing them poorly and being UP. Give the ADS one job, namely assault, and let the DS cover the transport role. So focus on this and get rid of its ability to be this. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1343	Posted - 2015.02.13 15:37:00 - [292] - 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.
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15759	Posted - 2015.02.13 18:24:00 - [293] - Quote Missile tanks actually seem to be the anti DS tank right now. They kill me the most often because they have great damage application at range if youre distracted and or hovering, plus their elevation is actually quite nice. I had one guy today prop himself up on all sorts of little ridges and totally denied me getting anywhere near him. He also defended his blaster installations from me so I was forced off of one side of the map, with him occasionally coming out after me and knocking my ship around if I tried doing anything useful. I died a lot that match haha My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 764	Posted - 2015.02.13 18:28:00 - [294] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Hiding under a bridge doesn't save you, they can drop altitude. Can you just try to put 2 and 2 together then... tank under bridge, can't be hit from deadzeon. ads lowers altitude... ads is now in missiles tanks (and every other kind of large and small turrets) ... What? I'll help you here. It's in the OPTIMAL Now that you've found 1 way to escape, hide, heal your shields and be able to fire back at anything trying to shoot you. Try and use the examples other people have given you. Try these out in a few matches. Not 1 match, because apparently 1 doesn't prove anything. You'll get there, if you try, you may become a half decent tank scrub, like the rest of us.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2903	Posted - 2015.02.13 21:45:00 - [295] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: JAKE REDBLOOD wrote: You guys just don't understand how hard it is to fly a drop ship these days, even when you have them makes out. I don't care what anyone says swarms are op! I always find it funny as well that there's normally always more than one guy. This means that you fly over a building and suddenly your dead from two sets of invisible swarms hitting you simultaneously, of course you then turn your shield booster on but then wait... You get hit by the swarms again because they have managed to fire three rounds by the time you've gotten 150m away. Then of course you can't out run them... But I suppose it must be really hard to aim with those things... Point in the general direction and hold r1. Python down :( Seeing as I fly them, I den this. Also you say swarms. This has nothing to do with swarms. Again, as I said like 10 pages ago, jumping out of a HAVV to defend it isn't valid. the ADS can easily kill you that way, and soon enough, that won't even be a thing with enter/exit delays. Otherwise, that would mean that you're implying that the HAV has to use teamwork to deal with a ADS, in which 1: That's broken 2: You can't rely on teamwork. Bluedots are ******* useless. Noone expects you to work with bluedots. If you want teamwork, run in a squad and don't tank alone. You won't find many (if any) people who ADS without a squad helping to take out AV. Also, you'll find that a large majority of tankers can either escape ADSs (by driving into the redline or simply hiding under a roof), kill the ADS (by either jumping out with AV - which despite how much you say it isn't, it is a valid way to defend your tank from ADS - or just shooting the ADS out of the sky). Personally I've shot ADS out of the sky countless times while they were flying over my tank, and not just with rails, either that or I've escaped them by looking for the nearest thing with a roof or large buildings to make it harder for the ADS to follow. If you're having so much trouble with ADS, then run in groups of 2 or more, that way if one of you is being attacked by an ADS from your blind spot (which is a valid counter to tanks) then the other tank can shoot the ADS out of the sky. Public squads are just as bad as bluedots, and getting a corp squad at any time isn't a thing, especially in smaller squads. Also note how the ADS Pilot can easily run solo without issues. The first one isn't really a thing if you're on the other side of the map, and I've been able to chase after a HAV, kill it, and fly right back out of the redline with 4 seconds left on the timer. The second one isn't valid because 1: I have easily killed pilots jumpping out as AV, and if I fly away, you're easily taken on, and additionally, that most likely won't even be a thing soon, seeing as Master splinter wants to add enter/exit timers, adn on top of that, people's been saying that higher tiered vehicles should be only piloted by higher tiered Pilot suits whenever they come out (alothough that might not make it), so jumping out with AV suits might not even be possible in a well fitted HAV. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1346	Posted - 2015.02.13 21:48:00 - [296] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2903	Posted - 2015.02.13 21:49:00 - [297] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Hiding under a bridge doesn't save you, they can drop altitude. Can you just try to put 2 and 2 together then... tank under bridge, can't be hit from deadzone. ads lowers altitude... ads is now in missiles tanks (and every other kind of large and small turrets) ... What? I'll help you here. It's in the OPTIMAL Now that you've found 1 way to escape, hide, heal your shields and be able to fire back at anything trying to shoot you. Try and use the examples other people have given you. Try these out in a few matches. Not 1 match, because apparently 1 doesn't prove anything. You'll get there, if you try, you may become a half decent tank scrub, like the rest of us. You can easily go to whatever the turret is not facing, and shoot them on that side, rise up and go to the other side if they aim at you, rinse and repeat. And although if you get lucky with a Rocket turret and hit them (but if that's the case, that's ADS pilot error, not the HAV actually countering them), blaster turrets won't have near enough DPS to deal with them, and although that's changing in this rebalance, it probably still won't be enough, seeing how fast ADS's climb. And on top of that, there's like, what, three maps that has cover like this? Like I said, whatever a HAV can do, ADS can counter. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2903	Posted - 2015.02.13 21:50:00 - [298] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Missile tanks actually seem to be the anti DS tank right now. They kill me the most often because they have great damage application at range if youre distracted and or hovering, plus their elevation is actually quite nice. I had one guy today prop himself up on all sorts of little ridges and totally denied me getting anywhere near him. He also defended his blaster installations from me so I was forced off of one side of the map, with him occasionally coming out after me and knocking my ship around if I tried doing anything useful. I died a lot that match haha You're doing it wrong then. I've only died to the great bolas and rails so far. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1346	Posted - 2015.02.13 22:39:00 - [299] - 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.
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 212	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:10:00 - [300] - Quote 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. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault

XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 212	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:12:00 - [301] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: I'm willing to bet that this guy has only ever been killed by an ADS maybe once or twice, and as soon as he did he came to the forums to whine and complain. About 17 times. I've so far killed about 90. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU COMPLAINING THEN?! Your argument is invalid. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
DarthPlagueis TheWise 463	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:12:00 - [302] - Quote CCP Frame wrote: Guys. Please keep it civil and constructive. Otherwise I will have to lock this down. Thank you. you can lock me down any day of the week babe you know you've been playing dust too long when you can remember the last valentines day sale
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2909	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:17:00 - [303] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 212	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:20:00 - [304] - 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. I see you're talking to yourself again. It's a bad habit you know. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2911	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:20:00 - [305] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: I'm willing to bet that this guy has only ever been killed by an ADS maybe once or twice, and as soon as he did he came to the forums to whine and complain. About 17 times. I've so far killed about 90. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU COMPLAINING THEN?! Your argument is invalid. Why? Because I hate broken ****? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1350	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:20:00 - [306] - 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.
