|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
   |
Posted - 2015.02.14 01:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
GOAL: To allow Pilots in HAV's to reasonably engage Pilots in ADS's with their Large turrets without breaking the balance between them, and to allow ADS's to still earn a decent amount of WP's.
PROBLEM: At current, ADS's can easily fly past each turret's optimal, more so for blasters and Rockets, but somewhat of Rails.
PROBLEM 2: ADS's don't function as T II DS's designed as a more combat focused DS, more so Gunships, because being anything like a DS doesn't reward much of anything as of current.
SOLUTIONS 1:
1- Lower the flight ceiling for ADS's to allow rails to still hit incoming ADS's that are flying high, or at least around them to keep them from approaching, or to at least make them have to maneuver, but keep regular DS's from having to deal with constant fire from Rails. Would like Rail ROF slowed however, as it does fire quite fast (although it has quite a short range).
2- Buff Rocket turrets elevation very slightly (maybe 5-10 degrees), and projectile speed as well (needs it anyways to hit further out targets), possibly increase turret rotation (most likely not needed).
3- Increase Blaster elevation (15-25 degrees).
SOLUTIONS 2:
1- ADS (and DS's in general tbh) will probably need a slightl buff in eHP after this seeing as things can hit them more.
2- There needs to be much more ways to get points for being a DS pilot, such as more types of transport points, and a way for infantry to call on DS's and even special calls for ADS's, and if they come back LDS's and even FRDS's to pick them up (the regular call would be universal, but special calls might have things tied to it, like for example, ADS call would ask for ADS's only, and for a specific drop command, like drop them and defend the area for X time, or keep whoever you dropped alive for X time). And to put incentive to calling on DS's to drop, even go as far as to if possible give bonuses for people who drops out of specific DS's.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 01:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it.
Yes it will. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do (but you usually don't, so meh).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:No. As revealed in your other thread, your end goal is to make dropships incapable of destroying HAVs: Godin Thekiller wrote:Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting? No infantry suit is incapable of killing another infantry suit: consequently, no vehicle should be incapable of killing another vehicle. You have no justification for this reasoning other than that you don't like ADSs destroying HAVs.
Not necessarily. More so, that was asking why is a secondary function regarded as the primary function. I'm fine with ADS's being able to, but it shouldn't be as good vs. taking on them with AV or a HAV (even MAV's should be better, seeing as MAV's will probably have medium turrets). If I wanted them not to at all, I would have stated "Why are they taking them at all, period", or "why can they?". Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across.
I even have a goal at the very top of the thread: "To allow Pilots in HAV's to reasonably engage Pilots in ADS's with their Large turrets without breaking the balance between them, and to allow ADS's to still earn a decent amount of WP's.". There's a thing called reading.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. This I support, it would increase the teamwork involved in using vehicles and deal with the apparent 'problem'
If you want to force teamwork for one, force teamwork for all.
I personally don't want forced teamwork anywhere. Optional teamwork works better.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. Yes it will. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do (but you usually don't, so meh). Godin I have to say this... You are by far the most butthurt noob I have EVER seen complaining about vehicles
A noob would imply that I'm new. I've played far before you probably even knew about Dust.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:OK lets put it another way... Again...
If you allow turrets to look further up, then they will be required to have much shorter range to balance it. Something should not counter at range and up close, you get one or the other.
The issue this causes is that a large rail is not for killing dropships, hence having a much lower limit than the other large turrets.
So if you decrease the range of large missiles and large blasters, the large rail ends up unbeatable by other large turrets on the ground (unless you find someone who isn't good at tanking.)
Large rails are already by far the best turret if you know how to use it, out range everything or just pirouette like a ballerina and you out dps everything.
This issue would be much worse and if you found us unreasonable, wait until you try to argue a large rail turret user into change, I recall they all believe they have the right to be invincible in the red zone, well out of range of everything and hidden behind terrain.
That would make the change moot then, as they would need a greater increase for a even lower optimal.
A large rail is a turret made for ranged combat. That says nothing about being able to take on DS's or not.
Yes, which is why decreasing the range doesn't make sense. What the **** are you talking about?
Rails aren't very hard to use in the first, so this adjustment doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Yes, I've found many of you unreasonable, but I've also found some HAV pilots much more unreasonable. Redline rails are a exploit, and although I'd like rails to have a longer range (but probably a lower DPS as a result), in the redline, either they shouldn't fire, or it needs to be pushed back, so redline rails are simply not a thing. I actually see that becoming a problem if the height gets dropped and range is ever boosted (which I think it should), so that would need to be addressed first, or at least at the same time. Again, I'd like everything to be able to deal with everything, and killing is apart of that (but not the only solution).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Atiim wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. Yes it will. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do (but you usually don't, so meh). I understand, you want to bring parity to counterplay between HAVs and ADSs by giving HAVs more effective ways to counter ADSs. However I believe your intention was for the operator to be the one countering ADSs, as opposed to the gunner, hence why I stated that it wouldn't accomplish your goal. The operator shouldn't be able to counter the ADS if they just sit still and hopelessly attempt to look upwards (godin i'm looking at you)
That's not what I do, and that's not what I usually encounter. Again, you're misrepresenting me, as usual. Is that all you can do?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Not necessarily. More so, that was asking why is a secondary function regarded as the primary function. I'm fine with ADS's being able to, but it shouldn't be as good vs. taking on them with AV or a HAV (even MAV's should be better, seeing as MAV's will probably have medium turrets). If I wanted them not to at all, I would have stated "Why are they taking them at all, period", or "why can they?". Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across.
I even have a goal at the very top of the thread: "To allow Pilots in HAV's to reasonably engage Pilots in ADS's with their Large turrets without breaking the balance between them, and to allow ADS's to still earn a decent amount of WP's.". There's a thing called reading. Why is the ADS engaging? To threaten the HAV with death and thus giving it a new priority target and/or forcing it to withdraw? Thee current balance is that an ADS requires a fairly long time to kill an HAV. Adjust the turret elevation will make HAVs immensely less vulnerable to aerial threats by being able to apply their far higher firepower. As before, the HAV has the advantage in firepower and resilience, so removing the ADSs one advantage (insofar as an engagement is concerned) then the ADS will never have the potential to win. That's like saying a scout will always show up on a sentinel's passive scans, and that's fair because the weakness of sentinels has now been made so that the scout's advantage is no longer there. Increasing turret elevation would upset the balance by making HAVs too effective at removing dropships (of all stripes) unless your possible DS buffs include buffing their EHP up to HAV levels and making their firepower much more HAV-like so that they can actually compete. --- What's the point of an assault variant of something if it's not going to be of any use when assaulting? You've said before that an ADS should run before it gets engaged by AV, so in what way is it better at assaulting? A normal DS can provide supporting fire, and if it's EHP means it must run, then the ADS is pointless, since it's worse at transporting and incapable of actually providing any useful fired support.
And with these changes, that's still valid. Distracting a target is a valid thing, endangering something to get it to withdraw is a valid thing. Currently, they engage to kill similar of a HAV, which is what I'm saying shouldn't necessarily be the case. Also, I should be able to reasonably engage back (hence the changes).
And again, why is it trying to act as a Gunship instead of either flying in and giving some support fire to infantry or dropping some off? Why is it being direct offensive instead of support?
You're describing win as what exactly? Kill? If so, then no. The objective doesn't always have to be kill. Simply distracting the HAV can be enough (and it shouldn't be the main goal of the ADS, as again, it's not a gunship) to support the troops on the ground, say for example to let a LAV full of guys escape a HAV shooting at it..
About the passive scans, as I pointed out before, scans don't really work, and I assume you mean visability, in which there's a problem with that notion:
1: Lots of times, people don't look up (yes, I know, it's really odd, but I've somehow sneak up on people)
2: At a certain height, people might not even see you unless they are infantry
3: All the turrets are different in function, so it's not always like a heavy with a HMG (and a heavy with a HMG will easily be able to engage that scout unless it's a shotty or NK to the back, but the TTK for infantry is so low and the combat is so vastly different it doesn't really compare well in the first place). More like a Heavy with either a Sniper (rail), a MD (Rocket), or a Shotgun (blaster) against a Scout with a SMG or PR.
So that's not really comparable. Also, ADS's can easily engage and reengage when and wherever they want, so that's a non issue.
Why is it a Assault Platform? Well, The pilot can shoot at targets, giving the people it's supporting breathing room. As soon as AV or a HAV engages it, the ADS would want to leave, or risk losing the ship, seeing as it's weaker in the hull. iirc, there was talks of adding flux hardeners, and those would work well for your problem of them having to leave as soon as AV starts firing, giving them extra time to stay and fight (maybe say 5-15 seconds of additional time vs. AV or a HAV of similar meta?). Hell, you could even have flux reppers that can get much of your HP back quickly, so you could duck in , pop it wuckly, and keep on fighting a little longer. So basically, it's good at supporting, but not actively hunting.
See, I don't think you understand; a DS is simply not a HAV. They are completely different types of hulls, and covering the exact same role doesn't really work for balance. Why are you trying to actively combat a HAV with a DS, and not AV or I don't know, a HAV maybe? Futhermore, why aren't you using it as a DS? Yes, I'm asking this question again, because I really want to know.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
That would make the change moot then, as they would need a greater increase for a even lower optimal.
Why? Because no one has ever taken out a dropship with a tank before... Must be the case since you have already claimed that up close isn't possible and now at range it isn't possible. You wonder why people are doubting your ability with vehicles... The other changes are what you would have to make, to avoid balance issues... If you straight up buff the hp of the dropships, then we need to balance all the AV again instead. No matter what you want changes that would require other changes, which makes the whole thing a waste of time.
Not saying they haven't, just the circumstances were silly, the pilot ****** up bad or simply sucked, or they didn't do it alone.
No, you misunderstand. I never said impossible. I said it's unreasonably hard.
Also rails I said were mostly fine, just very high flying ADS's can avoid Rails, which is why I said a flight ceiling drop would help with that (still would be kinda hard shots, but very doable).
I've said all of these things. I do wonder why people doubt my ability with vehicles. Maybe they misunderstand or misinterpret what I say like you do?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:Godin, you do seem to be the only tanker that has an issue with the current set up
Thaddeus, Breakin, and pokey's all in some form agreed with me on this. Both Breakin and Pokey said they simply didn't want to deal with this (and now I see why, lol).
There was also about 3 others that was agreeing with me that this needs changing (althoguh somewhat extreme). I simply think most of you don't simply understand what I'm asking for, which I get, I'm a odd person when it comes to requests. I also think that a lot of it has to do with many DS Pilots being a gimmie and doesn't want to get any changes done to them that can hinder their abilities (some back in the day wanted DS smashing to come back after it was taken, and thankfully, it never came back).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. Because a tank with 2 passengers isn't already OP*GǪ *Not in the sense of needing nerfed, it's just really powerful and DSs act as a reasonable counter.
