|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
   |
Posted - 2013.03.09 08:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
SquaggaTCT wrote:Why do the prototype dropships have lower pg/cpu than the lower classed ones? I mean .. it just doesnt make sense
The current theory is because of the built-in CRU, but as I've previously stated the amount of PG/CPU taken would equal out to what you would have used on a mobile CRU in the first place; so it's redundant. It's basically an "additional" high-powered slot that is already filled with the PG/CPU taken out for you against your will. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
SquaggaTCT wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:SquaggaTCT wrote:Why do the prototype dropships have lower pg/cpu than the lower classed ones? I mean .. it just doesnt make sense The current theory is because of the built-in CRU, but as I've previously stated the amount of PG/CPU taken would equal out to what you would have used on a mobile CRU in the first place; so it's redundant. It's basically an "additional" high-powered slot that is already filled with the PG/CPU taken out for you against your will. But I dont want a cru in my dropship at all. I hate you blue dots. The last thing I want is you feeding off mof my slipstream. I just want to tank out my dropship more.wtf
Oh trust me, I feel the same way.
In fact, if you look at the fact the PG/CPU is already taken out; you could basically just use the Advanced tier and wind up with pretty much the same stats. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rasputin La'Gar wrote:Apparently they don't want the dropships to become battleships
Look at the trailer. See those flying planes? I think we'll be getting those
Honestly, the Dropship should have the highest survivability as it requires at least one other person to be combat effective.
Just my standpoint though. All it is is a giant LAV with wings atm; and it doesn't even do that very well. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nguruthos IX wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:SquaggaTCT wrote:Why do the prototype dropships have lower pg/cpu than the lower classed ones? I mean .. it just doesnt make sense The current theory is because of the built-in CRU, but as I've previously stated the amount of PG/CPU taken would equal out to what you would have used on a mobile CRU in the first place; so it's redundant. It's basically an "additional" high-powered slot that is already filled with the PG/CPU taken out for you against your will. and at stupid cost
Right? Thing has less CPU/PG than a militia variant and they give you -more- slots to try and fit some sort of tank with that. Basically giving you a bigger wallet but taking all the money out of it. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Rasputin La'Gar wrote:Apparently they don't want the dropships to become battleships
Look at the trailer. See those flying planes? I think we'll be getting those Honestly, the Dropship should have the highest survivability as it requires at least one other person to be combat effective. Just my standpoint though. All it is is a giant LAV with wings atm; and it doesn't even do that very well. Dropships have wings? Since when? More seriously though, they're TRANSPORTS, not ATTACK HELICOPTERS. There was at least one early (pre-UE, I think) video with fighters, so that's a possibility. So are gunships and bombers.
............ I'm going to wait for you to re-read my post and then reflect on how silly your response was.
More seriously though, they're TRANSPORTS, not ATTACK HELICOPTERS.
They should at least live long enough to effectively do what they're supposed to.
And for that record, when the blazing hell have Attack Helicopters ever been more resilient than Transport Helicopters? |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
SquaggaTCT wrote:I didnt say I wanted bigger guns. I SAID I WANTED MORE ARMOR AND LESS BLUE DOTS. God
Annnnd I whole heartedly agree with you - no reason to get upset mate.
Dropships should have more survivability in order to make more effective Transports, we've been saying that for a long time now.
Prototype Dropships aren't the only thing that's absolutely broken. The Prototype LAVs claim to have an infantry repair module that can repair two dropsuits at once but they... Well, they don't. It's just a suped up transport. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1062
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
SquaggaTCT wrote:I was yelling at the Garret guy. However since we're at it .. I wouldnt be disapointed if dropships were more like apache helicopters
****, I wouldn't mind if they had a single Large Turret to be honest. Be like a C130 Spectre.
Imagine mounting a Large Railgun to that son of a *****... |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1064
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 10:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:............ I'm going to wait for you to re-read my post and then reflect on how silly your response was.
More seriously though, they're TRANSPORTS, not ATTACK HELICOPTERS.
