| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
   |
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:47:00 -
[31] - 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. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: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.
What if the gunner stayed in the same spot? |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:21:00 -
[33] - 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. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:24:00 -
[34] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: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.
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 |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:34:00 -
[35] - 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. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
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 |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:13:00 -
[37] - 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. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
What about a gun on top and bottom, both with 360 controls and the landing skids already retract |
Dewie Cheecham
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
677
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:26:00 -
[39] - Quote
Debacle Nano wrote:Dropship crushing is fine they just need to tone it down a bit.
Drop Ships need to take more damage from hitting the ground, and other items, and to answer the OP, just as the CRU is disabled on a Drop Ship sitting on the ground, you could to the same for the guns. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:29:00 -
[40] - Quote
Dewie Cheecham wrote:Debacle Nano wrote:Dropship crushing is fine they just need to tone it down a bit. Drop Ships need to take more damage from hitting the ground, and other items, and to answer the OP, just as the CRU is disabled on a Drop Ship sitting on the ground, you could to the same for the guns.
You should work for ccp +1 |
|
|
Tak Kak
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:37:00 -
[41] - Quote
I actually think the damage for crashing should be toned up a bit, as much as I like to crush heavies.... Maybe all of your shields on first crash ect. logic as follows. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:46:00 -
[42] - 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. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 10:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: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.
Good point but i was looking for a way to make one gunner as good as two, increasing on ground infantry |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:03:00 -
[44] - 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. |
vermacht Doe
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:04:00 -
[45] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: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.
Explain what you mean |
Rhadiem
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
496
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 23:59:00 -
[46] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:
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.
I'd love to see bombs in Dust. Even without them, I'd love to see this sort of attack dropship in the game.. or even give the pilot a large fixed turret and the gunner a light turret on the nose for anti-air protection and light ground fire.
It would be really challenging for a pilot or gunner to use railguns as they are currently implemented (with charge up, then fire mechanics), but really powerful if mastered. Sitting still would be the easiest way, but open yourself up for forge cannon fire. |
Ire's thug
GunFall Mobilization
Covert Intervention
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 01:51:00 -
[47] - Quote
AWww! not this argument again! 
Listen, if the pilot wants to risk the Isk of putting himself in a vulnerable position i.e low flight then let him! Take it from me, the most effective pilots wont have to crush you cause they will have awesome gunners. Most of the people i crush are running waay out in the open but i don't make it a point to sit on top of a spawn trying to crush people that means you have to be low and slow... and that's no good ya know. 
Dropships cost money. SoonGäó they will cost more. Hey, we've all been crushed by dropships but now that people are playing with forge guns you'll notice dropships aren't so bad after all.  |
lDocHollidayl
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
171
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 02:03:00 -
[48] - Quote
I have not read all the posts but one thing that needs addressing on dropship squashing is their stealth. They do not show up on my radar. That is a rather large and loud vehicle. For my radar not to recognize this is a little "off". One second I am running around then boom squashed. I feel like my clone is deaf and blind... that bright light is not always so obvious in time. |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 02:26:00 -
[49] - Quote
Debacle Nano wrote:Dropship crushing is fine they just need to tone it down a bit.
Its a legitimate tactic, what is wrong with it at the moment is that flying along scraping along the ground does no damage.
Also, without grouping added in, nobody is coordinating to take out these threats. If someone was dropship squishing my corp once grouping is added, they will lose a nice expensive dropship pretty fast, or quit doing it. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |