Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jakar Umbra
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
31
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
A friend of mine and I enjoy flying dropships in this game and we often talk about ideas for various aerial vehicles. I did a search on the forums and while I found ideas for dropships, I did not find anything for ideas of entire classes of aerial vehicles. What follows is essentially most of, if not all, of the ideas for aerial vehicles we discussed.
Firstly, at the moment the only thing Piloting skill is good for is getting level 1, to obtain the dropship skill of your choice, what about the other four levels? Well... here is an idea:
Lvl 1: Dropship - This is an aircraft we already have at our disposal and its usefulness is something that cannot be denied if executed effectively, however a way to obtain points other than vehicle kill assists would be appreciated. Other players have put up various well thought out ideas in General Discussion and the Feedback section so I'll avoid putting anything like that here.
Lvl 2: Attackship - This could be the close air-support of the mercenaries on the ground by giving the pilot a variety of weapons to attack vehicles and enemy installations. It should also have a second seat for a gunner whose primary target should be enemy infantry. To put in a nut shell this will be the Eve variant of the AH-64 Apache.
Lvl 3: Fighter - The Fighter will be the main vehicle to gain and maintain air superiority by focusing on air to air combat with a single pilot controlling a variety of weapons that can only attack aerial vehicles. The Fighter should also have slots for various countermeasures
Lvl 4: Fighter Bomber - This will be a heavy and slower version of the fighter and will be have two seats a pilot and co-pilot. The pilot will be the one flying and maneuvering onto the targets he will also have control over limited air to air weapons (choose wisely). The co-pilot will be the one in-control of all air to ground weapons and will need to guide the pilot onto the target. The co-pilot will also be in charge of countermeasures.
Lvl 5: Heavy Aircraft - These will be the biggest and slowest aircraft with a variety of tasks such as having weapons slots for big weapons for passengers to operate. They could also be fitted to have big passenger capacity like 12 to deploy them for high altitude drops. Other variation could a logistics for the Fighter and Fighter-Bombers giving them repairs in flight.
Note that these are suggestions, and no doubt some people might not like the idea of having to run with a co-pilot, but in some of the larger matches we're looking forward to at the end of the path, it might not be a bad idea. There could also be smaller single-pilot variants that would not have as large a payload as the ones that would require two pilots.
Next is aerial weaponry. We already have small turrets yes, but what about weaponry for the pilots.
Guns: Essentially these fall under some things like what we have now, for example, the blaster turrets, also we could have something like a Minmatar HMG as well, for both turrets and the pilot. For fixed-wing aircraft of course you would have to line up your target, and for VTOL craft, either the copilot could have access to it for those which can have two pilots and for some variations the pilot would have access to it.
Missiles: These would be much like a variant of a swarm launcher for aerial vehicles (talking about the lock-on feature). These fire and forget missiles would come in many variations, including, air-to-air, air-to-ground and even flux.
Rockets: The difference between rockets and missiles is that rockets dumbfire while missiles lock-on. Essentially similar to what we call missile turrets, these would fire in volleys if you hold your fire button, or a single shot if you tap it. Upon firing a volley it will have something of a cooldown as though reloading, much like the 'missile' turrets we have now.
Bombs: These would essentially be like the old-school fly over target and drop bombs (accounting for momentum of course). The variations for this are near endless, having the potential of such variants as napalm, explosive, or fragmented.
Next up is something I'm sure alot of pilots in this game want. Aerial countermeasures:
EMP: this as most, if not all of us know is an electromagnetic pulse. It would be a pulse that would essentially cause nearby electronic equipment to shut down. This is something that would have a limited radius, so timing would be everything and the CPU, PG cost may be quite a bit. Also, it would only be able to counter weapons that have lock-on capabilities.
Decoy Drone: This would be a drone, released from the aircraft with a similar signature to yours, potentially confusing swarm launchers, and other lock-on weaponry. Higher levels can release more simultaneously, with a much closer signature to yours confusing such weaponry even more. Options for cooldown could include needing to go to a supply depot to restock or lorewise self-replicating nanites could build more during the cooldown.
Flares: These would be somewhat different to your typical flare and for the most part are more for fixed-wing aircraft. Releasing a blinding flash, this could blind your enemies, giving you time to outmanoeuvre your pursuer. Another variation, that would not be flares of course could temporarily confuse sensors, causing you to disappear from their sensors so they cannot lock on.
|
Jakar Umbra
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
31
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Finally are a few other miscellaneous things.
