DUST Search - Clarification for ADS acting as a Gunship

Godin Thekiller wrote:

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.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Stile451 Red Star. 387	Posted - 2015.02.21 00:02:00 - [1] - Quote 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.
Stile451 Red Star. 387	Posted - 2015.02.21 09:01:00 - [2] - Quote 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.
Stile451 Red Star. 388	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:23:00 - [3] - Quote 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).
Stile451 Red Star. 388	Posted - 2015.02.22 06:17:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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? 1. You don't think a vehicle piloted by a single person that can adequately defend against and attack all enemies isn't at least doing "everything well"? 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. 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. 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.
Stile451 Red Star. 391	Posted - 2015.02.22 18:22:00 - [5] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. Tanks already had a large turret nerf against infantry, it doesn't seem to have done much after tankers adjusted to it. 1. Yes there is more to this game than combat, but you have specifically asked for a change to the combat system. Infantry can be very strong but only in one ability at a time. Having everything be able to deal with everything defeats the rock paper scissors mechanic the game is built on. 2. Yes ADS are more maneuverable but unless you're really good with them you can't get enough hits on a tank to make it worth attacking it - a few misses and a reload later they're back to full health or near it. Aside from that a tank can move into cover of one sort or another and can sprout infantry AV fairly easily negating the ability of the ADS to remain in the area at all or even stay alive. I was specifically remarking on how your experience while using ADS differs from mine. You say ADS is easy mode while I have a very different experience. We don't all get easy ADS games. By small HP buff I mean something like 300 HP, by large something along the lines of 1000 HP. I don't want flying tanks. Flux hardener sounds good if you mean short duration with high damage reduction. 3. Again, don't want flying tanks. I don't care about carrying infantry in an ADS(they're likely to steal your DS if you get out to place a link or something) - remove the seats and I would be happier. Ok, so I read the OP again last night and for some reason I thought you were offering two solutions. The first was angle changes and the second was severe reduction of ADS weapon strength(which you never actually mentioned but I assumed that's what you wanted based on your constant attempts at belittling the "assault" in "assault dropship") with bonuses to WP(lack of sleep does wonderful things but I don't think your labeling helped). I read it again today and it seems they're supposed to work together. I do not like that you want the flight ceiling lowered. This will lower the survivability of the ADS too much as this is their only safe haven on the battlefield aside from a handful of tall buildings(and even then the buildings aren't necessarily safe). I think that the largest usable angle should go to missiles as they are currently the turret which requires the most skill for long range shots. The second would be rail guns but not too much as their range is quite high. The least would be the blaster turret as, even though it has the lowest range, it will make it much more effective against infantry that have no other recourse than to get above a blaster tank if they want to avoid or attack it. More rewards are great but rewards for logistics duties will still be mainly for standard dropships(although it would be nice to see scout and logistics dropships).
Stile451 Red Star. 391	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:31:00 - [6] - Quote 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.
Stile451 Red Star. 392	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:39:00 - [7] - Quote 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.