DUST Search - Add a fixed gun to dropship's

Grit Breather wrote:

I have 2 points.
Firstly, about a forward facing gun on the dropship. I don't think this is a good idea as this is not the purpose of the dropship class. They are, as their name implies, drop-ships. Those are used as transports and nothing else. They are not meant to engage each other in combat. The reason we're seeing a lot of that now is for two reasons. Primarily because that's the only aerial vehicle we currently have but also because the maps are too small and there is no real need for transporting troops (either covertly or under fire). Once the maps get bigger we'll see a lot less of these pilot-only dropships and the dropship air-combat will practically be gone. It's just a bad tactical choice for this vehicle class.
We will also be getting jets (probably only 2013) and gunships. Those are intended as offensive aerial vehicles. The dropships are not and shouldn't be.

My second point is something I've argued repeatedly.
Tower camping isn't a problem. Period. It's a tactical choice.
I agree that with the current build there are some technical issues that make tower camping (same as spawn camping) very effective. This is mainly the draw distance issue. Once these issues are resolved and tower campers won't be "invisible" anymore they will be balanced.
As for why I don't see tower camping as a problem, let me explain.
Tower camping is a problem when executed at irrelevant times. In military history and tactics there are many siturations where you want a sniper on a tower. There could be many reasons for this and a field commander needs to have this option at his disposal.
What's broken now is that we have no real command structures and people do whatever they want. Once proper field commanders are implemented it will all change.
That's my solution to what you call a problem. I'm very much against the game mechanics limiting such behaviour as that would defy the very definition of Dust - A sandbox FPS.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
blqkt2011 RestlessSpirits 25	Posted - 2012.08.08 09:26:00 - [1] - Quote In my opinion the dropships (at least the ones that we pay ISK for) should have at least 1 fixed forward gun or missile launcher for dogfighting and strafing and it can only be used by depressing R3 which takes you into 1st person firing mode. We need some form of defense against other dropshipGÇÖs and ground troop's when we are flying alone because no-one wants to be a gunner. There's been a time when I've been chased all over the map by other dropships with gunners and I get destroyed because I have none. The forward fixed gun would at least give us some type of defense and a fighting chance. This would also help with less tower camper's because they could now fly and gun, instead of having to park in order to gun. It will also help with the pilot gaining some SP (SP is broken for pilot's) instead of walking away with little to nothing that we are getting now, especially since we are the one's putting up the ISK for the dropships and losing our as_es when they get destroyed. Even tank drivers get to use their main gun. Any idea's on this???
Lil Libi 4	Posted - 2012.08.08 09:57:00 - [2] - Quote I dont think that having a forward firing weapon will stop tower campers. simply because it's safer to be up there than down near the ground and the damage you can do with missiles up high will outstrip the forward weapon im sure. An easier way to stop the tower campers would be to lower the ceiling height of the ships so that they cannot camp on top, this would also stop the tank drops their too. Not sure what the answer is but, I agree it needs a solution. Lil Libi
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.08 10:42:00 - [3] - Quote I have 2 points. Firstly, about a forward facing gun on the dropship. I don't think this is a good idea as this is not the purpose of the dropship class. They are, as their name implies, drop-ships. Those are used as transports and nothing else. They are not meant to engage each other in combat. The reason we're seeing a lot of that now is for two reasons. Primarily because that's the only aerial vehicle we currently have but also because the maps are too small and there is no real need for transporting troops (either covertly or under fire). Once the maps get bigger we'll see a lot less of these pilot-only dropships and the dropship air-combat will practically be gone. It's just a bad tactical choice for this vehicle class. We will also be getting jets (probably only 2013) and gunships. Those are intended as offensive aerial vehicles. The dropships are not and shouldn't be. My second point is something I've argued repeatedly. Tower camping isn't a problem. Period. It's a tactical choice. I agree that with the current build there are some technical issues that make tower camping (same as spawn camping) very effective. This is mainly the draw distance issue. Once these issues are resolved and tower campers won't be "invisible" anymore they will be balanced. As for why I don't see tower camping as a problem, let me explain. Tower camping is a problem when executed at irrelevant times. In military history and tactics there are many siturations where you want a sniper on a tower. There could be many reasons for this and a field commander needs to have this option at his disposal. What's broken now is that we have no real command structures and people do whatever they want. Once proper field commanders are implemented it will all change. That's my solution to what you call a problem. I'm very much against the game mechanics limiting such behaviour as that would defy the very definition of Dust - A sandbox FPS.
blqkt2011 RestlessSpirits 25	Posted - 2012.08.08 14:33:00 - [4] - Quote Grit Breather wrote: I have 2 points. Firstly, about a forward facing gun on the dropship. I don't think this is a good idea as this is not the purpose of the dropship class. They are, as their name implies, drop-ships. Those are used as transports and nothing else. They are not meant to engage each other in combat. The reason we're seeing a lot of that now is for two reasons. Primarily because that's the only aerial vehicle we currently have but also because the maps are too small and there is no real need for transporting troops (either covertly or under fire). Once the maps get bigger we'll see a lot less of these pilot-only dropships and the dropship air-combat will practically be gone. It's just a bad tactical choice for this vehicle class. We will also be getting jets (probably only 2013) and gunships. Those are intended as offensive aerial vehicles. The dropships are not and shouldn't be. My second point is something I've argued repeatedly. Tower camping isn't a problem. Period. It's a tactical choice. I agree that with the current build there are some technical issues that make tower camping (same as spawn camping) very effective. This is mainly the draw distance issue. Once these issues are resolved and tower campers won't be "invisible" anymore they will be balanced. As for why I don't see tower camping as a problem, let me explain. Tower camping is a problem when executed at irrelevant times. In military history and tactics there are many siturations where you want a sniper on a tower. There could be many reasons for this and a field commander needs to have this option at his disposal. What's broken now is that we have no real command structures and people do whatever they want. Once proper field commanders are implemented it will all change. That's my solution to what you call a problem. I'm very much against the game mechanics limiting such behaviour as that would defy the very definition of Dust - A sandbox FPS. Nowhere did I say that tower camping was a problem, I said "This would also help with less tower camper's because they could now fly and gun." and that the SP for pilots is broken. A fixed forward gun would help with that. Also dropship's aren't meant for squishing people, but yet they do and take no damage. Me as a part-time pilot would like to see a fixed forward gun on my ship's reguardless of whether or not they're only meant to carry troops. They are costly and I would like some type of defense, or are you against it because a pilot would have an easier time taking out snipers on the towers ???


Pages: 1 :: [one page]