Yes, but that implies teamwork. And teamwork for one party, but not for the other is not balanced.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:04:00 -
[12] - Quote
Soul Cairn wrote:You do realize that nobody wants to shocktroop. Most of the maps are too small for it anyway.
That's a problem with map size, which is a issue with all vehicles. That has nothing to do with balance between HAV's and ADS's.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 15:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin's beating around the statement that HAV turrets need higher elevation limits in order to engage dropships as they are coming.
Once they're directly on top of you, you're screwed.
However. This would also allow HAVs to shoot back at AV tower campers. Which has been a legitimate gripe.
Giving HAVs 60-degree elevation is reasonable and allows reasonable deterrent from ships on approach and tower snipers.
Now all we need is a way to remove HAVs from the redline.
To all the redline rails:
JLAV FOR YOU...
JLAV FOR YOU...
JLAV FOR YOU...
and for you dear child... JLAV FOR YOU!
Well, for longer ranged turrets, that would be the case (shouldn't have let them get so close). But for shoarter ranged turrets, especially blasters, seeing as their range is so short in the first place, there's more of a defence once its right on top of you, being able to move and shoot it away (just sitting there and trying to shoot it would end up in you dying). It still regardless pulls the HAV away from whatever it was doing, most likely headin to harm your team or harming your team in some way, and that in itself is a good thing.
I wouldn't say that a 60 degree elevation to all turrets would be a good idea (that would make rails extremely OP at hitting DS's, probably), maybe enough of an increase to aim that high, and a raise in height of DS height to counter this, but still allows Rails to hit ADS's?
Honestly, I would really like to see the numbers in action and adjust from there.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 15:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Not necessarily. More so, that was asking why is a secondary function regarded as the primary function. I'm fine with ADS's being able to, but it shouldn't be as good vs. taking on them with AV or a HAV (even MAV's should be better, seeing as MAV's will probably have medium turrets). If I wanted them not to at all, I would have stated "Why are they taking them at all, period", or "why can they?". Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across.
I even have a goal at the very top of the thread: "To allow Pilots in HAV's to reasonably engage Pilots in ADS's with their Large turrets without breaking the balance between them, and to allow ADS's to still earn a decent amount of WP's.". There's a thing called reading. Why is the ADS engaging? To threaten the HAV with death and thus giving it a new priority target and/or forcing it to withdraw? Thee current balance is that an ADS requires a fairly long time to kill an HAV. Adjust the turret elevation will make HAVs immensely less vulnerable to aerial threats by being able to apply their far higher firepower. As before, the HAV has the advantage in firepower and resilience, so removing the ADSs one advantage (insofar as an engagement is concerned) then the ADS will never have the potential to win. That's like saying a scout will always show up on a sentinel's passive scans, and that's fair because the weakness of sentinels has now been made so that the scout's advantage is no longer there. Increasing turret elevation would upset the balance by making HAVs too effective at removing dropships (of all stripes) unless your possible DS buffs include buffing their EHP up to HAV levels and making their firepower much more HAV-like so that they can actually compete. --- What's the point of an assault variant of something if it's not going to be of any use when assaulting? You've said before that an ADS should run before it gets engaged by AV, so in what way is it better at assaulting? A normal DS can provide supporting fire, and if it's EHP means it must run, then the ADS is pointless, since it's worse at transporting and incapable of actually providing any useful fired support. And with these changes, that's still valid. Distracting a target is a valid thing, endangering something to get it to withdraw is a valid thing. Currently, they engage to kill similar of a HAV, which is what I'm saying shouldn't necessarily be the case. Also, I should be able to reasonably engage back (hence the changes). And again, why is it trying to act as a Gunship instead of either flying in and giving some support fire to infantry or dropping some off? Why is it being direct offensive instead of support? You're describing win as what exactly? Kill? If so, then no. The objective doesn't always have to be kill. Simply distracting the HAV can be enough (and it shouldn't be the main goal of the ADS, as again, it's not a gunship) to support the troops on the ground, say for example to let a LAV full of guys escape a HAV shooting at it.. About the passive scans, as I pointed out before, scans don't really work, and I assume you mean visability, in which there's a problem with that notion: 1: Lots of times, people don't look up (yes, I know, it's really odd, but I've somehow sneak up on people) 2: At a certain height, people might not even see you unless they are infantry 3: All the turrets are different in function, so it's not always like a heavy with a HMG (and a heavy with a HMG will easily be able to engage that scout unless it's a shotty or NK to the back, but the TTK for infantry is so low and the combat is so vastly different it doesn't really compare well in the first place). More like a Heavy with either a Sniper (rail), a MD (Rocket), or a Shotgun (blaster) against a Scout with a SMG or PR. So that's not really comparable. Also, ADS's can easily engage and reengage when and wherever they want, so that's a non issue. Why is it a Assault Platform? Well, The pilot can shoot at targets, giving the people it's supporting breathing room. As soon as AV or a HAV engages it, the ADS would want to leave, or risk losing the ship, seeing as it's weaker in the hull. iirc, there was talks of adding flux hardeners, and those would work well for your problem of them having to leave as soon as AV starts firing, giving them extra time to stay and fight (maybe say 5-15 seconds of additional time vs. AV or a HAV of similar meta?). Hell, you could even have flux reppers that can get much of your HP back quickly, so you could duck in , pop it wuckly, and keep on fighting a little longer. So basically, it's good at supporting, but not actively hunting. See, I don't think you understand; a DS is simply not a HAV. They are completely different types of hulls, and covering the exact same role doesn't really work for balance. Why are you trying to actively combat a HAV with a DS, and not AV or I don't know, a HAV maybe? Futhermore, why aren't you using it as a DS? Yes, I'm asking this question again, because I really want to know. It's almost impossible to give the support needed to either kill 1 or more enemies or even get them to fall back behind cover without hovering in one place for a bit to get the shots off, if there was a higher rate of fire then maybe the 'supporting quickly then leaving' would work
If the higher ROF made it to where it could attack infantry and light vehicles (such as LAV's) well without making them gunships vs. HAV's, I would say that it would be fair to buff that.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 15:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Jammeh McJam wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. This I support, it would increase the teamwork involved in using vehicles and deal with the apparent 'problem' If you want to force teamwork for one, force teamwork for all. I personally don't want forced teamwork anywhere. Optional teamwork works better. There is teamwork for all, vehicles are a support role, which involved working with a team, just like logis, they're a support role and you don't find them not working with the team.
See, here's the difference between what you just said, and what my problem is:
Logi's can protect themselves easily against most targets, or run from them if need be. In the situation I'm pointing out, HAV's simply can't vs. a ADS.
Also, ADS's are not acting in a support role at all as of current, more like a assaulting platform and nothing else (to be fair, that's about the same with the HAV, which I've said many times, but that's a problem with there being nothing to really shoot at, while ADS's does have a role that can be made for it, it's just not done well).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 15:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin while I appreciate your desire to be considerate I want to see HAVs picking off tower forges in Line Harvest.
I do understand that. I want to see that too, that's another thing around as bad as this. I also don't want HAV's easily shooting back at ADS's or even easily assaulting DS's. I want engagements to be reasonable.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 15:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Large missiles are great anti DS turrets as is. Any more elevation without lowering damage or RoF will be an overbuff.
Missile tanks with skilled pilots are a serious threat to dropships, even pythons
They're going to have around 25% their current DPS at the release of the HAV rebalance. Good enough for you?
To put it in perspective, that's less than current rail DPS (I think).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin while I appreciate your desire to be considerate I want to see HAVs picking off tower forges in Line Harvest. I do understand that. I want to see that too, that's another thing around as bad as this. I also don't want HAV's easily shooting back at ADS's or even easily assaulting DS's. I want engagements to be reasonable. Fair cop. I would still love a reliable method for torching them. I do the tower bombing occasionally in line harvest. Boring-ass EZ mode for risk-averse tools.
And that's completely fair.
Thinking about it though, naturally HAV's won't be good at hitting them due to being low to the ground, and they can easily just walk back. This still needs to be made a thing, but that regardless would be the case (but I bet they will be peeking a lot more  ). However, ADS's don't have this issue, which gave me an idea. What if ADS's were able to get a shoot command on the high points like that from other pilots, and the ADS can fly up there and kill the AV?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Also, ADS's are not acting in a support role at all as of current, more like a assaulting platform and nothing else (to be fair, that's about the same with the HAV, which I've said many times, but that's a problem with there being nothing to really shoot at, while ADS's does have a role that can be made for it, it's just not done well).
I dont think ill ever understand your crusade to make the ASSAULT drop ship bad at assaulting. Its already god aweful at unit extraction thanks to low tank, and cant fit a cru without lowering said tank further still. I think your problem is you dont want to admit that ADS IS the Gunship of DUST.
As I've already said, DS eHP in general does feel low, and needs buffing. I'd also say that landings need to be able to be a lot faster for ADS's, seeing as they have to be in and out.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:07:00 -
[20] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Missile and blaster DPS will be normalized around 1000-1100 each with missiles being single fire.
The rail baselines at 870 DPS at proto. So it sucked a nerf too. What is each turrets current DPS?
Not sure, and that won't matter.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Jammeh McJam wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. Yes it will. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do (but you usually don't, so meh). Godin I have to say this... You are by far the most butthurt noob I have EVER seen complaining about vehicles A noob would imply that I'm new. I've played far before you probably even knew about Dust. A noob to vehicles, because you sound like you have no idea what your proposed 'changes' will do to the game
I was one of the first Pilots to max out all vehicles, I driven every vehicle in every patch. I've used every veicle module as well. I have made 357 fits since the beginning of my career as a merc.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Missile and blaster DPS will be normalized around 1000-1100 each with missiles being single fire.
The rail baselines at 870 DPS at proto. So it sucked a nerf too. What is each turrets current DPS? Rails are like 975, missiles can hit for 3597 ish shotgun bursts. Blasters float at 870. Do the blaster is literally the worst in every conceivable way. New proposal: Blaster 1125 DPS Missile 1080 DPS Rsil 870 DPS This is, of course, unmodified by skills or mods at proto. Is railgun getting anything to compensate for lower DPS? Right now railguns are only a real threat when paired with AV, or stacking damage mods. The stacked damage makes for lame 2 shot engagements, but at the same time I dont want rails being useless. Perhaps give them slightly better tracking and maybe even a small RoF boos to compensate? Blasters should be fine so long as their optimal isnt too high. They should be funny at range and fierce up close. Missiles....ill have to actually see that myself. With lower damage and rof, perhaps missile turrets could recieve higher elevation to become the go to anti DS turret.
I three shotted a Sica the other day, asked what the fit was, and it was pretty much all passive tank. I don't believe that.
And the whole "go to" thing is what we're getting rid of with the balance pass. All the turrets would be the best within their optimals and playstyles. That's why Blasters will be the king of CQ fighting, as they were back in the day.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:
I always felt the ADS should only have two passenger seats, none if both guns are fit. Its an assault craft, so only needs its gunners or a couple specialized units to drop. Its always stepped on the heels of transport ships, something an assault craft shouldn't be doing.
