|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
   |
Posted - 2012.08.01 05:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
There are a few reasons why Dropship crushing is so prevalent in the current build:
1. Free militia vehicles - NOT going to happen in later builds, or post-release.
2. Lack of coordinated teamwork means that you're not being backed up by AV guys against the dropship, AND means that the pilot's struggling to find willing gunners.
3. Wonky turret mechanics mean it's hard to fire where you're actually aiming while in motion, and keeping up movement is important to avoid AV fire.
When these LEGITIMATE issues are fixed, Dropship crushing will be less of a problem.
And a VERY definite NO to the 360-Ü turret idea. That would negate the possibility of landing, which is kind of an important thing for Dropships to be doing. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 05:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:Lurchasaurus wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:Stephiano Daphiti wrote:once milita vehicles are removed again this problem will fix itself :) But what about one 360 turret instead of two 180 why, you havent even seen what a fighter can do Dropships seem more of a ground attack vehicles than fighters( just a guess) and a single 360 turret seems more efficient because the current turrets don't cover the front or back
In my experience (getting attacked by Dropships AND as a gunner for one), you can hit targets in front and behind well enough.
And as I mentioned, a 360-Ü turret would either be useless on top or get in the way of landing.
And as an added bonus, it would make teamwork less important.
Also, Dropships are troop transports, NOT ground attack weapons.
Inertial dampeners don't negate the requirement to land when the pilot is getting out, by the way. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:The pilots also have ID's, the armor that functions as landing stilts would keep it from getting in the way, it already doesn't have much of a vertical turn radius, and i didn't mean it as something to dominate the groung just what it already is, something to take out light armoured targets (infantry and lavs)
Also why would they need to get out other than bailing
No idea how pilot ID means a thing in relation to what I was saying. Please explain.
And those "landing stilts" aren't large enough to cover a turret.
And Dropships can already dominate ground targets if they're flown well, but this would reduce the skill requirement to achieve it.
And why would they need to get out? Maybe to let someone else take over piloting, or to switch vehicles (leaving it in the background), or to repair it with a repair tool if there's no armour repper, or it's on cooldown, or if you've lost your gunners and need to capture something, or if you want to speed up the capture process on a critical objective.
Not to mention under-belly turrets on transport helicopters is a stupid design decision and there's plenty of good reasons not to do it in the real world as well. Your gunner would be even more vulnerable than the gunners are now, for one. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
limited forward-arc (and more importantly, pilot-controlled) guns like the examples you've provided aren't what was meant by "underbelly turrets" and will be covered by COMBAT aircraft rather than TRANSPORT vehicles. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
I wasn't meaning to imply you were ASKING for pilot-controlled weapons on Dropships. Sorry. I was trying to say that your EXAMPLES were pilot-controlled weapons and not actual underbelly turrets like you're asking for. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:They CAN be controlled by pilots but they are usually controlled by GUNNERS
And the turrets in this game CAN'T be controlled by pilots and are MANNED by gunners, not controlled from inside the cockpit, which would alter the dynamic and reduce the vulnerabilities of the vehicle by a significant margin, further emphasising the lack of support for teamwork in your suggestion. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:What if the gunner stayed in the same spot?
If the gunner stayed in the same spot, we're back to the overly-vulnerable, lack of teamwork, and not practical for real-world consideration arguments.
Door gunners on transport helicopters make sense. A gunner underneath the same transport helicopter wouldn't be practical, which is why nobody does it.
Door gunners on Dropships make sense for the same reason, and gunners on the bottom of the Dropship make less sense for the same reason. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:I mean the gun on the bottom but not the gunner and if door gunners made the most sense they would also be on attack helicopters
They make the most sense for a transport, which is why we have them. Fighters and other combat fliers aren't implemented in DUST yet, which is why that's not relevant.
And that gun on the bottom doesn't usually have a full 360-Ü firing arc on attack helicopters OR the transports which have them. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:vermacht Doe wrote:I mean the gun on the bottom but not the gunner and if door gunners made the most sense they would also be on attack helicopters They make the most sense for a transport, which is why we have them. Fighters and other combat fliers aren't implemented in DUST yet, which is why that's not relevant. And that gun on the bottom doesn't usually have a full 360-Ü firing arc on attack helicopters OR the transports which have them. That is because of a usually lack of a mounted camera/ line of sight system , the landing skids in the way, and a forward placement all of which can be fixed in this game
Removing landing skids means you can't land without crushing the turret, which is a bad idea. Changing from forward placement would emphasise that problem, and almost completely negate the viability of the weapon for aerial combat, which is half the reason it's worth having. The side-mounted weapons we have on Dropships now are useful for anti-air as well as supporting allies on the ground.
And you're still not addressing the fact that cutting back to only the pilot and one gunner is a reduction in teamwork requirements to make the Dropship viable. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:What about a gun on top and bottom, both with 360 controls and the landing skids already retract
That would make one weapon only viable for anti-air, and the other only useful for anti-ground, and that would be quite interesting.
I don't think it suits for Dropships though, and redesigning everything just to redesign things seems wasteful, but this would be nice on a "Bomber" type aircraft with a large main turret on the bottom and a light turret on top, with a fixed forward-firing light weapon under the pilot's control. |
|
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
vermacht Doe wrote:Good point but i was looking for a way to make one gunner as good as two, increasing on ground infantry
And that's exactly why I have a problem with the idea when it comes to Dropships. |
|
|
| |
|