Aerial Equipment:
Extinguisher: There have been times when I have been shot down and burning, only to rep back up and still crash. This will help mediate some of this issue as it will put out the flames, perhaps leaving you at 100HP armour or something of the sort while keeping the engines in a coolant state so they do not combust.
Radar: While we do sort of have this, one issue is that aerial vehicles should have a larger radar radius than other vehicles because of the nature of it. Included should be an IFF system. Also along with this the HUD should be more refined so as to determine at range the nature of such things as tanks and other vehicles.
Aviation Equipment:
These are general things to improve the quality and effectiveness of flying. These things include:
Altimeter
Horizon Indicator
Airspeed Indicator
Aiming Reticle
Airborne Anti-Collision Avoidance System: Essentially something to indicate you are in close proximity to a structure on a particular side, particularly the rear of the craft.
Lock-On Detection System.
Charged Energy Detection Systems: This would help determine if there are such weapons as forge guns in the vicinity of your area of operation. While it may not help for when he fires, if the person is charging within a certain range, the craft should be capable of detecting it, with a visible cue to show the person's location.
Credit for a large portion of these ideas goes to Silver-Ace of Militaires-Sans-Frontieres.
Any other ideas of this nature that people wish to add feel free. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
99
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
just pick on one small detail and be mean to it. bombs... come on carpet bombing. bombs we have today are actually smarter then that. guided bombs im ok or even lased. i would hate to see basically a b-52 dropping bombs like its 1943. |
Silver-Ace
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thats why we suggested Air to Ground Missiles to lock on and hit enemy targets but these are venerable to enemy counter measures that the ground pounders should have. For that reason even the USAF still uses dumb bombs, you are however right we don't do carpet bombing any more actually the USAF uses a sling shot technique to lob bombs from miles away to hit the target and this is what we are suggesting hear. These of course will take skill to use so we won't blame you if you can't handle them . |
Halador Osiris
Dead Six Initiative
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
I really really like what you're saying, I've just got a few tweaks I feel should be made.
Vehicle
- High: Things it does very well
- Medium: Things it's OK at
- Low: Things it can't shake a stick at
Dropship
- High: Troop capacity (6-12)
- Medium: Tank and maneuverability
- Low: Limited/no damage
Attack Ship
- High: Infantry damage, tank
- Medium: Maneuverability, troop capacity (2-3)
- Low: AV damage
Fighter
- High: Maneuverability, AV damage
- Medium: Infantry damage
- Low: Tank, always moving forward, troop capacity (0)
Fighter-Bomber
- High: Deals both AV and Infantry damage
- Medium: Maneuverability, Tank
- Low: Always moving forward, troop capacity (0)
Command Ship
- High: Buffs troops within 100m, massive tank
- Medium: Troop capacity (4-5), infantry/AV damage capabilities
- Low: Maneuverability
My main tweak was I believed that the gunship would render the dropship relatively useless, so I changed it to a command ship. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1272
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nice to see another well thought out thread on this subject. I really hope we end up with both Gunships and Fighters somewhere down the line. The one thing I'm afraid of is the possibility of having a "multirole" asset that tries to do both and is terrible, kinda like the attack aircraft in Planetside 2. |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
137
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
+1 for a balanced suggestion. I hope some form of this is coming for DUST. |
Silver-Ace
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
When I was reading the comment from Mobius Wyvern I considered maybe the fighter bomber could be to multi-role so I thought of away so they would be more focused on air to ground combat but still have some defensive capabilities to help them survive until help arrives.
Lvl 4: Fighter Bomber - This will be a heavy and slower version of the fighter and will be have two seats a pilot and co-pilot. The pilot will be the one flying and maneuvering onto the targets and will be in control the frontal guns and air to ground weapons. The co-pilot will be operating a 360 degree rotating turret that will provide defense against enemy aircraft. The co-pilot will also be in charge of all the countermeasures.
I also liked the comment by Halador Osiris with the Command Aircraft so heres an revision of the Heavy Aircraft
Lvl 5: Command Aircraft - These will be the biggest and slowest aircraft that will act has a command ship that will have a massive radar radius so they can guide friendly aircraft into range of there targets. They could also be fitted to have big passenger capacity like 6-12 to deploy them for high altitude drops. It also will have the ability to fit remote shield and armor repair modules to repair friendly aircraft in flight. So it will act has the logistics in the sky but it will need to defend itself until help arrives with small turrets and aerial countermeasures.