I always felt that the gunner seats should be crewed at all times, but it never works out that way, because the team sizes don't facilitate the crewing of all the slots full time.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 17:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:We've tried the lower flight ceiling in earlier iterations of the game, it sucks. It makes the already hilariously fragile Dropship more fragile. This entire initiative of yours is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you want to better engage enemy dropships then fit turrets and run with gunners or pack a sentinel suit and run a forge. Alternatively use the natural cover around the map (Redline, Buildings) to keep yourself safe. Dropship gets bored, flies away, and you can find a better spot to engage it.
Until we get to a point where maps are designed to be much larger, or to where individual infantry can request transport and delivery areas, or to where you can't just teleport anywhere on the map anyway with an uplink, or to where I can't just call in an Onikuma to get my transport needs done much more easily there will almost never be a "need" for a transport focused role in this game. This is why you can count on one hand the number of Myrons or Grimsnes you'll see on any given day. If the ADS is acting like a Gunship this is because it IS a gunship and was DESIGNED to be a gunship. Accept it.
I've already covered why those things don't work in a balanced situation, and I'm not ******* doing it again.
Maps balance is a thing to be addressed, that is true. That still doesn't Justify the ADS acting as a Gunship.
Broken **** doesn't call for broken **** to balance it. That just leads to more broken ****. Are you saying that broken **** needs to stay in the game?
And lastly, I've pretty much suggested all of these things, and it's primary function is to transport. You deal with it..
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 18:05:00 -
[25] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:We've tried the lower flight ceiling in earlier iterations of the game, it sucks. It makes the already hilariously fragile Dropship more fragile. This entire initiative of yours is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you want to better engage enemy dropships then fit turrets and run with gunners or pack a sentinel suit and run a forge. Alternatively use the natural cover around the map (Redline, Buildings) to keep yourself safe. Dropship gets bored, flies away, and you can find a better spot to engage it.
Until we get to a point where maps are designed to be much larger, or to where individual infantry can request transport and delivery areas, or to where you can't just teleport anywhere on the map anyway with an uplink, or to where I can't just call in an Onikuma to get my transport needs done much more easily there will almost never be a "need" for a transport focused role in this game. This is why you can count on one hand the number of Myrons or Grimsnes you'll see on any given day. If the ADS is acting like a Gunship this is because it IS a gunship and was DESIGNED to be a gunship. Accept it. I've already covered why those things don't work in a balanced situation, and I'm not ******* doing it again. Maps balance is a thing to be addressed, that is true. That still doesn't Justify the ADS acting as a Gunship. Broken **** doesn't call for broken **** to balance it. That just leads to more broken ****. Are you saying that broken **** needs to stay in the game? And lastly, I've pretty much suggested all of these things, and it's primary function is to transport. You deal with it.. To "address" map balance you'd have to redesign the majority of the maps in the game. It's not a feasible solution to the overarching problem the game has with transport roles or transport centered vehicles being pointless. There's nothing wrong or inherently broken about an ADS being a Gunship. And as I said to you in the last thread, the primary function of the Assault Dropship is not something that's up to you to decide and if the in game description of the ADS is anything to go by ... "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" They're provably NOT intended to be a primarily transport focused vehicle. They are meant to kill people, they have a bonus to the power of their turret in order to kill people better. That is what they accomplish.
Yes it is. A Dropship is made for TRANSPORT. If it's preforming like a Gunship, and nothing like a DS, then it's broken. You are focusing WAY too much on the word Assault.
None of the descriptions are something to go by. Gal Logis by that logic would have repping bonuses.
Also, I see nothing in that about easily attacking HAV's. That desc. has zip to do with being a Gunship, more so being a pseudo fighter.
Also, the hing was intended to be made as a what I suggested: DS that can give support fire after dropping off a smaller passenger size.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 18:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Didn't read anything in your proposal that claries anyhing. Your still hooked up on semantics. You still believe ADS are not gunships and shouldn't go after Tanks. But. Tanks by the same vien are not mobile Anti Air Platforms. Since Tanks are not Anti Air Platforms, then they shouldn't be going after Dropships. 
No, not actively they shouldn't. They aren't ******* Gunships.
No, they are not. They wouldn't be able to hi them outside their optimals, and there's no turret specifically made for shooting at targets. Using that same logic however, AV aren't AA weapons either, and therefore shouldn't be able to shoot down an air targets.
And I never said they would be made to be able to easily kill a DS. In fact, I clearly said, about 6 times now that DS's should get a BUFF to eHP so they can escape, or at least survive for the first 3-5 seconds or fire.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 18:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote: you don't always see them, and if they're above you, they cannot be hit by your turrets. You see them if you keep your eyes open... You see them on the radar when they're close enough to do anything... You see your health slowly drop and the sound of the small turret hitting your tank... You have ample amounts of time to react. If you sit still, yes the dropship has it easy, if you move erratically the dropship has no idea where you're doing if it's directly above, because all it can see is it's own hull and a dot that turns red when ON the tartet, which is useles for a moving target as you have to fire in the direction it's moving... Unless you're so low that simply reversing the tank (which the dropship wont see until too late) has the dropship very much in your sights. Yes if you pilot the tank like a nonce, the dropship has it easy... But then if the guy in the dropship pilots like a nonce you've got an even easier time of it in the tank. Looking at the opposite perspective, if a tank sneaks up on an ads (doesn't have to actually get that close, so doesn't show on the radar) then the ads is dead unless the tanker is a bad shot.
flying at flight ceiling completely invalidates that, so bullshit.
You can easily move slowly and still hit the HAV, so that is bullshit.
And Seeing as I want a eHP buff for all DS's, one shot won't do it, and the pilot could simply fly out of range, or climb. Also, that assumes the turret actually has range.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 18:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:flying at flight ceiling completely invalidates that, so bullshit. & also completely invalidates the dropship. We're well aware you struggle against dropships when in a tank... Guess what, I struggled against forge gunners in an ads... But instead of asking to make it easier for me, when clearly other people are able to deal with it, I chose to practice fighting them instead... You know what, I got better. Take it from someone who can... If you try, you can too.
It does not. Fly at flight ceiling, you can't get shot at, fly far past rail optimal, and drop in on it. If you don't understand that, then you're a fool.
And that's not only it, I've been able to kill HAV's AS a ADS pilot doing all of these things. That's how I discovered all of these things you idiot.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 19:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:We've tried the lower flight ceiling in earlier iterations of the game, it sucks. It makes the already hilariously fragile Dropship more fragile. This entire initiative of yours is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you want to better engage enemy dropships then fit turrets and run with gunners or pack a sentinel suit and run a forge. Alternatively use the natural cover around the map (Redline, Buildings) to keep yourself safe. Dropship gets bored, flies away, and you can find a better spot to engage it.
Until we get to a point where maps are designed to be much larger, or to where individual infantry can request transport and delivery areas, or to where you can't just teleport anywhere on the map anyway with an uplink, or to where I can't just call in an Onikuma to get my transport needs done much more easily there will almost never be a "need" for a transport focused role in this game. This is why you can count on one hand the number of Myrons or Grimsnes you'll see on any given day. If the ADS is acting like a Gunship this is because it IS a gunship and was DESIGNED to be a gunship. Accept it. I've already covered why those things don't work in a balanced situation, and I'm not ******* doing it again. Maps balance is a thing to be addressed, that is true. That still doesn't Justify the ADS acting as a Gunship. Broken **** doesn't call for broken **** to balance it. That just leads to more broken ****. Are you saying that broken **** needs to stay in the game? And lastly, I've pretty much suggested all of these things, and it's primary function is to transport. You deal with it.. To "address" map balance you'd have to redesign the majority of the maps in the game. It's not a feasible solution to the overarching problem the game has with transport roles or transport centered vehicles being pointless. There's nothing wrong or inherently broken about an ADS being a Gunship. And as I said to you in the last thread, the primary function of the Assault Dropship is not something that's up to you to decide and if the in game description of the ADS is anything to go by ... "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" They're provably NOT intended to be a primarily transport focused vehicle. They are meant to kill people, they have a bonus to the power of their turret in order to kill people better. That is what they accomplish. Yes it is. A Dropship is made for TRANSPORT. If it's preforming like a Gunship, and nothing like a DS, then it's broken. You are focusing WAY too much on the word Assault. None of the descriptions are something to go by. Gal Logis by that logic would have repping bonuses. Also, I see nothing in that about easily attacking HAV's. That desc. has zip to do with being a Gunship, more so being a pseudo fighter. Also, the hing was intended to be made as a what I suggested: DS that can give support fire after dropping off a smaller passenger size. We should be gauging whether or not something is broken by their overall effect on the battlefield. The ADS in its current state, with the strength of AV and the alternate means Tanks have of taking them out (aka every moment that the Dropship's full attention isn't on them and when they're not hovering right above them) would mean that they're not broken. The descriptions, at the very least, give insight on the initial intended direction of any suit, item or vehicle. CCP intended the ADS to be an air based attack vehicle and, unlike the Gal Logi, have a skill bonus that further proves that that's direction that they wanted to take with it. If they weren't meant to kill people they wouldn't have a skill bonus geared towards being more proficient at killing people. "If it's performing like a Gunship, and nothing like a DS, then it's broken." No. This only means that it's a Gunship. There's nothing wrong with a Dropship being a Gunship because currently we don't have a separate dedicated model for such a vehicle. It fills a niche in this game that otherwise wouldn't exist. There was once a time where CCP had grand plans for the future of Dust 514; MAVs, Racial Vehicles, Fighters, 0G combat, more weapons - then **** happened and they recolored the DS to fill a role for pilots that hadn't existed previously.
That is incorrect, at least half way. Each engagement between each thing should be considered. It's effects on the battlefield should be considered as well, but that isn't the ONLY thing to look at.
Also, as I've already said, any kind of movement a HAV can do, a ADS can easily counter.
Also, bullshit. A small turret added doesn't change the fact that:
1: It has seats
2: It's under the same tree as DS
3: It's CALLED A ******* DS
And even then, that doesn't excuse that ADS's can easily hover over HAV's and kill them. You want that to exist? Either the turret needs to go away from the pilot, or the HAV needs to be able to fire back.
And none of that **** has to do with ADS's.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 19:17:00 -
[30] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Also, as I've already said, any kind of movement a HAV can do, a ADS can easily counter.
And a HAV can also counter an ads movement. Godin Thekiller wrote:
3: It's CALLED A ******* DS
There are no swear words in any of the skill trees, or long strings of stars. Godin Thekiller wrote:Either the turret needs to go away from the pilot The same could be said about tanks, perhaps we should take the main turret away from them as well... I would certainly enjoy having 2 people to work a tank... Although I don't feel it necessary.
And the ADS can easily recounter, and rinse and repeat, while still staying on the HAV, or rapidly returning.
Nope. It's not the same thing. You're saying either use teamwork or get lucky, in which case it's only fair that ADS's has to do the same to attack. And if you think it isn't necessary, then you got two options:
1: Deal with it
2: Try to talk actual balance instead of digging your head into a hole.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2919
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 20:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Top small turrets just need to be able to look up more, and be fit without fitting a front gun.
