DUST Search - Anti-Air: Feedback

All Channels

Line Harvest

Anti-Air: Feedback

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 427	Posted - 2013.01.09 01:37:00 - [1] - Quote I will try my best to give this as unbiased as possible. The map starts out with turrets and supply depots falling from the sky. No problem. That is until I bring up a dropship. The amount of railguns and blasters are ridiculous! In line Harvest, they are everywhere! It seems that these maps have become increasingly HAV biased. The HAV has lots of armor and shields, lots of cover from forges and turrets afar, and supreme turrets to blow away those that are near it. So the HAV has no problem with turrets. They can even get the jump on them and take them out in minimal seconds. They have weaknesses though, which sort of balance it. LAVs can zip by the turrets, so before they can even flinch the LAV is gone behind cover. They lack the armor/shields though, thus balanced. Dropships, on the complete other end of the scale, are visible from everywhere, have slightly below average armor and shields, and are equipped with small turrets, so the weapons are very short ranged. They do move faster than the others. However, when every player can see you, nothing can obscure their LoS, and turrets and supply depots are everywhere, the DS becomes public enemy #1 to milk some WP! Some Turrets have blindspots, but their visibility can exceed 3/4 of the map most times. Supply depots everywhere allow anyone to materialize as a forge or Swarm Launcher and just litter the sky with missiles that even if you can whip past them, you can't evade them because they just pull a 180 in less than a second. Forges are balanced vs ground vehicles, but against the DS, a pilot has no tricks to pull. They can't magically cease their momentum nor be agile enough to change something about their direction fast enough, even with the Jovian Powerplant! The forge gunner can't rightly be seen because they are usually so far away, so the pilot has no idea where a spec of dust shooting comets is, but the forge can nearly always see the DS. Vehicles on the other hand can be shot out of the sky before they even get to you! DS pilots have to spec into both vehicle command and piloting to operate dropships. AV don't even have to spec into much to go against dropships. Has the issue come to light yet? Turrets and supply depots are just as common as a Logi, allowing a player to instantly become Zeus throwing lightning at a bird. DS pilots are stuck with what they got, an obvious piece of flying metal, seen anywhere and everywhere, that cost more than 3 matches earnings. Do something about this please. Just as orbital bombardments must be earned, perhaps so should turrets and supply depots (beyond home base of course). Give dropship passengers the ability to shoot out, so a flank of forges can decimate that damn turret. Lastly, for all the commenters, yes I've lost many dropships due to these Anti Aircraft problems also combined with a glitch that automatically boots you out for some reason. But I've also managed to survive them just as much. The difference between the two is that when I've died, I was doing my job, delivering troops and attacking the objectives. I've survived by being useless and running in elongated ovals and landing at the homebase to let my HP rebuild. It's pretty lame a DS can't even do its job, while a HAV can decimate if it has the right gear. Battlefield dynamics need to be changed to be fair and strategic. People should have to think about the suit they wear, the conditions of the future, the issues they face, as opposed to allowing people become gods by abusing things granted to them. Petition for a not literal level playing field. I am a Condor Squad Union member. <-Join it if you like the thread. PS: I'm QQ about something that is only too true. I couldn't help this thread from being biased either. At least the ending was unbiased.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 3064	Posted - 2013.01.09 01:58:00 - [2] - Quote Is this specific to the maps in general, or just line harvest? And this does sound like a very serious issue.
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 427	Posted - 2013.01.09 02:01:00 - [3] - Quote Line harvest just has the most turrets. I say Ashland is the worst. Manus Peak is fun, but still same problem. It's not specific to any map in general, just all of skirmish. Ambush is way less of a problem, but then again the worth of a DS in ambush is next to nill.
Octavian Vetiver Dog Nation United Relativity Alliance 152	Posted - 2013.01.09 02:35:00 - [4] - Quote Those maps won't matter in the long run. We won't have access to that planet soon.
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 427	Posted - 2013.01.09 03:47:00 - [5] - Quote Octavian Vetiver wrote: Those maps won't matter in the long run. We won't have access to that planet soon. then at the very least, CCP should make sure not to make it so DS unfriendly

CCP Frame C C P C C P Alliance 470	Posted - 2013.01.09 04:17:00 - [6] - Quote Thank you for your feedback on this, I will move the thread to Line Harvest section so our Level Design team can take a look at it closely.

Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 427	Posted - 2013.01.09 04:35:00 - [7] - Quote Thank you! I pointed out Line Harvest due to turrets, but I feel that it is applicable to all maps, especially Ashland's numerous supply depots. Manus peak has a similar problem with objectives B and C both having ready access to a supply depot, CRU, and objective C has a Turret as well. However a thousand thanks for recognizing it! Edit: Additional Info Line Harvest: Turrets are everywhere, biggest concerns are C4 turret (can dominate Northern vehicle deployment) and D5 (has air coverage of A and B). Supply depots are less of a problem on Line Harvest. Manus Peak:Turret at E6 is right against redline, hard to get to if snipers on South hill (F5,6). Turret and supply depot at objective C is very commanding in terms of AA. Ashland: Turrets at E8 have good visual on a good portion of useable air due to many vertical obstructions in this map. Objective A turret-supply depot combo is concerning because the supply depot has a missile turret just near it, so Dropship troop ferrying to objective A is overly risky.
Jak Teston Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 99	Posted - 2013.01.09 16:40:00 - [8] - Quote In my opinion the issue is in the design of rails. They rotate slowly, but with enough distance everything has a sufficiently low angular velocity to hit it reliably. It's the same reason why forgeguns are the most effective weapon against Dropships right now and why rail-HAVs are mobile Anti-Air-Installations. None of these weapons were designed with AA in mind I believe, so this is not a map design but a game mechanic issue. Therefor this thread should definitely not be in the map section as that will inhibit a proper solution to the problem.
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 427	Posted - 2013.01.09 19:48:00 - [9] - Quote Jak Teston wrote: In my opinion the issue is in the design of rails. They rotate slowly, but with enough distance everything has a sufficiently low angular velocity to hit it reliably. It's the same reason why forgeguns are the most effective weapon against Dropships right now and why rail-HAVs are mobile Anti-Air-Installations. None of these weapons were designed with AA in mind I believe, so this is not a map design but a game mechanic issue. Therefor this thread should definitely not be in the map section as that will inhibit a proper solution to the problem. It's out of my hands. HAVs at least can be lost and cost ISK to deploy. The turrets and supply depots are just automatically given to us. That is why it's a map issue. But yes, Rail guns are like the bane of everything far away. But at least you can hover above the HAV blindspot with rails equipped.
Arcturis Vanguard Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 0	Posted - 2013.03.25 07:12:00 - [10] - Quote I will have to respectfully disagree with the amount of installations within this map. Installations can be can be taken down quickly with a drop ship when spec correctly. I, personally, would be rather disappointed to see them reduced and would rather see them increased in more maps. MSF has proven many times that death can rained down from the sky, and no we are not referring to orbitals. Many drop ships, HAVs, and clones have been lain to waste after we have locked on. What should be addressed is the ceiling height around the six (6) towers located around the objectives. It is known by some that an individual can use a drop ship to reach the top of the towers by jumping from the ship on the slant down. Clever. What is also known by a smaller margin is the fact that with the narrow ceiling above the tower where one can walk around, an RDV can deploy an HAV. The reason I have a problem with this is because a drop ship has to strafe along the ceiling to shoot at any opponent located on top of the tower. An RDV should have the same parameters as a drop ship or vise versa. I have also seen on two separate occasions where a sagaris has driven off the tower on top the pipes and survived, which is highly unrealistic to have a drop ship unable to fly above an object let alone a tank survived a drop of that magnitude. The easiest solution would be to drop the height of the ceiling to keep anyone from reaching the towers or increase the ceiling so drop ships can fly above them. Every tactic should have the ability to be countered. (On a side note, I would like to commend the individual players who have figured out this clever tactic for their advantage even if I feel it's rather cheap exploitation of the games parameters)

Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 760	Posted - 2013.04.01 05:32:00 - [11] - Quote Arcturis Vanguard wrote: I will have to respectfully disagree with the amount of installations within this map. Installations can be can be taken down quickly with a drop ship when spec correctly. I, personally, would be rather disappointed to see them reduced and would rather see them increased in more maps. Neutral Turrets The fact that the turrets shoot on sight is just crazy. Go two feet too far, and you're dead because accelerating that hunk of metal takes a bit. I have to spend upwards of over half the match taking out turrets if I want to deploy a dropship. Even supply depots sometimes. It's a bit extensive. You have to have missile launchers equipped to put a dent in a hostile turret before it turns on you. The blasters will only **** it off. The DPS of the turrets is great which makes sense but overfries a DS.
Arcturis Vanguard Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 2	Posted - 2013.04.02 04:46:00 - [12] - Quote Removing installations with missile turrets is far quicker then with blasters, but not nearly are difficult as you try to make it out as being... well with anything less then prototype and your more then likely wasting your time. You have to position yourself over top the installation and your gunners need to show some patients before alerting the hostile turret of your movements (blaster specific). We have gone through quite a bit of R&D with different turrets on the DS, and we all basically agree that missiles are all around the best for every situation we could run into. Direct damage is huge, splash damage is highly effective for anti-infantry and the simple explosions causes panic for those on the ground.
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 280	Posted - 2013.04.04 11:07:00 - [13] - Quote While I agree on dropships having hard time, it DOES make sense that the DS's don't have the ability to fly anywhere on the map straight from the beginning. Thru co-operation (remember: DS is best as a team asset, not pub game pwner for single squad) the flight area can be enlarged. If all is balanced well, DS can make daring deployment run in the beginning of the game but that should be very risky, flying contour while being afraid for the lives of the crew. Later in the game the battlefield, and DS combat possibilities, would change if ground teams and blue tanks do their work right.
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 805	Posted - 2013.04.05 18:41:00 - [14] - Quote Arcturis Vanguard wrote: Removing installations with missile turrets is far quicker then with blasters, but not nearly are difficult as you try to make it out as being... well with anything less then prototype and your more then likely wasting your time. You have to position yourself over top the installation and your gunners need to show some patients before alerting the hostile turret of your movements (blaster specific). We have gone through quite a bit of R&D with different turrets on the DS, and we all basically agree that missiles are all around the best for every situation we could run into. Direct damage is huge, splash damage is highly effective for anti-infantry and the simple explosions causes panic for those on the ground. Well just look at the map. Hovering over one turret to destroy it, and you are in sight of another. You'd have be flying real low, but then you're gunners wouldn't be able to hit the turret. @Kerosinni-Tero: I do not want to take the teamwork aspect out of flying a DS, it's just that they are a bit overkill on Line Harvest, as the issue of removing all turrets is both very time consuming and difficult, as there are turrets in the redline, and deep in enemy territory. A good map that represents how I would like to see turrets placed is ashland. In Ashland, there are actually a handful of turrets, but they're not all dominating the sky. They're view is obscured sometimes, giving safe havens for dropships, if a friendly turret you couldn't destroy were to change. My crew has a better time taking out turrets on Ashland because they are CQC turrets, and cannot just snipe us before we get there.

CCP LogicLoop Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 41	Posted - 2013.05.09 05:33:00 - [15] - Quote I have passed this thread around to our level design team. We will discuss the issue and see what we can do to help resolve it.



Pages: 1 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.