If there are any other ideas please post them maybe CCP is reading .
|
Halador Osiris
Dead Six Initiative
129
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Silver-Ace wrote:Lvl 5: Command Aircraft - These will be the biggest and slowest aircraft that will act has a command ship that will have a massive radar radius so they can guide friendly aircraft into range of there targets. They could also be fitted to have big passenger capacity like 6-12 to deploy them for high altitude drops. It also will have the ability to fit remote shield and armor repair modules to repair friendly aircraft in flight. So it will act has the logistics in the sky but it will need to defend itself until help arrives with small turrets and aerial countermeasures. I have issue with the passenger capacity. You're basically making a dropship useless when you give something else a capacity like that.
|
Silver-Ace
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
It can have a smaller passenger load or none at all with only enough seat to hold the crew as long as it can preform its main function it can go without room for passengers. |
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1279
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 01:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Silver-Ace wrote:When I was reading the comment from Mobius Wyvern I considered maybe the fighter bomber could be to multi-role so I thought of away so they would be more focused on air to ground combat but still have some defensive capabilities to help them survive until help arrives. Lvl 4: Fighter Bomber - This will be a heavy and slower version of the fighter and will be have two seats a pilot and co-pilot. The pilot will be the one flying and maneuvering onto the targets and will be in control the frontal guns and air to ground weapons. The co-pilot will be operating a 360 degree rotating turret that will provide defense against enemy aircraft. The co-pilot will also be in charge of all the countermeasures. I also liked the comment by Halador Osiris with the Command Aircraft so heres an revision of the Heavy Aircraft Lvl 5: Command Aircraft - These will be the biggest and slowest aircraft that will act has a command ship that will have a massive radar radius so they can guide friendly aircraft into range of there targets. They could also be fitted to have big passenger capacity like 6-12 to deploy them for high altitude drops. It also will have the ability to fit remote shield and armor repair modules to repair friendly aircraft in flight. So it will act has the logistics in the sky but it will need to defend itself until help arrives with small turrets and aerial countermeasures. If there are any other ideas please post them maybe CCP is reading . Don't get me wrong, btw. I love the idea of multi-role aircraft, but only within the more specific role of fixed-wing or VTOL. What I don't want is an aircraft that tries to be a jet and an attack helicopter at the same time.
DARPA was funding the X-50 project for several years which sought to create a rotary-wing aircraft that could lock the central rotor to act as a wing and allow it to fly like a jet in order to get to strike zones faster and save fuel. It was so cost ineffective and overall inefficient that they eventually gave up, and they weren't even trying to make it operate like a jet.
What you want to avoid in vehicle design is trying to make a vehicle that is attempts to be a "Jack-of-all-Trades" and ends up as a master of none.
I love the general layouts you made for roles for these aircraft, and I really hope CCP Blam checks out this thread. |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
202
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 01:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
I dont think fighters and bombers need to be two different class just one Foward moving class that can be either fit as a fighter or bomber depending on whats fitted to it. I would also hate to see a light air class be solely dedicated to the gunship role, i would like to see option for fitting a Light Air/"gunship" as a scout, on site targeting(be pretty cool to see a aircraft use target painters and guide in fighters and artillery strikes).
just remember there are three class we know of Light, Medium, and Heavy and seeing as a Dropshipis considered heavy i could see the fighter being a medium craft with a more gunship like vehicle being |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1281
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 01:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ops Fox wrote:I dont think fighters and bombers need to be two different class just one Foward moving class that can be either fit as a fighter or bomber depending on whats fitted to it. I would also hate to see a light air class be solely dedicated to the gunship role, i would like to see option for fitting a Light Air/"gunship" as a scout, on site targeting(be pretty cool to see a aircraft use target painters and guide in fighters and artillery strikes).
just remember there are three class we know of Light, Medium, and Heavy and seeing as a Dropshipis considered heavy i could see the fighter being a medium craft with a more gunship like vehicle being However, we also have confirmation that each size class will host multiple vehicle types, just like the new suit weight classes.
As well, the requirements for an anti-air and anti-ground aircraft are vastly different and in some ways antithetical to each other. The idea of the multirole would be to allow you to bridge the gap in exchange for somewhat reduced performance in both as compared to a specialized vehicle. |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
202
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 02:10:00 -
[14] - Quote
I mean more along the ways of allowing general frames to be geared towards either AA AG or something else with modules. how you fit them would decide what they did on the battle field rather than what class they were.
For example a Light Air frame would look and operate very similar to an attack gunship rather than a figher or transport but you wouldn't have to Fit it for AG you could possible load up on stealth equipment and along with the passenger turn it into a covert ops transport simply because of the modules you fit or turn it into a mobile electronic warfare rig.
another example is the fighter or bomber class rather than having this be a separate thing just junk the whole thing into medium frame and what modules you fit decided whether its a fighter or bomber.
what i would like to see a light medium and heavy frame version of VTOL or Forward flight vehicles. Imagine having a medium class FF that would be well suited to interceptor or bomber role depending on how you fit it while at the same time a VTOL medium frame that would act like a mobile EW unit or Logi unit. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1281
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 02:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ops Fox wrote:I mean more along the ways of allowing general frames to be geared towards either AA AG or something else with modules. how you fit them would decide what they did on the battle field rather than what class they were.
