Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1068
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 13:47:00 -
[31] - 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 >_>; |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
567
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 14:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:I don't see the issue with dropship survivability. A properly fit one tanks a couple of forgegun shots, shrugs off tons of swarms and fits an AB to get out if AV gets too strong. If it weren't for their inability to hurt people they'd be OP, to be honest. The problem is that every AV'er on the map can see you and will shoot at you, and unlike HAV's and LAV's there's no ground or other cover for dropships across most maps, hence the current ehp's will only allow you to survive a couple of hits, and av tends to send your ship skidding. |
The Cobra Commander
Bojo's School of the Trades
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 15:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
There have been some really good comments and suggestions here. I for one think that the blasters need more range big time. To really be effective at times I have to drop low for my gunners to really be able to hit anything and then they are exposed to hits from small arms fire.
As for the swarms, I have really been able to take them now in my Grim b/c I am rolling with 4400+ in the armor department. But even with all of that the forges still give me a real problem...and I know I am not the only one.
I was flying yesterday and another pilot was in a Myron decked out in shields. A forge gunner hit him and rocked him into the side of a building in one shot....down he went. |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
102
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 15:51:00 -
[34] - 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 want my transports to be like this!
skip to about 2:15 in the video |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
567
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 15:54:00 -
[35] - Quote
The Cobra Commander wrote:There have been some really good comments and suggestions here. I for one think that the blasters need more range big time. To really be effective at times I have to drop low for my gunners to really be able to hit anything and then they are exposed to hits from small arms fire.
As for the swarms, I have really been able to take them now in my Grim b/c I am rolling with 4400+ in the armor department. But even with all of that the forges still give me a real problem...and I know I am not the only one.
I was flying yesterday and another pilot was in a Myron decked out in shields. A forge gunner hit him and rocked him into the side of a building in one shot....down he went. yeah i switched over to grims because they get better survivability against forge guns, myrons die way to quickly to them. |
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1101
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 19:57:00 -
[36] - Quote
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. |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1947
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 20:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
I refuse to train past level one dropships, paying an extra 200-250K per ship along with an ass ton of skill points for the tiniest extra sliver of resilience and the ability to have a bunch of stupid blueberries wasting time sitting in your ship....yea, I'll pass. My Grimsnes is far more resilient than any level 3 ship, though I use it more as a gunship than anything else, since blueberries are stupid, and CCP decided dropship pilots are only here as a whipping post |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 20:41:00 -
[38] - Quote
gbghg wrote:The Cobra Commander wrote:I was flying yesterday and another pilot was in a Myron decked out in shields. A forge gunner hit him and rocked him into the side of a building in one shot....down he went. yeah i switched over to grims because they get better survivability against forge guns, myrons die way to quickly to them. The Grimsnes has it all. Tons of ehp, good base resistances, free high slot for an afterburner and enough PG to fit both a tank and blasters. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 20:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote: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? since they where made just look at apache(attack) vs black hawk(transport). btw i see the dropship as basically a black hawk, they go down...its sad for the gunners/pilots as they are pretty much going to get bum rushed once they run out, now that i think about it that might be why they don't have flares or chaff to prevent from getting owned by swarmers. |
SquaggaTCT
Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 21:32:00 -
[40] - Quote
Goodness what've you guys been doing while I've been sleeping. JUST GIVE ME A BIGGER DROPSHIP DEVS. I'll worry about the guns. I dont want a CRU. For once just give me somethin I asked for. Crap thinking I shoulda used this time for more maps ... |
|
Baal Roo
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
859
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 21:36:00 -
[41] - Quote
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? |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1078
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 11:00:00 -
[42] - 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?
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Legion Academy
240
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 11:06:00 -
[43] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:[quote=Baal Roo]
..
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?
I simply assumed the giant housing of CRU installations was thick armour and shield generators to protect a small core. So following from that, this core that does the clone birthing is simply placed in the dropship, perhaps next to the pilot so he can watch with satisfaction as clones pop out into his ship, and ultra powerful armour is replaced by a flying, relatively less tank dropship. |
Drommy Hood
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
257
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 11:16:00 -
[44] - 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.
The OP was stating that the proto dropship is actually worse than the advanced. Durability that your alluding to it not needing aswell as speed are the two things that all transports need atleast one off. No good commander would put his army into glass cannons without a big cannon. The proto needs a buff on Hp and on CPU and pg, the advanced just a hp buff. They don't have the CPU/pg to be able to fit large reppers, so they can't sustainably take hits. What they should be able to do is, make the drop or retrieval, and get to safety for a long repair. Not get blown up on The way, or tipped upside down by a rail gun |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1924
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 13:18:00 -
[45] - 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. |
Aeon Amadi
WarRavens
1078
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 14:58:00 -
[46] - 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... |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
141
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 15:10:00 -
[47] - Quote
It's because dropships are supposed to get role bonuses, but they haven't been implemented yet. Check this out.
Quote:Force Recon (Dropship) Name: Prometheus Hull: Grimsnes Race: Gallente Class: Force Recon Module Slots: 8 Crew: 6 PG: 300 CPU: 500 Combat / Special Abilities: Can use special cloak modules Bonuses: 20% bonus to sensor dampener range 20% bonus to sight range per level |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1926
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 15:32:00 -
[48] - 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). |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 16:32:00 -
[49] - 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. 1. I'd suggest a second prototype dropship with an inbuilt afterburner at a reduced cost. Those are mandatory anyways. 2. I firmly believe that the current active modules are a substitute until a capacitor-driven system is implemented. 3. I did some getting-targeted practice today and I have to say the Grimsnes tanks damage really well. If I were an AV guy and the dropships were any less steady I'd call for a nerf on the forums. |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1953
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 16:35:00 -
[50] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: I was saying it's better for a particular role
What role is that? Getting shot out of the sky?
|
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1927
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 16:45:00 -
[51] - 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. |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1953
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 16:49:00 -
[52] - Quote
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) |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1927
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 17:08:00 -
[53] - 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 |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1953
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 17:11:00 -
[54] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Quote:NOT that it's better value for money
Oh, ok, so you were just confirming that they're a total waste. My bad ^_^
|
Kesi Raae Kaae
Much Crying Old Experts
56
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 17:29:00 -
[55] - Quote
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 |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1928
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 17:39:00 -
[56] - 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. |
Philipp Achtel
Immobile Infantry
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 19:03:00 -
[57] - 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)
So true, and so sad. Every time I have a few hundred thousand SP lying around and think, "Maybe I should improve my dropship?", I remember that 95% of the time I'm on the ground slogging it with the unwashed masses because I don't get any SP for flying my Myron, and blueberries like to go sightseeing from it for some reason. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |