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.

Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting?

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).

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.

No.

As revealed in your other thread, your end goal is to make dropships incapable of destroying HAVs:


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.

This I support, it would increase the teamwork involved in using vehicles and deal with the apparent 'problem'

Godin I have to say this...

You are by far the most butthurt noob I have EVER seen complaining about vehicles

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.

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.

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)

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.

That would make the change moot then, as they would need a greater increase for a even lower optimal.

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.

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.

Godin, you do seem to be the only tanker that has an issue with the current set up

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.

You do realize that nobody wants to shocktroop. Most of the maps are too small for it anyway.

A noob would imply that I'm new. I've played far before you probably even knew about Dust.

If you want to force teamwork for one, force teamwork for all.

I personally don't want forced teamwork anywhere. Optional teamwork works better.

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.

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!

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