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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

.... 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 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.

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.


This is pinnacle of hypocrisy. You're continued refusal to accept that counters (that dont require teamwork) exist is entirely unreasonable.

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...?

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?

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).

OR

1- Introduce a coaxial turret slot that takes up slightly less fitting than a regular small turret, but it has both less ammo, both per mag and total. Also, it has to be changed to (a sidearm of sorts). (Credits to v for this idea).

omfg, ADS are easy to shoot out of the sky if you had squaddies. ADS's are ALREADY so easy to kill.




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.

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.