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 212	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:23:00 - [307] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: I'm willing to bet that this guy has only ever been killed by an ADS maybe once or twice, and as soon as he did he came to the forums to whine and complain. About 17 times. I've so far killed about 90. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU COMPLAINING THEN?! Your argument is invalid. Why? Because I hate broken ****? It's only broken because you hate being wrong. You have to be right, you will not see reason so you try to warp other people's minds to your view. Everyone has a voice, and your voice is the only voice asking for this, so man up, or keep complaining. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2913	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:31:00 - [308] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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! And you've done no different? You've quite literally came back with the exact same **** over, and over, and over, and over. and when I point out exactly why it is wrong, you simply say "I don't care, you're still wrong." That's wheat every last one of you've done. You make it out as if all I want for ADS's is to simply be killed by a HAV, when that's entirely false. I've over 10 times now stated what I wanted, and some people actually addressed problems with ADS's in general otherwise not getting much points, and even addressed how it could be reasonably done. Both things I easily addressed, and those people ended up agreeing with me. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2913	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:33:00 - [309] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: I'm willing to bet that this guy has only ever been killed by an ADS maybe once or twice, and as soon as he did he came to the forums to whine and complain. About 17 times. I've so far killed about 90. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU COMPLAINING THEN?! Your argument is invalid. Why? Because I hate broken **? It's only broken because you hate being wrong. You have to be right, you will not see reason so you try to warp other people's minds to your view. Everyone has a voice, and your voice is the only voice asking for this, so man up, or keep complaining. 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. EDIT: Why the are you liking all of my **? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 212	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:36:00 - [310] - Quote 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. Not before you prove that you're right. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2914	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:40:00 - [311] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: 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. Not before you prove that you're right. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 212	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:44:00 - [312] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: 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. Not before you prove that you're right. 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. You didn't give evidence, you told us you can easily take out tanks in ADS, that's just your word. There are ADS pilots and other tankers in this thread that all disagree with you, why are you so convinced that you're right? Just because it happened in your experience doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone else, atm it just makes you seem like a terrible player. "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 215	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:44:00 - [313] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: 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. Not before you prove that you're right. 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. You didn't give evidence, you told us you can easily take out tanks in ADS, that's just your word. There are ADS pilots and other tankers in this thread that all disagree with you, why are you so convinced that you're right? Just because it happened in your experience doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone else, atm it just makes you seem like a terrible player. I was about to say something like this so I won't even bother now. I totally support this post. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 215	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:46:00 - [314] - Quote Everyone, let's all whenever you see Godin Thekiller in a match, immediately get an ADS out and try to kill him with it as much as possible. YOU DUG YOU OWN GRAVE Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2914	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:48:00 - [315] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: 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. Not before you prove that you're right. 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. You didn't give evidence, you told us you can easily take out tanks in ADS, that's just your word. There are ADS pilots and other tankers in this thread that all disagree with you, why are you so convinced that you're right? Just because it happened in your experience doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone else, atm it just makes you seem like a terrible player. Yes, by giving word of mouth, and The ways they said that they believe are actual counters don't work. I've looked for examples of otherwise, I've yet to find any, only videos showing my point (the video that the fool posted does that quite nice, and it's only rails, but to be fair, it's only one video). I can't record, so that's out. Also, why are you so convinced that I'm wrong? you've yet given me a valid reasoning. Popular opinion can't show truth on anything. Hell, I've been told that JLAV's are completely fine by infantry. Are they? Absolutely not. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 220	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:48:00 - [316] - Quote I can not wait until CCP Frame locks this forum post, than I won't have to deal with this stupidity. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:49:00 - [317] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Everyone, let's all whenever you see Godin Thekiller in a match, immediately get an ADS out and try to kill him with it as much as possible. YOU DUG YOU OWN GRAVE Not really, I don't actually care. It's still broken however. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:51:00 - [318] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: I can not wait until CCP Frame locks this forum post, than I won't have to deal with this stupidity. I'll simply make another. I don't care, broken **** is broken. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 220	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:51:00 - [319] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Everyone, let's all whenever you see Godin Thekiller in a match, immediately get an ADS out and try to kill him with it as much as possible. YOU DUG YOU OWN GRAVE Not really, I don't actually care. It's still broken however. Since apparently you've been killed by ADSs so many times, you're the only one that's 'broke' here. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:52:00 - [320] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Everyone, let's all whenever you see Godin Thekiller in a match, immediately get an ADS out and try to kill him with it as much as possible. YOU DUG YOU OWN GRAVE Not really, I don't actually care. It's still broken however. Since apparently you've been killed by ADSs so many times, you're the only one that's 'broke' here. 17 times. I've gotten over a hundred HAV kills now. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1352	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:53:00 - [321] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:54:00 - [322] - Quote A question to all: Why is it bad to not want to have to rely on teamwork? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 220	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:55:00 - [323] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: A question to all: Why is it bad to not want to have to rely on teamwork? Because this is a tactical shooter. You know what tactics are? Well it sure isn't lone wolfing. Terrestrial Combat Officer of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Minmatar Assault
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 216	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:57:00 - [324] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: 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. Not before you prove that you're right. 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. You didn't give evidence, you told us you can easily take out tanks in ADS, that's just your word. There are ADS pilots and other tankers in this thread that all disagree with you, why are you so convinced that you're right? Just because it happened in your experience doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone else, atm it just makes you seem like a terrible player. Yes, by giving word of mouth, and The ways they said that they believe are actual counters don't work. I've looked for examples of otherwise, I've yet to find any, only videos showing my point (the video that the fool posted does that quite nice, and it's only rails, but to be fair, it's only one video). I can't record, so that's out. Also, why are you so convinced that I'm wrong? you've yet given me a valid reasoning. Popular opinion can't show truth on anything. Hell, I've been told that JLAV's are completely fine by infantry. Are they? Absolutely not. Well they obviously do work, because everyone else here seems to have no problem in carrying the counters out, it's just you "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1352	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:57:00 - [325] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:01:00 - [326] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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? 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? 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. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 775	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:03:00 - [327] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You can easily go to whatever the turret is not facing, and shoot them on that side, rise up and go to the other side if they aim at you, rinse and repeat. And although if you get lucky with a Rocket turret and hit them (but if that's the case, that's ADS pilot error, not the HAV actually countering them), blaster turrets won't have near enough DPS to deal with them, and although that's changing in this rebalance, it probably still won't be enough, seeing how fast ADS's climb. And on top of that, there's like, what, three maps that has cover like this? Like I said, whatever a HAV can do, ADS can counter. Why is it luck that the missile tanker kept an eye on the radar and pointed the turret the right direction... But apparently the ads having no indication of which way the tanks turret is facing, isn't? There are more than 3 maps that have something you can park a tank under to force an ads to drop altitude if it wants to hit you. While the ads changes it's position you are free to heal your tank, or make a break for somewhere else, either to escape or to be able to fire at the ads as it tries to pull up. Godin Thekiller wrote: A question to all: Why is it bad to not want to have to rely on teamwork? I haven't mentioned teamwork. I mentioned all the things you can do to beat a dropship using a missile tank. You stated that a tank cannot escape or fight an ads, I have told you that you can by simply out-thinking the opponent, the same as the ads has to out-think the tanker to get into their blindspot if the tanker is using it's brain. XxBlazikenxX wrote: Everyone, let's all whenever you see Godin Thekiller in a match, immediately get an ADS out and try to kill him with it as much as possible. YOU DUG YOU OWN GRAVE No! I will bring out a missile tank. He wants proof, if I can give him it, he might actually shut up... Or go on to say "it only happened once, so I'm disregarding it because my opinion is better than everyone else."