Thats it.
Good tankers keep ADS moving so it can never simply hover above it, this would allow teamwork to push away or kill a solo pilot, while still letting a solo tanker defend himself if he cant outmaneuver the dropship. This also keeps things very even since theyre both shooting each other with small turrets
And how will this help the pilot handle ADS?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 20:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:Top small turrets just need to be able to look up more, and be fit without fitting a front gun.
Thats it.
Good tankers keep ADS moving so it can never simply hover above it, this would allow teamwork to push away or kill a solo pilot, while still letting a solo tanker defend himself if he cant outmaneuver the dropship. This also keeps things very even since theyre both shooting each other with small turrets And how will this help the pilot handle ADS? It will help because it will be less likely for the ADS to do damage to the tank, even though that damage is pathetic. Just because you're a massive armoured vehicles doesn't mean you shouldn't move around a bit
Umm, that would apply if the pilot has a gunner in the gunner seat, which implies teamwork, which doesn't solve ****.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 20:33:00 -
[33] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:You're getting hooked on like purely arbitrary things. Who cares if its in the Dropship tree? Would you be satisfied if they renamed the Dropship "Medium Aerial Vehicle" and renamed the ADS "Assault Aerial Vehicle?" It's in the Dropship tree because they reused the same exact model and stuck a gun on the front because they couldn't be bothered to implement their other planned vehicles into the game. It's an "ASSAULT" Dropship because it's meant to blow **** up. Nothing about the skill, its description, or anything CCP has ever said has lead anyone to believe that they were meant to fit within Godin's super specific niche of "occasional aerial support transport craft meant to lightly tap targets until a tank looks up and blows it into the stratosphere".
Assault Dropships, Gunships, Transport vehicles, whatever you call them if you can stick a gun on them they're meant to be used to kill people.
By that logic, yuo're limiting the HAV to kill things, because it has a gun on it.
Also by that logic, a Plasma Rifle should be able to kill anything.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 21:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:You're getting hooked on like purely arbitrary things. Who cares if its in the Dropship tree? Would you be satisfied if they renamed the Dropship "Medium Aerial Vehicle" and renamed the ADS "Assault Aerial Vehicle?" It's in the Dropship tree because they reused the same exact model and stuck a gun on the front because they couldn't be bothered to implement their other planned vehicles into the game. It's an "ASSAULT" Dropship because it's meant to blow **** up. Nothing about the skill, its description, or anything CCP has ever said has lead anyone to believe that they were meant to fit within Godin's super specific niche of "occasional aerial support transport craft meant to lightly tap targets until a tank looks up and blows it into the stratosphere".
Assault Dropships, Gunships, Transport vehicles, whatever you call them if you can stick a gun on them they're meant to be used to kill people. By that logic, yuo're limiting the HAV to kill things, because it has a gun on it. Also by that logic, a Plasma Rifle should be able to kill anything. What else can the HAV do? Fundamentally its power is to kill things, it doesn't kill every target as easily thanks to the Large Turret nerf but they can still get by with what they've got. You can kill installations, other vehicles, and infantry. Having a role based on killing things doesn't mean everything can be killed. The Plasma Rifle comparison doesn't fly.
You said that if it has a gun on it, it should be able to kill people. Well, a HAV is not a person, yet for some reaosn you want to apply that same logic to a HAV, and therefore, your reply is bullshit.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 21:46:00 -
[35] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:You're getting hooked on like purely arbitrary things. Who cares if its in the Dropship tree? Would you be satisfied if they renamed the Dropship "Medium Aerial Vehicle" and renamed the ADS "Assault Aerial Vehicle?" It's in the Dropship tree because they reused the same exact model and stuck a gun on the front because they couldn't be bothered to implement their other planned vehicles into the game. It's an "ASSAULT" Dropship because it's meant to blow **** up. Nothing about the skill, its description, or anything CCP has ever said has lead anyone to believe that they were meant to fit within Godin's super specific niche of "occasional aerial support transport craft meant to lightly tap targets until a tank looks up and blows it into the stratosphere".
Assault Dropships, Gunships, Transport vehicles, whatever you call them if you can stick a gun on them they're meant to be used to kill people. By that logic, yuo're limiting the HAV to kill things, because it has a gun on it. Also by that logic, a Plasma Rifle should be able to kill anything. What else can the HAV do? Fundamentally its power is to kill things, it doesn't kill every target as easily thanks to the Large Turret nerf but they can still get by with what they've got. You can kill installations, other vehicles, and infantry. Having a role based on killing things doesn't mean everything can be killed. The Plasma Rifle comparison doesn't fly. You said that if it has a gun on it, it should be able to kill people. Well, a HAV is not a person, yet for some reaosn you want to apply that same logic to a HAV, and therefore, your reply is bullshit. Lol, of all the things to latch on to. It really seems like you've run out of things to back up your case with. The takeaways from this and your previous thread - Godin's argument - ADS are primarily transport and shouldn't be blowing **** up. ADS has an overwhelming advantage against Tanks thanks to turret elevation and the inability to respond at close range. My argument - The Assault Dropship has guns on it. These guns do their job of blowing **** up. The Skill and Description of the ADS support the intended role of said ship to be blowing **** up. Tanks have counter measures in the form of making use of map cover, using turrets, using unpredictable movement patterns or equipping Forges on a powerful suit. The time taken for an ADS to kill a tank thanks to the skill nerf gives a tanker ample time to respond - they're not broken. Don't take this so personally, just because I think your idea of arbitrarily limiting what the ADS is and isn't capable of is bad doesn't mean I think you're bad. I just fundamentally disagree with you. 
No, I"m simply using your logic. You've not actually thought about what I've asked for, and why I've asked for it. You simply refuse to it seems.
That is incorrect. I OUTLINED WHAT I WANTED IN THE ******* OP.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:58:00 -
[36] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:ADS's are not acting in a support role at all as of current, more like a assaulting platform So like an assault dropship Seriously though, if you want to turn the ADS into a transport role, then create a 'gunship', we can use the same model (as they're doing the same thing for tanks) remove the extra seats, give it more ehp and everybody's happy
No, like a Gunship.
ADS's Role's in a reasonable world:
Primary- Transporting fireteams and Giving said fireteams fire support
Secondary- Being able to scatter, distract, kill, etc. infantry and smaller vehicles, and to be able to distract larger vehicles from your team.
note: Firing back with AV or HAV's will endanger ADS's, and make them run off, or pin them down.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Juno Tristan wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:ADS's are not acting in a support role at all as of current, more like a assaulting platform So like an assault dropship Seriously though, if you want to turn the ADS into a transport role, then create a 'gunship', we can use the same model (as they're doing the same thing for tanks) remove the extra seats, give it more ehp and everybody's happy No, like a Gunship. ADS's Role's in a reasonable world: Primary- Transporting fireteams and Giving said fireteams fire support Secondary- Being able to scatter, distract, kill, etc. infantry and smaller vehicles, and to be able to distract larger vehicles from your team. note: Firing back with AV or HAV's will endanger ADS's, and make them run off, or pin them down. I'll ask again, can we create your version of the DS and add a gunship?
If the Gunship isn't simply a farming tool, sure.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2932
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 03:18:00 -
[38] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:
Then since no one would use your new ADS can we just call the current set up a Gunship and skip all the extra work
Wrong. Being able to transport people is a very valuable tool, and if it wasn't, Scout helis wouldn't exist or at least never be used in any FPS's.
Also, the problems with ADS's vs. HAV's would be similar, most likely worse on a Gunship, so that would still need fixing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:18:00 -
[39] - Quote
Stile451 wrote:The only reason an ADS attacks a tank is because the first thing a tank does when it sees a dropship of any type is to try to shoot it down. The only time I ever attack a tank in an ADS is because it tried to kill me(at which point the driver gets out with a forge gun or swarm launcher - there may be a lesson in there somewhere).
I honestly don't see this as a problem though. I can count on one hand how many times I've been destroyed in a tank by solely an ADS and I can fill the rest of the same hand with how many tanks I've solo killed with an ADS.
Shooting back is natural, that doesn't matter however if at that point you can't shoot back.
I'd need over 20 hands to count how many HAV's I've killed with a ADS. That doesn't matter either. This existing does.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
Stile451 wrote:What matters is that you're asking for a vehicle that can do everything well with only one operator with no real drawbacks. You have yet to make a realistic suggestion of how to do this without breaking game balance.
Players might be amenable to something along these lines:
Give tanks 2 modes: Tank mode and AA mode.
Tank mode is what we currently have.
AA mode would:
Fix you in place(no movement possible)
Not allow turret movement in the normal angles(can only aim up, not forward/backward)
Disable small turrets
There would be a 5 second delay where the tank is immobilized, the turrets inactive, and modules unable to be toggled while the mode is changing.
Seeing as HAV's can't do everything well, that is false. ADS's will still be able to move about the map, engage, disengage, and reengage with pretty much any target, and a short period of time between fights much better than HAV's.
Also, that AA mode is ******* horrible.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 20:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
Stile451 wrote:1. That's not what I wrote, read it again.
2. With super versatile large turrets ADS' will not be able to move around the map or even engage, let alone disengage and reengage considering they will be destroyed by any tank in the vicinity.
3. Think for yourself and come up with a reasonable idea(such as doubling ADS damage against tanks while giving tanks added turret elevation).
1: "vehicle that can do everything well with only one operator with no real drawbacks. " That implies that HAV's are in fact perfect with these changes, or at least better than everything else with these changes, and as I pointed out, that is false. Oh, on top of that, most ADS's can easily kill infantry as well, and that referrs to the pilot, something the HAV can't really do.
2: Being able to shoot back isn't super versitile. It's being able to defend yourself against a target. If you don't understand that, that's your problem. Also, a ADS will be able to easily move around the map. I easily move around the map now with little to no resistance, even when HAV's are out. Simply shooting isn't a thing now, nor would this change change that. Also, as I've stated, I'd like to see ADS's health get buffed, so it could reasonably survive and get out of dodge when something powerful (AV or a HAV) is shooting at it.
3: I have. It's the OP of the thread. That idea is even worse. I'll ask the question again: Why are you instead of being a actual DS and trying to transport and assist infantry, trying to go around and blow up HAV's?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 21:36:00 -
[42] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:Godin, there is no need for your ADS in this game as it is, this is why it is a gunship and why CCP kept it in the game
Ambush - not needed
Domination - not needed (except getting to the point in the first place)
Skirmish - larger city based maps could benefit when going to outside points but why not use a cheaper LAV or get everyone to spawn on the point.
Wait, you say that, but then believe that a Gunship is? Why is that?
Ambush-Gunship isn't needed
Domination- Gunship isn't needed
Skirmish- Gunship isn't needed.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 22:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Juno Tristan wrote:Godin, there is no need for your ADS in this game as it is, this is why it is a gunship and why CCP kept it in the game
Ambush - not needed
Domination - not needed (except getting to the point in the first place)
Skirmish - larger city based maps could benefit when going to outside points but why not use a cheaper LAV or get everyone to spawn on the point.