They should at least live long enough to effectively do what they're supposed to.
And for that record, when the blazing hell have Attack Helicopters ever been more resilient than Transport Helicopters? Firstly, here's the bit where I replied to your post: Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:All it is is a giant LAV with wings atm; and it doesn't even do that very well. Dropships have wings? Since when? Silly? Yeah. It kind of was. THAT WAS THE POINT. Thanks for noticing. And back onto the main topic (thus being serious again)... The current Dropship models have been designed with the TRANSPORT side of things emphasised more heavily. A CRU is a good benefit when you're meant to be operating as a transport. Also, in the real world, the balance between anti-air weapons and aircraft is pretty much one-hit-kill on both transports and gunships. Either one can potentially survive a surface-to-air missile, but neither is likely to stay in the air long after taking a hit. Transport = ability to carry passengers. THAT is the core consideration for the role. Speed and durability are secondary to that aspect. I'm expecting that a fighter or other smaller aircraft will be even MORE fragile than the Dropship, but maybe at that point Dropships will get the buff they sort of need in that regard.
My point was that I was commenting that it was an LAV with wings, not a Dropship with wings (such would be redundant). This was a correlation to it's resilience.
If they made Fighters more fragile than Dropships - I can guarantee that absolutely NO-ONE would use them because a single Mass Driver round could kill them. Hell, I'm almost certain a deadeye shot with a Laser Rifle would be able to kill them.
Current Dropships can't take more than two Railgun shots, Forge Guns are a nightmare (faster tracking) and Swarm Launchers are the absolute bane of a Dropship Pilot.
And don't even get me started on Blasters or AV Grenades.
|
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1068
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 12:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:My point was that I was commenting that it was an LAV with wings, not a Dropship with wings (such would be redundant). This was a correlation to it's resilience.
If they made Fighters more fragile than Dropships - I can guarantee that absolutely NO-ONE would use them because a single Mass Driver round could kill them. Hell, I'm almost certain a deadeye shot with a Laser Rifle would be able to kill them.
Current Dropships can't take more than two Railgun shots, Forge Guns are a nightmare (faster tracking) and Swarm Launchers are the absolute bane of a Dropship Pilot.
And don't even get me started on Blasters or AV Grenades. And my comment about wings hadn't been a serious response, as I already said, so I'll leave it at that. As for resilience, a cheap Dropship can, with a good pilot and the right skills, tank the first volley from an Advanced Swarm Launcher and carry on. Spend just as much on your LAV, and you're still going to die in one shot. They aren't as durable as HAVs, but they're not meant to be.
Why not, exactly? What is this cliche that Dropships -HAVE- to be less durable than practically anything else in game simply because they ferry troops from one side of the battlefield to the other? |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1068
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 12:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:They aren't as durable as HAVs, but they're not meant to be. Why not, exactly? What is this cliche that Dropships -HAVE- to be less durable than practically anything else in game simply because they ferry troops from one side of the battlefield to the other? How exactly is the second most durable playable option in the game less durable than practically anything else? There isn't a single suit that can outmatch a Dropship's EHP, and they're practically immune to small arms fire, and can be fitted to survive hits that will one-shot even high-tier versions of half the ground vehicle types in the game.
And they cost extensively more.... |
|
|
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1068
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 13:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:They aren't as durable as HAVs, but they're not meant to be. Why not, exactly? What is this cliche that Dropships -HAVE- to be less durable than practically anything else in game simply because they ferry troops from one side of the battlefield to the other? How exactly is the second most durable playable option in the game less durable than practically anything else? There isn't a single suit that can outmatch a Dropship's EHP, and they're practically immune to small arms fire, and can be fitted to survive hits that will one-shot even high-tier versions of half the ground vehicle types in the game. And they cost extensively more.... And HAVs cost significantly more than Dropships, so why shouldn't they be stronger?
I'm not saying that HAVs shouldn't be stronger, you fabricated that statement. I'm stating that they cost more than everything else; thereby they should last long enough to make the investment worth while and any member of this community will tell you that they don't.
