|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1788
   |
Posted - 2015.02.23 21:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.
The answer
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1789
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 00:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
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...?
The answer
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1790
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 03:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
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.
The answer
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1793
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 03:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
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/2BUVTOwsoTE
I Have a lot more clips but sadly I lack proper vid editing tools to compile them and not gonna litter the channel with dozen 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.
The answer
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1806
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 00:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
The answer
|
|
|
| |
|