For example a Light Air frame would look and operate very similar to an attack gunship rather than a figher or transport but you wouldn't have to Fit it for AG you could possible load up on stealth equipment and along with the passenger turn it into a covert ops transport simply because of the modules you fit or turn it into a mobile electronic warfare rig.
another example is the fighter or bomber class rather than having this be a separate thing just junk the whole thing into medium frame and what modules you fit decided whether its a fighter or bomber.
what i would like to see a light medium and heavy frame version of VTOL or Forward flight vehicles. Imagine having a medium class FF that would be well suited to interceptor or bomber role depending on how you fit it while at the same time a VTOL medium frame that would act like a mobile EW unit or Logi unit. Oh, weight classes would have me all over this game until the end of time.
As an example, one of the core features of the PSP game Ace Combat X was that the more advanced aircraft could be adjusted to fit different roles with modules. I'd love to see an even deeper version of that system in this game. |
Jakar Umbra
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 17:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
What if for earlier levels you have aircraft that can be specced in a multitude of ways according to what you put on it, but as you get higher and spec along certain paths you can use aircraft more suited to specific roles and therefore would be more effective at them. This would reward you for speccing into more specific skills and a perferred role. It would more or less be similar to what the HAVs seem to be becoming where the first tier is your general one then we would get the enforcers, marauders, and whatever else may come. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1281
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 17:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jakar Umbra wrote:What if for earlier levels you have aircraft that can be specced in a multitude of ways according to what you put on it, but as you get higher and spec along certain paths you can use aircraft more suited to specific roles and therefore would be more effective at them. This would reward you for speccing into more specific skills and a perferred role. It would more or less be similar to what the HAVs seem to be becoming where the first tier is your general one then we would get the enforcers, marauders, and whatever else may come. That's excellent. A lot like the current "Tiericide" program for EVE where T1 is inferior to T2 but T2 has to be used a certain way, while T1 can do pretty much whatever you set it up for. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
220
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 19:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
This doesn't sound right. It sounds less like New Eden and more like something I don't recognize. |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
I would rather they start off on the smaller side with attack aircraft to begin with. The abilities of aircraft are going to be completely dependent on map size and spread. With the current maps, the plane would be constantly doing figure 8s to stay within the red zone and would be severely OP considering how bunched everything is.
This will be a good idea when map sizes are at least a couple magnitudes larger than they are right now.
As I said in the other DS thread.. what I would like right now is a ship based on the DS but with only 2-3 spaces on it with a front mount turrent and two fixed side pods.
Front mount - blaster/rail/missle/etc
Side mount - vehicle version of swarms/plasma cannon etc (have to aim these with the ship)
To balance these out, the tanks should have an available turret that is similar to swarms. |
Jakar Umbra
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:51:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:This doesn't sound right. It sounds less like New Eden and more like something I don't recognize.
Perhaps you could elaborate on this, as I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm new to New Eden myself, but what I understand it to be is a place full of politics, betrayal, wars, battles, alliances, grudges, plots and conspiracies. What we are talking about here are the tools by which to execute and maintain these things. At least that's what I understood New Eden to be.
Kitten Commander wrote:I would rather they start off on the smaller side with attack aircraft to begin with. The abilities of aircraft are going to be completely dependent on map size and spread. With the current maps, the plane would be constantly doing figure 8s to stay within the red zone and would be severely OP considering how bunched everything is.
This will be a good idea when map sizes are at least a couple magnitudes larger than they are right now.
As I said in the other DS thread.. what I would like right now is a ship based on the DS but with only 2-3 spaces on it with a front mount turret and two fixed side pods.
Front mount - blaster/rail/missile/etc
Side mount - vehicle version of swarms/plasma cannon etc (have to aim these with the ship)
To balance these out, the tanks should have an available turret that is similar to swarms.
These things are by no means intended to apply to the current map sizes we have now. They are ideas for when we reach the large scale battles we are hoping to eventually reach.
The ship to which you refer with the fixed weaponry for the pilot is essentially what we refer to as the attack ship. Also a swarm launcher variant turret for HAVs would be somewhat acceptable provided the countermeasures requested are also implemented.