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:05:00 - [328] - 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. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 201	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:08:00 - [329] - 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
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:16:00 - [330] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You can easily go to whatever the turret is not facing, and shoot them on that side, rise up and go to the other side if they aim at you, rinse and repeat. And although if you get lucky with a Rocket turret and hit them (but if that's the case, that's ADS pilot error, not the HAV actually countering them), blaster turrets won't have near enough DPS to deal with them, and although that's changing in this rebalance, it probably still won't be enough, seeing how fast ADS's climb. And on top of that, there's like, what, three maps that has cover like this? Like I said, whatever a HAV can do, ADS can counter. Why is it luck that the missile tanker kept an eye on the radar and pointed the turret the right direction... But apparently the ads having no indication of which way the tanks turret is facing, isn't? There are more than 3 maps that have something you can park a tank under to force an ads to drop altitude if it wants to hit you. While the ads changes it's position you are free to heal your tank, or make a break for somewhere else, either to escape or to be able to fire at the ads as it tries to pull up. Godin Thekiller wrote: A question to all: Why is it bad to not want to have to rely on teamwork? I haven't mentioned teamwork. I mentioned all the things you can do to beat a dropship using a missile tank. You stated that a tank cannot escape or fight an ads, I have told you that you can by simply out-thinking the opponent, the same as the ads has to out-think the tanker to get into their blindspot if the tanker is using it's brain. XxBlazikenxX wrote: Everyone, let's all whenever you see Godin Thekiller in a match, immediately get an ADS out and try to kill him with it as much as possible. YOU DUG YOU OWN GRAVE No! I will bring out a missile tank. He wants proof, if I can give him it, he might actually shut up... Or go on to say "it only happened once, so I'm disregarding it because my opinion is better than everyone else." I can simply look at the map, and fly high and fast right past the rockets optimal range without it even hitting me maybe? And You can easily be swarmed at that area (but invalid because teamwork, so we'll ignore this fact), or the ADS can simply shoot at the side you're not aiming at, climb when you start shooting, and go to the other side, as I've already said several times. Moving allows the ADS to shoot at you, and escaping is borderline impossible unless the ADS gets distracted (in which implies teamwork), or is a complete idiot, and balancing on idiots is silly. That's how swarms become OP. Never said you did, but a Rocket HAV can be easily countered by a ADS by movement alone. That still doesn't cover the fact that blasters are even worse (but they are generally bad, and need a general overhaul anyways. Also, why they don't have the highest elevation is beyond me, seeing as they are the shortest ranged turret). Cool. Get multiple examples so I can analyze it. And be sure to find a pilot as skilled as you for more valid proof. Lastly, I never said that my opinions are "better", as I'm not arguing opinions. Facts more so. I've yet to see a blaster or Rocket reasonably counter a ADS. that is simply fact. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 776	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:20:00 - [331] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. Kind of what we all think to you dismissing everything that has been said by, what must clearly be better vehicle users than yourself, as we can deal with these things on our own without crying about it. Just one more example. You run up close to a HMG and you fight it in it's optimal with an assault suit. What happens? - You outplay the HMG or the HMG is really bad at their role and you kill them. - You get your arse handed to you. - You realise it's a bad idea to fight them there and you make a break for it and engage from range, giving you the easy win. Point being at range a tank has the upper hand, up close a tank has to do one of these: - You outplay the ads and find a way to force it lower so you can blow the crap out of it. - You get your arse handed to you, albeit very slowly. - You realise it's a bad idea to fight them there and you make a break for it and engage from range, giving you the easy win. Tank counters ads at range, at range ads can do nothing to anyone. Up close ads counters tank, your mission as a tanker is to avoid letting the ads get into your blindspot... It's not hard... But you have to at least try before you go naysaying it. Godin Thekiller wrote: Moving allows the ADS to shoot at you, and escaping is borderline impossible Would like a bullshit button, needs pressing on this statement for starters.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:20:00 - [332] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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) I'm not asking for that either, that would be ******* stupid. A raise, yes. At the very most 25 degrees (and that's probably too much, 15-20 more like it). And about Rails and DPS, unless the hulls were in general tougher (at least for Gal HAV's, haven't played with Cal AHV's much), I would say that current DPS is not okay (but as I remember, it's getting nerfed, so meh). I would say that range needs a buff though, as it's range imo is too short. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1352	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:27:00 - [333] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:29:00 - [334] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. Kind of what we all think to you dismissing everything that has been said by, what must clearly be better vehicle users than yourself, as we can deal with these things on our own without crying about it. Just one more example. You run up close to a HMG and you fight it in it's optimal with an assault suit. What happens? - You outplay the HMG or the HMG is really bad at their role and you kill them. - You get your arse handed to you. - You realise it's a bad idea to fight them there and you make a break for it and engage from range, giving you the easy win. Point being at range a tank has the upper hand, up close a tank has to do one of these: - You outplay the ads and find a way to force it lower so you can blow the crap out of it. - You get your arse handed to you, albeit very slowly. - You realise it's a bad idea to fight them there and you make a break for it and engage from range, giving you the easy win. Tank counters ads at range, at range ads can do nothing to anyone. Up close ads counters tank, you mission as a tanker is to avoid letting the ads get into your blindspot... It's not hard... But you have to at least try before you go naysaying it. That example is really bad for two reasons: 1: Where exactly is the place where HAV's are able to excel in? cities and outposts are obviously not it (and ADS'scan attack there). In the open is as you're describing it definitely not it, and there's really no other environment to be in other than the redline, which leaves rail fitted HAV's to be valid, but rocket and Blaster fitted HAV's not. 2: The reasons I've posted that basically denies the second one due to, you know, any movement being counterable by ADS's. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 777	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:42:00 - [335] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: That example is really bad for two reasons: 1: Where exactly is the place where HAV's are able to excel in? cities and outposts are obviously not it (and ADS'scan attack there). In the open is as you're describing it definitely not it, and there's really no other environment to be in other than the redline, which leaves rail fitted HAV's to be valid, but rocket and Blaster fitted HAV's not. Right, in a city/outpost where a squishy ads has to fly low and risk hitting obstacles, where it can get shot down by any large turret (even blasters) without a reload required... Is some how not good enough for you. Out in the open where the ads has nothing to hide behind and can be shot from anywhere within range... Is not good enough for you. You clearly want a tank to be able to drop an ads from anywhere with no contest. In which case I disagree. You have stated you don't like broken easy mechanics... Well then leave my ***** large missile turret well alone, as I don't want it being so easy that a nonce like you, who can't think of a reasonable way to deal with something that everyone has already explained to him, is able to use it. You are bad at tanking and would be best off doing something else... My proof being you describe your own failure repeatedly while everyone else who can use a tank properly has succeeded. Good ***** day.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 00:53:00 - [336] - Quote 1: Because it's simply not. I can ride it, it can lick me, and there's no way in hell that I could go as far as it takes me (like say across the ocean), but to everyone outside of me, it seems like I'm doing this all on my own. Again, it is simply real, you can't deny that it is not. 2: Somebody asked what else I would take over elevation, in which I replied that if it was impossible to continuously hit a HAV with a ADS to where it would be able to get shots in with Rockets and Blasters in their optimals, I would be fine with that. That's all I want to be able to do. They are, but you generally make it seem like all I want to do is break balance, when I want to create it. Shift the balance how. Currently, blasters can barely hit ADS's, and that's if the ADS isn't actually trying to shoot at the HAV, or is a terrible pilot. The increase wouldn't be much for each turret (I would say that Rails shouldn't get any, and the ADS could take a flight ceiling drop, so regular DS's can still fly high without having to deal with Rails), just enough to hit a ADS while moving within its optimal. Also, a ADS shouldn't be able to hit a HAV while directly over it unless there's a gunner in ( in which I would say that'as fair), which for the most part it can't (I've bee able to hit on really weird angles, mostly splash though, so a mostly non issue). No, that's not correct. Most of them has required teamwork, and the rest I've been able to counter, which is why I've said that they're not valid. Only Foolish pilots falls for those things. Although they are going through a needed balance pass, it won't necessarily help against ADS's, seeing as they can't really hit them now. I would say that after the buff, due to the vastly increased DPS, I would say that ADS's and DS"s in general would need defenses to be able to be able to reasonably escape (in which I think they should be able to easily do, it's only fair, they have weaker turrets). As I said, I see ADS's as being platforms that can transport a fireteam of two, drop them off, and give them some protection for a short period of time (short as in before AV and HAV's can aim and shoot). Obviously too much elevation would cause problems. I'm not asking for a large increase, as that's not needed. It would definitely help if we could play around with increasing and decreasing the amount to see what would work best, which is why I've said that opening a server for SISI would be REALLY nice. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:00:00 - [337] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That example is really bad for two reasons: 1: Where exactly is the place where HAV's are able to excel in? cities and outposts are obviously not it (and ADS'scan attack there). In the open is as you're describing it definitely not it, and there's really no other environment to be in other than the redline, which leaves rail fitted HAV's to be valid, but rocket and Blaster fitted HAV's not. Right, in a city/outpost where a squishy ads has to fly low and risk hitting obstacles, where it can get shot down by any large turret (even blasters) without a reload required... Is some how not good enough for you. Out in the open where the ads has nothing to hide behind and can be shot from anywhere within range... Is not good enough for you. You clearly want a tank to be able to drop an ads from anywhere with no contest. In which case I disagree. You have stated you don't like broken easy mechanics... Well then leave my ***** large missile turret well alone, as I don't want it being so easy that a nonce like you, who can't think of a reasonable way to deal with something that everyone has already explained to him, is able to use it. You are bad at tanking and would be best off doing something else... My proof being you describe your own failure repeatedly while everyone else who can use a tank properly has succeeded. Good ***** day. Not really, unless you're a scrub anyways. Look before you fly. I've not said that I want HAV's to kill ADS's. Scare them off, yes. Hell, I've said that due to the large turret adjustments, making them have a higher eHP would be nice. And for the record, Rocket turrets are easy, just not for combating ADS's. I never said that I wanted it to be easy, I said I wanted to be reasonable. Rockets in my wind would need another 5-10 degrees, and more speed to be valid (and by the way, you're going to have about 25% your old DPS. just sayin). I've been telling you this entire time that what you've described to me isn't reasonable at all. That is the issue with your statements. I don't think that's the case, seeing as I've been able to take on several HAV's at once solo and win, proto fits mind you, and this is when they were known to be FAR harder than they are now. And it's night here. I assume you're on the other side of the planet. Good night I guess? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:13:00 - [338] - Quote I'm going to make a new thread that outlines specifically what I want and my reasoning for it, as I think that's gotten lost. Look for it soon. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1353	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:27:00 - [339] - 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.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:32:00 - [340] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 216	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:44:00 - [341] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting? Because 1: it has a gun on the front of it and 2: NOONE WANTS TO BE TRANSPORTED "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 216	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:47:00 - [342] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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? 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? 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. 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. Godin, if you can see a unicorn that noone else can see, and you say it's real, then you're most likely tripping balls "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 216	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:49:00 - [343] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. 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. The ADS does require teamwork, but the team isn't operating the ADS, only 1 person is. The 'team' is killing the AV and pointing out the next objective for the ADS. Vehicles are more of a support role and force multiplier than something that can be used by a solo player. "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:53:00 - [344] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin, if you can see a unicorn that noone else can see, and you say it's real, then you're most likely tripping balls Nope, it's real. You can't change the hypothetical situation. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:55:00 - [345] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. 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. The ADS does require teamwork, but the team isn't operating the ADS, only 1 person is. The 'team' is killing the AV and pointing out the next objective for the ADS. Vehicles are more of a support role and force multiplier than something that can be used by a solo player. The operations the vehicles does are support functions. The vehicles themselves shouldn't require teamwork to defend. ALso, that's a double standard. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:56:00 - [346] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting? Because 1: it has a gun on the front of it and 2: NOONE WANTS TO BE TRANSPORTED It's a small turret, and that's false. If people could get to a location in a 1/10 the time that it would take to walk and gets bonuses when they get there, I bet many people would be calling on T II DS's to pick them up. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2919	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:57:00 - [347] - Quote Thread's up, this thread isn't needed anymore. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 221	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:59:00 - [348] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. 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. The ADS does require teamwork, but the team isn't operating the ADS, only 1 person is. The 'team' is killing the AV and pointing out the next objective for the ADS. Vehicles are more of a support role and force multiplier than something that can be used by a solo player. The operations the vehicles does are support functions. The vehicles themselves shouldn't require teamwork to defend. ALso, that's a double standard. Well when weapons are designed specifically to destroy the vehicles, then the team should use something to counter them, aka regular infantry. This defends the vehicle. You're trying to turn one of the most team orientated roles in a teamwork based game into a solo player role, if you want to play alone then go sniping or something, because vehicles obviously aren't for you. "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 221	Posted - 2015.02.14 02:01:00 - [349] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting? Because 1: it has a gun on the front of it and 2: NOONE WANTS TO BE TRANSPORTED It's a small turret, and that's false. If people could get to a location in a 1/10 the time that it would take to walk and gets bonuses when they get there, I bet many people would be calling on T II DS's to pick them up. no, normally they just either call in an LAV, call in their own mlt DS or just walk. And yes, it is a small turret, thats why it takes forever to kill tanks, you're probably just experiencing the 'i have a pos tank fit' syndrome that all nooby solo tankers have "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet
Jammeh McJam T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 221	Posted - 2015.02.14 02:02:00 - [350] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Jammeh McJam wrote: Godin, if you can see a unicorn that noone else can see, and you say it's real, then you're most likely tripping balls Nope, it's real. You can't change the hypothetical situation. You know you sound insane right? There are real conditions where people act like that and it's treated as an abnormality... "We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna kill you" - Intergalactic Super Friends MAG ~ Raven vet

Zindorak Nyain Chan 1706	Posted - 2015.02.14 04:21:00 - [351] - Quote Back up and Particle Cannon that thing Pokemon master and Tekken Lord Give me da iskiez Gk0 Scout yay :)
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4283	Posted - 2015.02.14 10:03:00 - [352] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Hiding under a bridge doesn't save you, they can drop altitude. The other two implies hat you have to use teamwork to deal with them. What don't you understand about that? Are you a broken record? That's the gist of it, sorta. It's not super easy, it's unreasonably easy (looking at how many kills I've had so far), or more so, unreasonably hard for the HAV to fight back. All the things people's said to do I've been able to counter in my ADS by simply orbiting them in a really small circle (that's some hard **** to do though), or slow down (depends on how they're doing it). Also, as I've pointed out already, carrying AV as the pilot simply won't work. enter/exit delays will probably come soon, and that greatly exposes you. On top of that, you can easily kill someone who does that (whenever it happens in both my HAV or ADS it's a easy kill), and make them lose even more ISK on top of their hull. That's not only seriously dangerous, that's downright foolish. Also, you've only pointed out anecdotal evidence for why they're fine, a lot of which proving my point in the first place (having to force teamwork just to deal with them, or otherwise not really being able to, because whatever you do, they can counter). When he drops altitude he is now in my optimal. I need to use teamwork to deal with him if he's not in my optimal. If I didn't need to use teamwork to deal with him outside my optimal, well, that implies that he can't deal with me when I'm in his, and therefore he's underpowered. I think our main disagreement comes here. I don't see why my HAV should be able to deal with an ADS under all circumstances with all weapons, and I consider, under these conditions, escaping counts as a win - especially considering that it's extremely easy for me to kill him once I know he's there. Well, here goes nothing!!!
Bradric Banewolf D3ATH CARD RUST415 739	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:49:00 - [353] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 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. Haven't been on the forums in some time, but to clear my comment up. Basically meant exactly what you explained so elaborately, but lacked the patience to explain it in type. You sir did Godin a great service. o7 "Anybody order chaos?"


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

"If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014

Pokemon master and Tekken Lord

Give me da iskiez

Gk0 Scout yay :)