And we're not talking about just the dropship either, we're talking about the baseline fittings to make it even remotely flyable.
To top it all off the main issue is that it doesn't last long enough to do it's job effectively, sure you can get the guys there but that's about it. It's a one-way trip and when it goes down there's no way to control where you fall, 9/10 it's going to fall ontop of you so there's the ISK from the suit and all of your buddies dying too. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1068
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 13:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:I'm not saying that HAVs shouldn't be stronger, you fabricated that statement. I'm stating that they cost more than everything else; thereby they should last long enough to make the investment worth while and any member of this community will tell you that they don't.
And we're not talking about just the dropship either, we're talking about the baseline fittings to make it even remotely flyable.
To top it all off the main issue is that it doesn't last long enough to do it's job effectively, sure you can get the guys there but that's about it. It's a one-way trip and when it goes down there's no way to control where you fall, 9/10 it's going to fall ontop of you so there's the ISK from the suit and all of your buddies dying too. The problem isn't with dropships themselves (bear with me here)... The problem is with SMALL TURRETS on Dropships. When you're airborne, you're EITHER an easy target OR outside your own range. They need a range buff - at least when mounted on aircraft. Dropships can't defend themselves - or their passengers - effectively, and THAT makes them more frail than the numbers (and their ability to survive hits that LAVs can't) would suggest.
Don't think that's going to change anytime soon >_>; |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1078
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 11:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Well lets take a look on the PG/CPU of the Myron and the eryx:
(the second number is the CPU/PG with skill bonuses)
myron:
CPU: 255/318
PG: 400/500
Eryx:
CPU: 225/281
PG: 270/337
now the difference between those two:
(again with and without skills added)
CPU: 30/37
PG 130/163
now lets take a look how much a mobile CRU needs:
CPU: 20
PG: 160
You can see that the PG/CPU penalty on the Eryx is not the same as a normal CRU would require on a Myron. However you have plenty of room for fitting on a eryx. I would pick the Eryx for corp matches cause you can fit it better then a myron which has a CRU. You have to think of it that you can put a additional shield reistance on the eryx while still having a mobile spawn point. On the other point of view you can focus the myron mainly on tanking. Like put more shield extenders on it. You can say that the eryx is worse then the myron. They both have their uses on the game. Most people still think the myron is the better choice due to the infamous dropship-missile launcher combo. The problem here is that the PRO is less versatile AND has less PG/CPU than the STD version, even though they cost more in both ISK and SP. You lose more PG/CPU on the PRO than a CRU costs, for the bonus of getting a CRU. The funny part is, most good pilots who would actually spend the time and resources on getting into a PRO dropship don't need a CRU in the first place... let alone WANT one. If you need a ride, I can pick you up in a few seconds wherever you spawn and take you where you need to go. I want to have CONTROL over who is in my ship. With the current design, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE, to make an Eryx that is as resilient as a Myron. Cab you imagine if the prototype HEAVY suit or HAVs were WEAKER than STD or ADV versions?
Lol. STD version..
But in all honesty, has anyone even thought of the technology behind the Mobile CRU? I mean, the normal CRU is a -building-, where the hell are they housing this thing that it can pump out clone after clone on that little bitty vehicle?
|
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1078
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 14:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:We've already moved on from that point Drommy.
No, the Proto Dropship ISN'T worse than the Advanced - if you plan on fitting a CRU, it's better. If you don't, it can't fill OTHER roles as effectively. It's more specialised into the role it was meant to be designed for.
We need EITHER a new variant of Prototype Dropship without the CRU built in (even if it takes a hit on the PG/CPU in comparison) or the current one to have a CRU equip BONUS instead of the built-in CRU.
...And we need Gunships that aren't designed with CRUs in mind.
And the whole problem with flipping Dropships could use another look as well. They're way too unstable under fire at present.
I would hardly say it's better... That miniscule HP bonus isn't worth the amount of ISK you're paying... The mobile CRU still has the CPU/PG taken out of the fit itself and worse yet you can't even remove it... |
|
|
| |
|