|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1909
   |
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1909
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 09:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
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. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1910
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 10:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1910
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 12:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1910
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 12:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
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? |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1910
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 13:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1924
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 13:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1926
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 15:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote: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...
I was saying it's better for a particular role, NOT that it's better value for money, or that it's better for EVERY possible role.
I was also agreeing that there needs to be EITHER a CRU fitting bonus (and the appropriate amount of extra PG/CPU on the Proto Dropship) or another Proto variant that has no CRU fitted, but maybe slightly less PG/CPU than the version with one (if you account for the built-in CRU). |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1927
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 16:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:
I was saying it's better for a particular role
What role is that? Getting shot out of the sky? 
Mobile spawn point. Thought that was obvious from the fact that its core "problem" for every other conceivable role is the inclusion of a CRU.
Also still waiting on Pilots being given a "team spawn" bonus (even if it's a reduced-reward one) for players spawning on their vehicle. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1927
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 17:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Mobile spawn point. Thought that was obvious from the fact that its core "problem" for every other conceivable role is the inclusion of a CRU.
Also still waiting on Pilots being given a "team spawn" bonus (even if it's a reduced-reward one) for players spawning on their vehicle. Meh, I have a CRU Grimsness that is just about as durable as a Prometheus, half as expensive, and didn't cost me an extra 4-500k in SP. Not that I ever fly it though, because Blueberries are beyond stupid. They should make it so only your squad can use your CRU, especially when we have 6 man squads (if you weren't in a squad, it would allow others not in a squad to spawn in)
Now we go back to the post you initially quoted, and pull another part from it.
Quote:NOT that it's better value for money |
|
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1928
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 17:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kesi Raae Kaae wrote:How about they get an extra high-slot, fitting equal to the lower tier Dropships and a bonus to the PG/CPU requirements of CRU's?
That'd be more EVEy
That's pretty much what I was trying to say.
...
Well, one of the ideas I was trying to suggest, anyway. It didn't come out too clearly though. |
|
|
| |
|