-1 would not vote for CPM

+1

Thank you for your support.

your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements.

your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements.

Do you understand how the sidegun mechanics work? There are numerous issues with them that wouldn't be present in a frontal gunner position.

Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down.

You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.

Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down.

You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.

When you deploy in your dropsuit, you need a second player to aim your gun. Do that and we can talk.

Sweet, so lets have Sentinels with the HP of a tank then? Thats according to your logic. Brilliant.

Compare apples to apples then why dont you try talking again.

With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design.

mathematically if it is underneath it does not have a 360 degrees turning.

i think u need to work on your maths before dust 514

+1, also if you ever played BF3-4 or whenever there was an attack helicopter, you'll know that it can very good to be the gunner, also another +1 because I like the tanker perspective of having to rely more on gunners and moving and modules, makes for more required teamwork and makes for more attentive gameplay and less crying since the main tank gunner can be shooting while looking behind itself without hitting any obstacles, because their separate seat's, plenty of time I shot and killed a tank with swarm's because they ran into the terrain trying to get away from me.

Lately IGÇÖve been considering running for CPM 2, but truth be told with a big move coming up in August and trying to go back to school in the fall I have entirely too much on my plate to be trying to add that to it.

Thus, I shall remove myself permanently from consideration by posting the following:

Redesigning Vehicle Progression (More Teamwork - Less Master Chief)

I will reiterate a point I have made many times in the past that had me quickly shouted down by the GÇ£Pro TankersGÇ¥ of earlier years: the idea that a high enough skillpoint investment should render a single player nigh-unkillable is rather silly.

What I would first recommend is the adjustment of HAVs to at minimum require a dedicated driver and dedicated gunner, and to redesign the Assault Dropship such that it has an additional internal seat that controls an independent turret under the nose rather than the current system.

What this does is require that players who skill into these vehicles buddy up with someone good with a turret same as an LAV or Dropship pilot has to. The oft-used justification of it being a vehicle that is used to demand that multiple AV players be required to destroy it should involve a greater multiplayer requirement on the part of the user.

I would also point out that this would allow the vehicles in question to prosecute targets while retaining full mobility, which would give them better survivability on the field. Part of why Lai Dai Packed AV Grenades are so deadly is because in most cases the HAV user who dies to them is stopped in order to aim accurately with his turret. With a separate gunner the driver can keep the HAV moving while the gunner engages targets.

With this model, the driver is focused solely on maneuvering and module activation, and would also receive Vehicle Kill Assist WP for every kill by each of the vehicleGÇÖs turrets. If you were to combine that with running a scanner for Intel Kill Assist and also placing a Defend order on the vehicle for that bonus, the driver would be getting more WP per kill than the gunners doing the killing, making it well worth it for the driver.



For anyone who hasnGÇÖt already hit Reply to start ranting about what a brainless moron who hates fun that I am, I now get to the more long-term section of this proposal:



Solo Vehicles (Big Investment for Master Chief Status)

What is one thing that both jets and mechs have in pretty much any game that features them?

They only require one player.

The idea here is that Fighters and MTACs would offer solo-playability in a vehicle in exchange for maxing out the section of the vehicle tree that comes before them. MTACs would also come in size classes such that they would be accessible without too much of an SP investment, but a player who wants the biggest and baddest one would need to invest a butt-ton of SP. For example.

LAV V > Light MTAC
MAV V> Medium MTAC
HAV V> Heavy MTAC

The size classes for aircraft made me think that we could redo the vehicle skill tree to have aircraft skills split by size class. The Fighters shown in the 2009 stage demo and concept artwork are the size of HAVs, but real-life jets are larger than tanks in any case, so the Heavy ones might actually be bigger than that. The Aircraft skills would unlock multi-person VTOL aircraft like with the ground vehicle skills, with Level V of each of those skills unlocking single-seater fixed-wing aircraft.

Light Aircraft V > Light Fighter
Medium Aircraft V > Medium Fighter
Heavy Aircraft V > Heavy Fighter

Now, while these Fighters and MTACs would allow solo vehicle play, they each come with drawbacks to counter the increased abilities

MTAC Advantages:
1. Greater mobility afforded by legs (strafing, possibly limited jumping)
2. No requirement for a gunner
3. Greater variety in weapon fitting based on size class
MTAC Disadvantages:
1. Taller than other vehicles in their size class which impedes use of cover
2. Lower overall HP as a tradeoff for higher mobility
3. Heavy hits to legs can cause them to temporarily stumble and slow

Fighter Advantages:
1. Very fast
2. Can carry single-use weapons with varying abilities (bombs, guided missiles)
3. No requirement of gunner
Fighter Disadvantages:
1. Very low HP
2. Limited ability to reduce speed in flight, leaving small attack windows
3. All guns are fixed so VTOL canGÇÖt be used to make weapons more effective

This way a player can choose to make a very large SP investment in exchange for receiving solo vehicles, but those solo vehicles still retain enough balancing factors to prevent them from dominating the field.

Now tell me how much I suck.

Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down.

You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.

No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants.

Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun.
This is why dropships usually slow down before firing.

No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants.

Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun.
This is why dropships usually slow down before firing.

A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention:

My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else.

Care to elaborate.