Wait, you say that, but then believe that a Gunship is? Why is that? Ambush-Gunship isn't needed Domination- Gunship isn't needed Skirmish- Gunship isn't needed. You could say the same thing about tanks. Maybe my choice of words was poor, since technically the only thing needed in objective based matches is a suit that can hack. What I mean is, they offer no benefit.
And you still could say the same thing about Gunships.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:36:00 -
[44] - Quote
Juno Tristan wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
And you still could say the same thing about Gunships.
But they're super effective against tanks!
As is a Railgun or Rocket launcher on a HAV, or AV from infantry.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:38:00 -
[45] - Quote
Soul Cairn wrote:Stop replying to the thread as the discussion is going nowhere.
Unreasonable people usually refuses to have any discussion.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:14:00 -
[46] - Quote
Stile451 wrote:
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with ADS ability to easily kill infantry unless you want to nerf tanks ability to damage vehicles or infantry. It's far easier and safer to get infantry kills in a tank than in an ADS unless you're one of the few great ADS pilots(but they're outliers and you don't balance based on outliers).
2. How are ADS supposed to defend against tanks if they can't maneuver around them when they are surprised by one - you want to take the only safe exit, up, away.
My recent experience with flying an ADS means multiple AV players(mainly proto minmandos) chase you around the map, set up ambushes, and use cheap tactics like placing uplinks so they aren't destroyable at high points while five enemy tanks take pot shots at you whenever they see you.
You mentioned a slight HP buff at the expense of a fairly large nerf. A large HP buff would be required(a slight one is needed now).
3. I asked for a reasonable idea - the first asks for something but gives nothing up in exchange, the second wants to remove the A from the ADS(we already have those).
I try to use regular DS occasionally for regular dropship duty like you describe for but nobody will get into a DS who isn't a douchebag(they want to sit on a turret and shoot at things that they have no chance of hitting and will never get out). The mobile CRU still doesn't work properly(if it did I would be much happier).
I generally use an ADS to clear rooftops of equipment, occasionally attack infantry, and rarely attack vehicles(because it's usually futile anyway). I do want the option to do so if they're being a nuisance or worse.
I don't, and I have no clue what you're talking about. On top of that, large turrets are generally getting nerf (or at least being tried to get nerfed) against infantry.
1: No, because There's more to this game than combat, and they can't defend themselves in every single way. A HAV can't simply run away from a ADS, as a ADS can easily find a HAV, and can easily keep on it, simply due to being faster than it, and flying above it. You're asking for ADS's to be able to engage everything with no real drawbacks (I however reject that), so it's the same thing.
Put it like this: By your logic, Infantry in general is OP, as it can easily engage vehicles with AV, and therefore, AV needs to be taken away. I would reject that logic, because EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH EVERYTHING DEAL WITH EVERYTHING. It's simple logic, really.
2: If they were to maneuver around them, but still stay in the same area firing back, then HAV's simply aren't able to deal with the ADS, making it void, and therefore can't defend itself. If you don't understand that, that's your problem.
AV has nothing to do with this discussion.
This isn't a fairly large nerf. If a HAV being able to actually be able to defend itself in a reasonable manner is a large nerf, then you have issues. Regardless, you want ADS's to get a large HP buff if this happens. Depends on what you mean by large. If you are saying what the earlier comment about them getting HAV eHP levels, simply no. That would be broken. If you mean enough to take say 7-12 seconds of fire (give or take), well, that's what I've been pushing, as currently, it's like 3, and that's stupid.
As a side note, I'd like a flux hardener, similar to that of the Saga II's hardener, where it hardens a high amount of HP for a limited amount of time, and then goes into cooldown. It'll help with the go in, support for a short period of time or until needed elsewhere or until AV another vehicles start shooting back style of gameplay.
3: You idea of it becoming a flying HAV while still being able to easily outmanuver said HAV's AND be able to transport infantry is flaweed to the core. **** no.
It not giving is a problem with rewards, which is a problem, and needs to get solved, which I pointed out in the OP, which you either ignored or very quickly glossed over.
The second one doesn't even make sense. It is still assaulting, it's simply not primaried with farming everything in sight. You think it is, but then again, you've shown several times now that you're simply not reasonable with your ideas, so I wouldn't trust that.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:16:00 -
[47] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
To all the redline rails:
JLAV FOR YOU...
JLAV FOR YOU...
JLAV FOR YOU...
and for you dear child... JLAV FOR YOU!
I jihad with extreme prejudice for redrails. Especially if the enemy team has control over the field. Only if they are preventing me from doing my job though.
They're both broken, and although I don't like balancing broken **** with broken ****, I'll let JLAV's slide for these circumstances
Still want them removed or fixed to where they aren't cheap one shot machines though.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
MRBH1997 wrote:I personally, as a tanker from open beta, have no issues with ADS's. They still kill me from time o time when they are good, but since the ROF nerf they have been well balanced I feel. I do agree they are a little week in terms of hp(1 swarm or forge makes me run without double hardener). ADS's are butter to AV so if anything they are weak AV vs ADS right now.
I, however, like your idea of call outs like pick up and such. I wish Dust had a more universal call out wheel like many other team games like MAG and battlefield have. They not only improve team experience when no one has a mic, but also help more supportive roles do their job better. This could easily be added like the comman wheel for squad leaders, only they would have to switch the wheel twice. Have it changed between vehicle or infantry based depending on what a player has their reticle over and if they are in a vehicle or not.
The ROF nerf simply extended the time in which they could kill a HAV in, it's still easily done.
Also, this thread has nothing to do with AV, and you can't balance on assuming that AV is always present; that's just flawed reasoning.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 02:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
Moving will pretty much negate Railsand to a large extant Rockets, and due to the ROF buff, blasters will be worse.
1: That's irrelevant. a ADS can do other things a HAV can't, even with these changes. You claimed they cannot. Even within this system, that is still false.
Rock paper scissors never worked in the first place, but lead to imbalances. That was the excuse for AV to say "We should be able to easily kill any vehicles" and an pilot to say "We should be able to easily kill any infantry". Both of those statements simply don't work, and it definitely doesn't apply to this situation. Also, what is your definition of "deal with",because if yours meets my own, then you would be quite wrong.
2: If you can't shoot at a HAV with a ADS easily, it's you who's scrubbing, not the ADS. HAV's don't have to be a good pilot either; any decent pilot will be able to do the job. missing isn't common (unless you can't aim), and there is very little cover, and even when there is some, it doesn't protect the HAv forever. Regardless if it does, the HAV basically taken out of the match simply because you can't fend off from the ADS long enough to even do anything, but go back to cover
The ADS can outmaneuver HAV's, and easily disengage and reengage HAV's when it benefits it, which is mostly outside forces intervene (which isn't common from my play, only when you specifically attack the infantry does it happen), and again, requiring assistance to do anything that only one party has to do is broken.
I never said that I only get only easy ADS games, I'm specifically speaking on assaulting HAV's within ADS's.
That amount of HP is fair, I was thinking along the lines of 1200 eHP added in total, give or take. Again, I'd like to be able to last around 7-12 seconds with a ADS, give or take.
That's what I described. Something to assist with either running away from targets, or giving a solid defense for a short period of time.
3: Okay, cool, that's a gunship. That's what the ADS performs like, and that is what I'm saying it shouldn't be.
Well, simply that is what a DS is made for. This is a variant, yes, but the function is still there, as that is the core of the vehicle, regardless. It's not made to put uplinks on towers (although that could be a purpose of it). Also, removing the seats makes it not a DS at all anymore, in which case it really does become a gunship, in which I would sa it needs to be removed from the DS tree. I'd rather not it be done.
However, I would like to say that the stealing thing is a issue, in which I would say this: I am of the opinion that if a vehicle hull or any module attached isn't skilled for, it cannot be used. That counts for optimization skills making the fit actually work, or having it be based on a lock system.
All the solutions are tied together, they are all meant to be done.
The flight ceiling was due to Rails not being able to deal with high flying ADS's at range, as you can actually avoid a rail looking up at you all the way until it gets to you. I wasn't sure if that would work either, but that's all I could think of. And you're right in that most maps don't have much cover to give DS's in general good cover. It's just that flying high is absolute cover, which is the problem. Do you have a way to solve this?
The way that you've listed that out isn't fair for each of the turrets. All the of the turrets are getting changed for one, and Rockets will become more of the medium range weapon, blasters the shortest ranged shot (at any decent range, around 60m or more it'll be horrible, as due to the fast ROF and spread, the accuracy will suck even more than now), and Rails still the longest. Therefore, the blaster should have the highest, otherwise it wouldn't be able to hit the ADS (as is the situation now, compounded on the fact that it won't be able to damage it well enough before it moves out of the very limited angles it can hit it at due to being at range), Rockets medium, and Rails the lowest.
The transport idea is to benefit DS's in general, yes, and ADS's will benefit less from this due to simply having less seats, yes. It is a buff to them regardless, and seeing as it's made more so than other DS's to attack, it'll still be able to get a decent amount of WP's.
And I'd like LDS's to return, along with FRDS's to actually come in, as well as being along the lines of this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 21:43:00 -
[50] - Quote
Bradric Banewolf wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Atiim wrote:This won't accomplish your goal but I think it would also be nice if the elevation limit on the upper-Small Turret was removed, that way the gunner would be able to kill DSs hovering over it. Yes it will. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do (but you usually don't, so meh). Atim is right
No he isn't, for the several reasons I've already pointed out.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:01:00 -
[51] - Quote
Stile451 wrote:1. Our lines of thought along this point are too contradictory and I don't believe we will come to any consensus arguing our sides further. Shall we drop this point?
2. I'm certainly not a great ADS pilot nor a great tank pilot(average or slightly above at best). In an ADS I tend to hit most shots on an HAV but the few I miss coupled with reloads means any damage I've done to the tank is mostly healed by the time I start at it again if I continue the assault(the tank is usually retreating by then which was my objective). I'm fairly certain you are the better pilot as you have been using them much longer and have more SP invested into them.
If an ADS is hounding a tank they are both out of the match which I believe is balanced. If a vehicle pilot was forced to remain in the driver's seat once entered then I would agree with you that something needed to be done but that is not the case. The tank pilot currently has the option of wearing an AV suit to drive away ADS' that are pestering them(which does not require a separate player or team work in any way).
3. I honestly don't think changing the large turret angle is the best balanced option with the current turret mechanics(this may change depending on how large turrets are changed).
To make the skies less friendly we could have the MCCs fire more, smaller missiles above a certain altitude in addition to their large inter MCC missiles or allow EVE pilots to fire on vehicles above a certain altitude. Dropships would need an altimeter for either of these though and the first option would add lag which isn't good. I don't think either idea is great as a solution though.
