|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
vermacht Doe
93
   |
Posted - 2012.07.31 11:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
The current method works a little better and most things that fall from space to solid land end up wrecked |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 11:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
4447 wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:The current method works a little better and most things that fall from space to solid land end up wrecked http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18933037if we can do it then i think dust 514 would have a better way to get weapons to the ground?
You do realize it used parachutes and weight thousands times less right? |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 12:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Grit Breather wrote:AND required about 3 years of number crunching just to get the trajectory right for a good landing.
Exactly it shouldn't be done on a dime |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 12:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
4447 wrote:your forgetting eve is "Set more than 21,000 years in the future", and we're in 2012. so if eve is "21,000 years in the future", they would have surpassed quantum computers meaning a landing something would have been done in a nano second.
The vehicle delivery system will be people controlled meaning you'll rely on someone to make sure you get your vehicle |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 12:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
4447 wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:4447 wrote:your forgetting eve is "Set more than 21,000 years in the future", and we're in 2012. so if eve is "21,000 years in the future", they would have surpassed quantum computers meaning a landing something would have been done in a nano second. The vehicle delivery system will be people controlled meaning you'll rely on someone to make sure you get your vehicle no it would be computer operated.
It will have to be oked by Eve players |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 13:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
4447 wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:4447 wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:4447 wrote:your forgetting eve is "Set more than 21,000 years in the future", and we're in 2012. so if eve is "21,000 years in the future", they would have surpassed quantum computers meaning a landing something would have been done in a nano second. The vehicle delivery system will be people controlled meaning you'll rely on someone to make sure you get your vehicle no it would be computer operated. It will have to be oked by Eve players why because the drop ship that brings down a tank isn't controlled by a eve player?
Because it comes from their ships |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
4447 wrote:KingBlade82 wrote:4447 wrote:KingBlade82 wrote:4447 wrote:the unit will house the tank, so the tank wonGÇÖt burn up in the atmosphere. ? cant we just bring them down by dropships like they r now? seems simpler if you drop a tank from orbit then there's less casualties also by dropping the tank you can get behind enemy lines faster. by what i mean is if you have a drop ship bring in a tank behind enemy lines they will see you coming. thats thousands of miles per hour though the speed would crush the vehicle based on a number of factors unless the power to land was significantly better than what i can picture in realistic terms plus the mechanic isnt broken so i dont think it needs fixed the tank is in re entry unit show it wouldn't get crushed.
There really isn't a need to change what's not broken |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Grit Breather wrote:Dewie Cheecham wrote:4447 wrote:i just read a post about a spawning tanks on top of the towers and driving them off the edge. this got me thinking why do tanks need a drop ships to transport them to the ground. why can't tanks be drop out of a ship and then use dampers to land on the ground when you call a tank in?
Better yet, prevent deployment of vehicles on the towers... No. That makes no sense in a physical world. Tanks are already limited on towers and are pretty much sitting ducks with a very limited firing angle. They are a problem in THIS map but not a problem in general. I'm strongly against nerfing of this kind. Tanks (or any vehicle) should be spawnable anywhere that makes physical sense at the discression of the field commander.
Dropped a tank on a building makes sense to you? I guess using an orbital bombardment on one militia also does to you |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
And who are you to decide what should be allowed tower camper |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment |
|
|
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
There's a differences between high ground and buildings that you obviously don't see |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
There's a difference between sniping and camping. Also you think someone hiding in a corner with a shot gun is use full and dud i say i didn't use towers. Pff you not in any place to call someone narrow minded |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
Laheon wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment Actually, I'm an infantryman. The only time I use dropships is to get on top of roofs of buildings (not the towers). I only go up to towers to destroy enemy dropships and/or infantry. I accept it because it's a valid tactic, and anyone who goes up there really exposes themselves to forge gun fire. And, not true about the "mainly tactical" part. Gate camping is using the environment, as is using WH space bonuses.
Gate camping has a tactical element, like taking a cru |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Show me where i said anything was unfair |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
I mean a kdr centered person only looking for more kills, someone no where near objectives |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Or someone randomly running around for kills that actually bring about more defenders |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Of course but it seems like most only look out for their kdr though that may be due to a lack of grouping
|
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Add me on psn: mommy39 a good pilot is a valuable asset but to me a tank on a tower seems to be a waste of an expensive asset |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ok to clear somethings up im a guy and the name was probably karma
Lav drivers are rare and i will happily follow you if you work with me in some corp infiltrating operations |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tak Kak wrote:Grit Breather wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:Add me on psn: mommy39 a good pilot is a valuable asset but to me a tank on a tower seems to be a waste of an expensive asset mommy39?  I'm a terrible pilot/driver. I tend to try finding new tactics and figuring out how to best handle each vehicle. I'm far from being stable in my methods yet. I'm a decent LAV driver though. I managed to get a good feel for the delicate controls on that. Pro tip, as a tank driver refer to all infantry as 'crunchies'.
Even heavies with proto forge? |
|
|
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
Grit Breather wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:Ok to clear somethings up im a guy and the name was probably karma
Lav drivers are rare and i will happily follow you if you work with me in some corp infiltrating operations I don't mind you being a guy or girl. Either way would've been fine. I'll add you when I get back home later today.
Good amd what about the offer to scam small corps |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
Grit Breather wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:Grit Breather wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:Ok to clear somethings up im a guy and the name was probably karma
Lav drivers are rare and i will happily follow you if you work with me in some corp infiltrating operations I don't mind you being a guy or girl. Either way would've been fine. I'll add you when I get back home later today. Good amd what about the offer to scam small corps Let's wait for grouping with that. Right now we can't even plan on ending in the same match together. Forget about being on the same side. 
You gotta plan for the future eve style |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
Grit Breather wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:
You gotta plan for the future eve style
Alright. Let's do it.  Edit: Everyone else just ignore this. Private message which doesn't concern you or your future corp. Nothing to see here... *hums*
Under different aliases of course |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 19:06:00 -
[24] - Quote
zerkin gerend wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:The current method works a little better and most things that fall from space to solid land end up wrecked yea i found that out the hard way what a waist of a clone 
If a shadow is over you that means run |
|
|
| |
|