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

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

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

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 didnt say I wanted bigger guns. I SAID I WANTED MORE ARMOR AND LESS BLUE DOTS. God

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'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?

Dropships have wings?

Since when?

Firstly, here's the bit where I replied to your post:


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.

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?

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.