With the current mechanics I believe that introducing an AA based small turret(flak maybe?) only able to fit into the top turret slot may be the best option(hitting triangle does not require team work). Have it deal enough damage to be a deterrent to DS(deals a fair amount of damage only to DS, but requires at least one reload to destroy one) with minimal AI and AT capacity(worst small turret in these respects).
Until other dropship types are introduced the ADS will fill the role of gunship and fast deployment dropship(at least in PC).
You have some good ideas in the OP of your other thread(the cloak idea needs work though - would be too powerful IMO). I will read through it later.
1: Fine, regardless, my point still stands.
2: I hardly ever miss, it isn't that hard. Practice more on balance while moving and after a month of practice it'll become easy. And that statement is fair, I have been using them since they've been released, however, that doesn't excuse the fact that it can be done, specifically in this way. A ADS should be balanced on a HAV of equal skill.
And as to the ADS being "Out of the match", that isn't very true for the fact of the ADS can very easily disengage and then reengage at any time seeing as maps are tiny as is. I can circumnavigate entire maps in about 30 seconds, that's insane.
Also, regen is being looked at through the HAV rebalance, so that will most likely change.
On top of that, entry/exit timers, and even players forced to use pilot suits in pilot seats are being discussed as well, with the former iirc even supported by Rataiti, so that might change soon as well. Regardless, I've been able to kill the pilots who does that assuming that they are not in a Minmando or I'm using a rail about 40-50% of the time, so even that won't save you.
3: Seeing as general DPS of turrets is going down, I'd say yes, they are actually needed.
The top turret is the best turret for AI gains, and large turrets are already bad as is with AI. Also, completely stopping would open you up greatly to aan attack. That would only be acceptable if ADS's that wanted to attack HAV's had to stay perfectly still to shoot at them. Regardless, not all HAV's will even have top turrets.
The other DS types are irrelevant when it comes to the balance of ADS's vs. everything else until they are added. The ADS isn't a Gunship, and Gunships don't even transport, at least, they only in rare cases do. The ADS covers more so of the Scout heli archtype. And to make it clear, I do want ADS's to be able to assault, I just don't want ADS's only to assault, and to be basically flying HAV's on top of that.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:GOAL: To allow Pilots in HAV's to reasonably engage Pilots in ADS's with their Large turrets without breaking the balance between them, and to allow ADS's to still earn a decent amount of WP's.
I'd fix that to mean that HAVs aren't totally defenseless. Making main turret easy to use and track flying targets seems going too far, an overkill. Making top turret capable of tracking high seems good balance, although that screams for vehicle locks. No need to fix at the moment - as long as HAV pilots can wield AV weapons when jumping out. When that is changed (either non-av pilot suit only or prolonged entry/exit animation) then is this subject valid and hot again. Dammit, everything affects everything in a game as complex as Dust. 
1: It's not making them "easy" to track them, it's to allow them to actually track them. Currently a decent pilot can negate any tracking. That. Is. The. Problem. I have said this. I'm not even saying that it should be buffed (the prof. skills should be looked at due to this, because through these changes on top of this, it would be as you said, overkill).
2: Making the top turret be able to track them wouldn't change ****. Either the pilot would have to swap seats, making the HAV still, and opening them up for a attack, or requiring teamwork to fight against one target, which is broken. No.
3: That is broken, but as you pointed out, that is being discussed. Regardless, I've been able to either fly away and return as quick, or even kill the AV. And saing "Because of that, there's no reason to fix it." Is both lazy and forgiving bad design.
Regardless, I've still been able to either fly away and return as quick, or kill the AV and the HAV.
And yes, everything does affect everything. It's a headache, and ******* annoying as hell, but that's why I'm pushing for the fact that if everything could deal with everything on it's own, none of this would be a issue. Then it becomes a thing of how to encourage teamwork, not force it, and THAT's where it gets fun
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:Now that i think about it. Why not make compromise.
1: ADS says, "we have to travel far closer to engage, it's only fair if we got that close. We're flying coffins, we had a ROF nerf, and you can hop out and AV us to death. RDV's magically spawn and instagib us if you call it, now imagine a RDV and AV combo! "
2. Tank says, "So what if I have higher eHP? I'm slow moving, have huge hit box, and I can barely squeeze into spaces. Once you've reached out blind spot, I'm playing chicken until you slip up and get into my elevation. We use cheap tactics like this simply because we can't reach you
with our turrets! "
So i came to the conclusion:
Coaxial small turret that can go up to 60/70-¦ (just a number to work with)
HAVs have a unused button correct? Just hit that and it switches to the small turret. The large turret will stop at it's maximum elevation, while the small turret will continue. You simply need to change the turret by hitting the unused button.
Still can drive and all.. But just a small turret instead of a large until you switch.
How's that? Win win. Dropships can still enter blind zone and engage while tanks have a larger counter window. Compromise?
That honestly would depend. Say it was put in place, how would it work? How would we make it to where it's not used as a way for HAV's to farm infantry?
If this was balanced though, I'd say this would work better than the large turret idea.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2934
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:15:00 -
[54] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:ADS can barely do anything these days.
It is not like a normal DS so transporting players is out of the question since landing at any speed can kill it unless you are armor and for it to be a gunship it needs to be able to deliver high damage to the target which frankly it doesnt do well.
Add in AV and swarms make it useless and a FG can just go right through it.
ADS do not bother HAV at all unless its PC but even then they are knocking links off of towers or dualing each other while a HAV takes a potshot now and again.
The ADS needs a proper buff to make it worthwhile.
And I've discussed all of this in the OP. L2R
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Shamarskii Simon wrote:Now that i think about it. Why not make compromise.
1: ADS says, "we have to travel far closer to engage, it's only fair if we got that close. We're flying coffins, we had a ROF nerf, and you can hop out and AV us to death. RDV's magically spawn and instagib us if you call it, now imagine a RDV and AV combo! "
2. Tank says, "So what if I have higher eHP? I'm slow moving, have huge hit box, and I can barely squeeze into spaces. Once you've reached out blind spot, I'm playing chicken until you slip up and get into my elevation. We use cheap tactics like this simply because we can't reach you
with our turrets! "
So i came to the conclusion:
Coaxial small turret that can go up to 60/70-¦ (just a number to work with)
HAVs have a unused button correct? Just hit that and it switches to the small turret. The large turret will stop at it's maximum elevation, while the small turret will continue. You simply need to change the turret by hitting the unused button.
Still can drive and all.. But just a small turret instead of a large until you switch.
How's that? Win win. Dropships can still enter blind zone and engage while tanks have a larger counter window. Compromise?
That honestly would depend. Say it was put in place, how would it work? How would we make it to where it's not used as a way for HAV's to farm infantry? If this was balanced though, I'd say this would work better than the large turret idea. Large turret rotation = Small turret rotation. Fix infantry profiles 63/77 rail, 79/119 missile, 110/90 blaster. Fix vehicle profiles 90/110 rail, 79/119 missile, 77/63 blaster.
Actually, after thinking about it, I think this is actually a better solution regardless, even if the turrets weren't changed (maybe a smaller mag). The turret rotation wouldn't need to be changed either, just the elevation. I can somewhat track them now (although I'm good at it, just can't aim high enough, because it isn't possible). The Large turret is in the way, and it's off center, so it's somewhat inaccurate. I actually like this idea a lot. Going to put this up.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 11:52:00 -
[56] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Godin wrote:PROBLEM: At current, ADS's can easily fly past each turret's optimal, more so for blasters and Rockets, but somewhat of Rails.
PROBLEM 2: ADS's don't function as T II DS's designed as a more combat focused DS, more so Gunships, because being anything like a DS doesn't reward much of anything as of current. I don't see either of these as a problem; the first one is actually how DS are supposed to escape; the second is what their real analogue actually is.
I can't facepalm hard enough
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 11:54:00 -
[57] - Quote
Stile451 wrote:I like that idea, it's a good compromise.
I would rather see the switch to small turret be automatic when going above the large turret elevation(no need to hit a button). Have the reticule change when switching turrets to more easily differentiate which turret is in use.
That would depend on having a gunner in that seat, in which having one in there could cause problems.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 11:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:.... For the last time...
You can just maneuver to kill the ads. It's not hard. Everything has its advantage and obviously being in the air above a tank would mean the tank is at a disadvantage. But to counter, anytime the ads isn't above the tank, the tank has a distinct advantage.
As long as rail tanks can 2 shot pythons with a particle cannon this issue is absurd to discuss. And even if they couldn't, it's all about range, the ads has to get close and hover, the tank has to stay far away and shoot, it's just basic mechanics.
the ads sacrifices the ability to fit a large turret, a lot of EHP and ground cover, and in exchange it gets the ability to fly. Not a problem. I use both ads and tank and I've never had a problem with this.
I've covered every single point you've made, several times over. Read the thread.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 21:22:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I can't facepalm hard enough This is exactly how I feel reading most of your posts.
Seeing as you've yet to prove me wrong on any of them, quiet.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 22:18:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I can't facepalm hard enough This is exactly how I feel reading most of your posts. Seeing as you've yet to prove me wrong on any of them, quiet. And that's another to the tally. Since you haven't proved any of your points right, quiet.
I've pointed out all the ways that could could easily avoid any existing counters, and pointed out that no examples shows otherwise.
Again, show me some examples otherwise.
Also, I'd like to point out how instead of being reasonable, you're just saying no, I refuse to converse.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 00:06:00 -
[61] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I've pointed out all the ways that could could easily avoid any existing counters, and pointed out that no examples shows otherwise.
Again, show me some examples otherwise. Your point is predicated on the present counters being entirely unusable, which many in this thread and the last have vehemently disagreed with. You're saying that no counters exist because of your singular experience: many others are saying that there are counters (that do not require teamwork) that exist and that they have success with them. This leads to one of several conclusions: - you are bad at the game and incapable of operating a vehicle well enough to defend yourself - many others are entirely wrong, for some reason - you are specifically lying about the ability to use these techniques to drive forward an agenda. Frankly, I think the third is probably the mostly likely, considering certain choices statements you've made about the ADS. One of the things you seem to be ignoring is that HAVs have the greatest firepower on the field, as well as the greatest resilience. A dropship, or any stripe, has to maintain a very careful position to threaten an HAV because the tank and DPS figures are so incredibly skewed in the favour of the HAV (and that's reasonable.) By making the positional advantage of the DS practically irrelevant, you're making it all about HP/DPS, which will always be in the HAVs favour. Effectively, you're taking the current situation of positioning vs firepower and making it into a flee vs everything situation. Godin Thekiller wrote:Also, I'd like to point out how instead of being reasonable, you're just saying no, I refuse to converse. This is pinnacle of hypocrisy. You're continued refusal to accept that counters (that dont require teamwork) exist is entirely unreasonable.
You say it's based on my own singular experience. No, it's over a hundred at this point, probably getting around 200. It's also the fact that I've not yet seen otherwise.
Those three points are false. I don't think a "bad" player could possibly solo multiple people at once, which I've done, multiple times (as in over a hundred). Also, there's many times where lots of people are wrong. 12 people yesterday told me that the holocaust didn't happen for example. And Can you prove that I'm lying about such?
I think you're butthurt because it's simply true. Most people don't like toys they like to be taken away for more reasonable ones, I encountered similar when PR's used to could damage HAV's as well as AV weapons could, yet had close to the DPS of a blaster. Or when AV nades could easily primary as AV, while still having a perfectly realiable infantry suit. etc.
No, it is not. I've been discussing balance with other people. You simply refuse to. You're standing there like a stone refusing for anything to be changed. And again, there is counters, but as I've said several times, a ADS can easily counter them, or it requires for someone to help you, as you pointed out, and both of those things are broken, as
1: If a HAV doesn't have a solid counter, especially while the ADS does (running away), that is broken.
2: Forcing someone to use teamwork against someone who doesn't is broken.
Again, if you can't realize that, you are foolish.
Again, if you want to prove me wrong, SHOW ME OTHERWISE. But you want do that. You're simply too lazy to. Or you know I'm right. vov.
Look, if you want to just tell me I'm wrong over and over, the door is that way, because you already have done that. I'd Rather talk balance with people/
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 02:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:I'd fix that to mean that HAVs aren't totally defenseless. Making main turret easy to use and track flying targets seems going too far, an overkill. Making top turret capable of tracking high seems good balance, although that screams for vehicle locks. No need to fix at the moment - as long as HAV pilots can wield AV weapons when jumping out. When that is changed (either non-av pilot suit only or prolonged entry/exit animation) then is this subject valid and hot again. Dammit, everything affects everything in a game as complex as Dust. 1: It's not making them "easy" to track them, it's to allow them to actually track them. Currently a decent pilot can negate any tracking. That. Is. The. Problem. I have said this. I'm not even saying that it should be buffed (the prof. skills should be looked at due to this, because through these changes on top of this, it would be as you said, overkill). 2: Making the top turret be able to track them wouldn't change ****. Either the pilot would have to swap seats, making the HAV still, and opening them up for a attack, or requiring teamwork to fight against one target, which is broken. No. 3: That is broken, but as you pointed out, that is being discussed. Regardless, I've been able to either fly away and return as quick, or even kill the AV. And saing "Because of that, there's no reason to fix it." Is both lazy and forgiving bad design. Regardless, I've still been able to either fly away and return as quick, or kill the AV and the HAV. And yes, everything does affect everything. It's a headache, and ******* annoying as hell, but that's why I'm pushing for the fact that if everything could deal with everything on it's own, none of this would be a issue. Then it becomes a thing of how to encourage teamwork, not force it, and THAT's where it gets fun Going for the "But *I* Can" argument here, but then again it's true: Having the XT turrets and either forge or swarm fitted, it is *I* who's doing the hunting in ADS vs HAV combat. It's tricky yes hitting the DS with main turret but it does not require for the DS pilot to make a big mistake. Usually time is on the HAVs side as by clever maneuvering DS can never do a full effective emptying a clip. Even smaller changes in terrain can give an angle to hit DS - and when XTs hit it's ou baby baby...! DS advantage is the top dead angle where HAV can't shoot, he can go there for a breather as a more offensive option than ABing totally away. Having small rails which could track would definately be enough, having similar weps but huge HAV HP and regeneration, it would at least be a discouraging turret. PS: there is nothing wrong in having close to a stalemate in 1 vs 1 situation WITH easy kills when 2 vs 1ing someone. Does that reming you of anything else than 2 HAV operators versus one DS....??? Any ideas...?
Rockets are very easy to avoid, many people knows this. It is a known fact.
On top of that, Rockets are taking about t 2/3's DPS nerf, give or take. So it'll be even worse.
Again, hopping out of a HAV at te last second or during the fight probably won't exist in the future (which is okay). Regardless, killing the pilot is a thing.
And yes, it really does. If the ADS pilot isn't a idiot, or doesn't just fail, he/she won't get hit.
And the ADS can't simply fly higher, negating that?
Again, if you want to say "It's completely fine, no change needed." Then either prove it with examples, or shut it.
EDIT: What I'm trying to suggest is put IN the stalemate. Currently, that doesn't exist.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 02:59:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Again, if you want to say "It's completely fine, no change needed." Then either prove it with examples, or shut it.
EDIT: What I'm trying to suggest is put IN the stalemate. Currently, that doesn't exist. So, the HAV doesn't have far higher EHP and higher DPS, even after the changes? and in return has far less flexibility of movement, giving rise to a relatively small angle in which it cannot attack one kind of enemy? Thing is, DSs have very little use in the game as is. The effectiveness vs HAVs is fairly limited, and I have shown that with numbers (like how a maxed out ADS took around 25 seconds to kill a half awake, terrible HAV operator), such that by giving the HAV less disadvantage in this situation is tantamount to making the ADS essentially irrelevant as far as the HAV vs ADS balance is concerned. Even with a buff to DS EHP, the HAV still has more (and rightly so) and more DPS - so where is the fairness for the DS? Surely if the HAV has little to no disadvantage engaging, then shouldn't the DS get EHP/DPS much closer to the HAV has?
eHP changes time, and DPS only helps if you can actually hit the ADS, and consistently. That simply doesn't exist. Try again.
Also, the ADS can easily escape AND return.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 03:30:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:It is dumb jerks like Godin who have NO idea what the hell they are talking about which has led us to the situation where ADS/DS really can't do much of anything right now. He wants even MORE taken from them. It is already really easy to kill an ADS if you ******* wait for it to engage.
Seeing as I've been asking for more things for DS's, that is a blatant lie.
Get out if you're going to slander me.
EDIT: Also, again, prove it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 03:50:00 -
[65] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:Assault Dropships ARE gunships until they release actual non-transport air vehicles. They work as intended and those who make them work in the current environment of super-speedy swarms should get kudos.
I am down for more things, but your constant, endless push to have them only as transport and not viable in engaging your weak tanks is just sad dude.
False statements, read the thread, or get out.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 03:51:00 -
[66] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:I play vehicles far more than you and unless I am in a PC with like THREE dropships attacking me at once, I'm fine!
What you need to do is have a mic, have squaddies and maybe put 1-2 turrets on your tank to carry a guy with AV. Your axial turret can also tag pesky dropships.
I don't give a **** about PC, and in total, I've most likely have played vehicles much more than you have.
Also, broken statements, read the thread.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 03:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:The only way for an ADS not to get killed by me in a conflict is to keep moving rapidly, effectively making him useless against other tanks and infantry or for him to hover above me and I move randomly in order to break his tracking on me. Otherwise, that ADS WILL die if he engages for too long, not to mention the swarms, forge, plasma cannons, wonky physics of flight being also treacherous.
Sad thing is, he wraps up his bullshit in a neat little bow that, to the untrained eye, comes off like a jewel, but is his same old rehashed bullshit.
Nobody has said this, at least in a public area. A lot of you have the Judge's attitude of things, I get that. Still not called for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 04:11:00 -
[68] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:
Going for the "But *I* Can" argument here, but then again it's true:
Having the XT turrets and either forge or swarm fitted, it is *I* who's doing the hunting in ADS vs HAV combat.
It's tricky yes hitting the DS with main turret but it does not require for the DS pilot to make a big mistake. Usually time is on the HAVs side as by clever maneuvering DS can never do a full effective emptying a clip.
Even smaller changes in terrain can give an angle to hit DS - and when XTs hit it's ou baby baby...!
DS advantage is the top dead angle where HAV can't shoot, he can go there for a breather as a more offensive option than ABing totally away.
Having small rails which could track would definately be enough, having similar weps but huge HAV HP and regeneration, it would at least be a discouraging turret.
PS: there is nothing wrong in having close to a stalemate in 1 vs 1 situation WITH easy kills when 2 vs 1ing someone. Does that reming you of anything else than 2 HAV operators versus one DS....??? Any ideas...?
Rockets are very easy to avoid, many people knows this. It is a known fact. On top of that, Rockets are taking about t 2/3's DPS nerf, give or take. So it'll be even worse. Again, hopping out of a HAV at te last second or during the fight probably won't exist in the future (which is okay). Regardless, killing the pilot is a thing. And yes, it really does. If the ADS pilot isn't a idiot, or doesn't just fail, he/she won't get hit. And the ADS can't simply fly higher, negating that? Again, if you want to say "It's completely fine, no change needed." Then either prove it with examples, or shut it. EDIT: What I'm trying to suggest is put IN the stalemate. Currently, that doesn't exist. No. I'm talking about how it is now. I'm not speculating what might be. You said that turrets can't do a thing to DSs. I say missiles can in proper hands. Missile installation turrets are easy to avoid and many people know it and it is a known fact. Tank missile rockets are not easy to avoid once tank has a firing solution - there is no avoiding as there is not enough reaction time. Only experienced dropship pilots know that. 2 seconds and all missiles are out with improved accuracy. It takes 0,5 for server lag, 0,5s for recocnising the incoming fire and some time to hit AB. And AB having effect takes about 2 seconds on top of that. Hitting 80% of missiles downs practically all DSs. Once again, of course that to happen needs a firing angle better than just scraping the tail.
I avoid them all the time.
Again, show me proof of otherwise. I'm waiting.
Also, Rockets are getting nerfed on top of that, they'll be even worse.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2935
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 04:12:00 -
[69] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Mary Sedillo wrote:I play vehicles far more than you and unless I am in a PC with like THREE dropships attacking me at once, I'm fine!
What you need to do is have a mic, have squaddies and maybe put 1-2 turrets on your tank to carry a guy with AV. Your axial turret can also tag pesky dropships. I don't give a **** about PC, and in total, I've most likely have played vehicles much more than you have. Also, broken statements, read the thread. Not in interject but assuming Dustboard date is when you started..... Godin has you by 2 months...... or its the other way around.....
Not to mention that this isn't even my first character, that one is months older than this one.
EDIT: That date is January the 10th, the first day dust was on TQ. Technically, this character is from Closed Beta, and I created it that past September. The first character I made was made the first day I played (obviously), sometime in January of 2012, give or take a month or two (memory going that far back is fuzzy).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2936
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 22:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Mary Sedillo wrote:I play vehicles far more than you and unless I am in a PC with like THREE dropships attacking me at once, I'm fine!
What you need to do is have a mic, have squaddies and maybe put 1-2 turrets on your tank to carry a guy with AV. Your axial turret can also tag pesky dropships. I don't give a **** about PC, and in total, I've most likely have played vehicles much more than you have. Also, broken statements, read the thread. Well then, seems you don't know that the real test of a pilot lies in PC.
I've played and stomped in PC. I'm past that ****, and I don't feel like returning until they make it at least not a ******* scrublord paradise.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2936
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 22:47:00 -
[71] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:Okkkaaaaay. Can we just drop it?
Make compromise... If my micro turret idea is good, no need for AV tank pilots. It's good for us ADS pilots because they don't need to jump out and "boom." (aka shouldnt be able to)
And good for tanks cause they have the angle (aka not playing chicken)
No lower flight ceiling. AV *WILL* take us all over the place... Just take a rooftop and it's over.
