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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not in interject but assuming Dustboard date is when you started..... Godin has you by 2 months...... or its the other way around.....

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.

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.

And I've discussed all of this in the OP. L2R

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.".
No, this changes for the better. You've yet to prove why.

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.

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.

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.


Kettle, Pot.


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.

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.