Missile turrets have the momentum to flip over dropships. AT turrets do enough to kill before using all missiles.
We can't assume, we can only work with numbers.
"I" and opinion doesn't work. Just facts, so stop the bickering Please
I'm not the one who's trying to stop progress (rather push it), but compromise is great.
And with this change, a lower flight ceiling isn't needed, although, something occurred to me: how would you have the turret turn at a reasonable pace, but not make the actual turret turn so fast? Maybe It not be a coaxial, but another top turret?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2936
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 22:49:00 -
[72] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:ADS can barely do anything these days.
It is not like a normal DS so transporting players is out of the question since landing at any speed can kill it unless you are armor and for it to be a gunship it needs to be able to deliver high damage to the target which frankly it doesnt do well.
Add in AV and swarms make it useless and a FG can just go right through it.
ADS do not bother HAV at all unless its PC but even then they are knocking links off of towers or dualing each other while a HAV takes a potshot now and again.
The ADS needs a proper buff to make it worthwhile. And I've discussed all of this in the OP. L2R Well you havnt because you want to nerf the ADS a bit more and change a few things like the flight celing even lower so you have a higher chance of hitting the ADS and asking for more turret elevation. It just comes off as a whine thread about a vehicle which frankly is all but useless except if it is in the hands of the very best pilots.
Negative. Wrong. I've not said an of that. In fact, the opposite. Again, I've addressed all that you said in the OP. L2R.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2943
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 20:38:00 -
[73] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:
No. I'm talking about how it is now. I'm not speculating what might be.
You said that turrets can't do a thing to DSs. I say missiles can in proper hands.
Missile installation turrets are easy to avoid and many people know it and it is a known fact.
Tank missile rockets are not easy to avoid once tank has a firing solution - there is no avoiding as there is not enough reaction time. Only experienced dropship pilots know that.
2 seconds and all missiles are out with improved accuracy. It takes 0,5 for server lag, 0,5s for recocnising the incoming fire and some time to hit AB. And AB having effect takes about 2 seconds on top of that.
Hitting 80% of missiles downs practically all DSs. Once again, of course that to happen needs a firing angle better than just scraping the tail.
I avoid them all the time. Again, show me proof of otherwise. I'm waiting. Also, Rockets are getting nerfed on top of that, they'll be even worse. Okay, I'll bite. http://youtu.be/2BUVTOwsoTEI Have a lot more clips but sadly I lack proper vid editing tools to compile them and not gonna litter the channel with dozens of small clips. The said clips are not all about me downing DSs left and right, some are showing the limitations of turret elevation, me screwing up a kill shot - and even a rare case of me losing tank to dropships only although there was three of them.
That Pilot was ******* horrible.
And that was again, only one example.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2943
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 20:45:00 -
[74] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Shamarskii Simon wrote:Okkkaaaaay. Can we just drop it?
Make compromise... If my micro turret idea is good, no need for AV tank pilots. It's good for us ADS pilots because they don't need to jump out and "boom." (aka shouldnt be able to)
And good for tanks cause they have the angle (aka not playing chicken)
No lower flight ceiling. AV *WILL* take us all over the place... Just take a rooftop and it's over.
Missile turrets have the momentum to flip over dropships. AT turrets do enough to kill before using all missiles.
We can't assume, we can only work with numbers.
"I" and opinion doesn't work. Just facts, so stop the bickering Please I'm not the one who's trying to stop progress (rather push it), but compromise is great. And with this change, a lower flight ceiling isn't needed, although, something occurred to me: how would you have the turret turn at a reasonable pace, but not make the actual turret turn so fast? Maybe It not be a coaxial, but another top turret? Depends. Infantry slaying for one will come w/ faster rotation. Also, switching will get disorienting if it's up top and off center AND turns faster ANND you'll be moving. (too lazy for comma's...) it also stays w/ your original idea of just increasing elevation and could satisfy the opposition by making it a smaller, slightly weaker turret. You get the shots in, we have long TTK, more fun than just mk.0'in to death, too. Voting would be nice to have atm. EDIT: between small and large rotation. I see what you mean. Put it like ontop of the turret's barrel or something? Lol positioning will be weird. -off topic- yknow what i mean? I've been wondering if we Could meet in the middle since your last forum topic on this, and well... it feels achievable here.
I also want to point out that elevation would be really wonky without it.
Also, the Germans made something similar (having guns positioned upwards) for their heavy fighters (Japanese too), and in War thunder you can actually switch to them to control and fire them. It's not very disorienting from what I've used of them. Flying straight is still a thing (but I use a flight stick, so that makes sense). I imagine that having this would be similar to that.
Meeting in the middle is what balance essentially is. It creates a situation to where skill makes the decisions of how engagements goes.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:01:00 -
[75] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:
No. I'm talking about how it is now. I'm not speculating what might be.
You said that turrets can't do a thing to DSs. I say missiles can in proper hands.
Missile installation turrets are easy to avoid and many people know it and it is a known fact.
Tank missile rockets are not easy to avoid once tank has a firing solution - there is no avoiding as there is not enough reaction time. Only experienced dropship pilots know that.
2 seconds and all missiles are out with improved accuracy. It takes 0,5 for server lag, 0,5s for recocnising the incoming fire and some time to hit AB. And AB having effect takes about 2 seconds on top of that.
Hitting 80% of missiles downs practically all DSs. Once again, of course that to happen needs a firing angle better than just scraping the tail.
I avoid them all the time. Again, show me proof of otherwise. I'm waiting. Also, Rockets are getting nerfed on top of that, they'll be even worse. Okay, I'll bite. http://youtu.be/2BUVTOwsoTEI Have a lot more clips but sadly I lack proper vid editing tools to compile them and not gonna litter the channel with dozens of small clips. The said clips are not all about me downing DSs left and right, some are showing the limitations of turret elevation, me screwing up a kill shot - and even a rare case of me losing tank to dropships only although there was three of them. That Pilot was ******* horrible. And that was again, only one example. edit: Also, you must keep in mind that soon, Rocket turrets won't do nearly as much burst damage as well. By the looks of it, you are just gonna keep asking for example after example after example. ANYTHING can be shot down by saying "that's just one isolated incident" - no proof will ever be enough. Thank goodness I did not go thru uploading all cases. Also, anything can also be shot down by saying that the victim did make a mistake. Gee-whizz, if they wouldn't have made mistakes they wouldn't have died at all, ever. What it takes is a small opportunity. Like in a game of chess and the like, who makes the first mistake loses. And again, I'm talking about how things are now, not how they might be.
Because the one example you finally did you me that had a HAV gunning down a ADS is ****** due to the fact that it was a garbage pilot flying, and all the other ones were simply invalid, as either they haven't been shown in practice, or they didn't prove anything, or even further proved my point.
That's like me saying that blasters was OP, and that I could snipe people at over a 100m's, and when people asked for proof, I showed a 30 second long clip of me firing at a heavy that is simply not moving as my end all evidence.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:04:00 -
[76] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:[quoBy the looks of it, you are just gonna keep asking for example after example after example.
ANYTHING can be shot down by saying "that's just one isolated incident" - no proof will ever be enough.
Thank goodness I did not go thru uploading all cases. Yeah, it's pretty much why I don't want to let Godin push these changes. So much hinges on Godin's opinions that seem to match very few others'. I also generally hate Godin's vilification of anyone who disagrees. I want balance as much as the next person, but the proposals don't, as far as many peoples' experiences show, actually help balance anything and calling them 'progress' is simply changing something for the sake of changing something. Change is not always better and the current state of ADS/HAV combat is pretty balanced unless you're as godlike/utterly **** as Godin seems to be. Are there things that need some work? Of course, the entire game is needs some core mechanics reworked and some parts definitely need to be looked at, but HAV/ADS balance is close to spot on when two equally skilled players are fighting. But just remember, if Godin says something is broken, it obviously is and we're just bad at the game and/or want to have an unfair advantage.[/sarcasm] 
I don't vilifcate people, they do that themselves by simply saying "No, **** you, no change required, stop being the scrub.".
I've still yet to see otherwise that you're claiming to see.
No, this changes for the better. You've yet to prove why.
That's your opinion. You've yet to prove that as fact.
And again, that's your opinion. You still haven't proven that as fact.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I know of at least 10 others that although agree with me, just simply don't want to deal with it, because of a lot of Pilots that refuses progress, kinda like what you're doing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2944
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 14:42:00 -
[77] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I don't vilifcate people, they do that themselves by simply saying "No, **** you, no change required, stop being the scrub.".
No, this changes for the better. You've yet to prove why. You've yet to prove that this would be a change for a better. Even though you refuse to admit it, all you have been doing is saying that it would be and that anyone who disagrees is just trying to shout you down. I honestly don't think that your elevation changes would be good for the health of HAV/ADS balance, because HAVs would just blap ADSs a ton, even with large turret DPS reductions. Godin Thekiller wrote:I've still yet to see otherwise that you're claiming to see.
That's your opinion. You've yet to prove that as fact.
And again, that's your opinion. You still haven't proven that as fact. Kettle, Pot. Godin Thekiller wrote:EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I know of at least 10 others that although agree with me, just simply don't want to deal with it, because of a lot of Pilots that refuses progress, kinda like what you're doing. Why not have them just post and go? Or post on your seven hundred alts? Again, I'm butting heads with you because I genuinely think your elevation idea is a bad one. I barely fly any more because AV is so ridiculously irritating to deal with, but if I got shot by every HAV on the field, there'd be no reason for me to ever use an ADS, even though I want to use an ADS more than any other thing in the game. Rooftop links? Just take a viper up there. So yeah, I'm an ADS advocate, but my opposition of your elevation idea is not out of a want to see ADSs OP against HAVs (like you claim they are) but because I believe that this change would render all dropships pretty much obsolete, even with an EHP buff.
It's not my alts, unless Pokey and Break in is my alts, among others vov
Every change has the uncertainty to not work. Stats don't solve issues, at least not fully. And no, people has disagreed with me, and yet was still able to work with
Well, it's true.
And as I said, several times now, the ways to do it are debatable. Instead of doing what Shamarskii Simon did and actually GAVE OTHER IDEAS (note: he doesn't like it either, and I wasn't even sure about it), you simply shut the entire thing down. That is why I said you and others are being unreasonable.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2950
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:33:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:And as I said, several times now, the ways to do it are debatable. Instead of doing what Shamarskii Simon did and actually GAVE OTHER IDEAS (note: he doesn't like it either, and I wasn't even sure about it), you simply shut the entire thing down. That is why I said you and others are being unreasonable. I honestly don't think a change is needed. And I think a change along the lines of your proposal (ie, increased elevation) would be bad for balance. What change do I suggest? None, because I think the situation is not broken. You think the opposite, and that's the extent of it. You are not inherently right just because you are campaigning for change.
And then I would say again, prove that I am wrong, because I still have not seen otherwise.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
| |
|