Mobius, the Aviation Instruments part of the requests covers that sort of thing. Flying in first person is practically impossible as is. Also the ability to free look while flying in first person is of course a good idea. |
|
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
220
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:07:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jakar Umbra wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:This doesn't sound right. It sounds less like New Eden and more like something I don't recognize. Perhaps you could elaborate on this, as I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm new to New Eden myself, but what I understand it to be is a place full of politics, betrayal, wars, battles, alliances, grudges, plots and conspiracies. What we are talking about here are the tools by which to execute and maintain these things. At least that's what I understood New Eden to be. I'm talking about the aspect of it. The modules are so mundane, the skill progression is contrary to the norm, and it just seems... different to what I would imagine aerial vehicles to be. |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
202
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:[quote=Jakar Umbra] I'm talking about the aspect of it. The modules are so mundane, the skill progression is contrary to the norm, and it just seems... different to what I would imagine aerial vehicles to be.
Flying warmachines? |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Jakar Umbra wrote:
These things are by no means intended to apply to the current map sizes we have now. They are ideas for when we reach the large scale battles we are hoping to eventually reach.
The ship to which you refer with the fixed weaponry for the pilot is essentially what we refer to as the attack ship. Also a swarm launcher variant turret for HAVs would be somewhat acceptable provided the countermeasures requested are also implemented. .
They could implement the 'attack ship' now if it were based upon the mechanics of a DS. All they would need to do is make adjustments to the overall design. It would easily be able to function in the current map structure as long as its firepower was within reasonable levels.
There will definitely need to be a ground based countermeasure to offensive flight vehicles if they are implemented. This could either be in the form of a small swarm turret (limited damage but enough to drive away a ship) or a full on AAA battery main turret. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
220
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 22:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ops Fox wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote: I'm talking about the aspect of it. The modules are so mundane, the skill progression is contrary to the norm, and it just seems... different to what I would imagine aerial vehicles to be.
Flying warmachines? "Heavy Aircraft" - What is that? Wouldn't they be miniature versions of what MCCs should be? "Attackship" - Why have a separate version instead of just a class of dropship? "Fighters and Fighter Bombers" - Again, why not just have them be different classes of fighters?
And they aren't the most detailed, so I honestly can't tell what the author is trying to suggest here. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1282
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 00:53:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jakar Umbra wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:This doesn't sound right. It sounds less like New Eden and more like something I don't recognize. Perhaps you could elaborate on this, as I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm new to New Eden myself, but what I understand it to be is a place full of politics, betrayal, wars, battles, alliances, grudges, plots and conspiracies. What we are talking about here are the tools by which to execute and maintain these things. At least that's what I understood New Eden to be. Kitten Commander wrote:I would rather they start off on the smaller side with attack aircraft to begin with. The abilities of aircraft are going to be completely dependent on map size and spread. With the current maps, the plane would be constantly doing figure 8s to stay within the red zone and would be severely OP considering how bunched everything is.
This will be a good idea when map sizes are at least a couple magnitudes larger than they are right now.
As I said in the other DS thread.. what I would like right now is a ship based on the DS but with only 2-3 spaces on it with a front mount turret and two fixed side pods.
Front mount - blaster/rail/missile/etc
Side mount - vehicle version of swarms/plasma cannon etc (have to aim these with the ship)
To balance these out, the tanks should have an available turret that is similar to swarms. These things are by no means intended to apply to the current map sizes we have now. They are ideas for when we reach the large scale battles we are hoping to eventually reach. The ship to which you refer with the fixed weaponry for the pilot is essentially what we refer to as the attack ship. Also a swarm launcher variant turret for HAVs would be somewhat acceptable provided the countermeasures requested are also implemented. Mobius, the Aviation Instruments part of the requests covers that sort of thing. Flying in first person is practically impossible as is. Also the ability to free look while flying in first person is of course a good idea. Just offering some suggestion on how to make it look all futuristic and such.
Ulysses Knapse wrote:And they aren't the most detailed, so I honestly can't tell what the author is trying to suggest here. We're talking more about names to clarify what they would be for.
Also, part of what we were talking about earlier was having role-less aircraft as the base level, and then working up to more specialized vehicles such as we have now with the LAVs and HAVs, and soon with Dropships as well.
Based on that, a Fighter would be specialized for attacking other Fighters, whereas a Fighter Bomber would be a multi-role design to hit ground and air targets, but wouldn't be as good at either as a more specialized aircraft. |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 02:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
I wouldn`t worry about it (the Author of the OP), vehicles are very well orginized, although CCP said there was a 'Gunship', I think we can agree they were refaring to the DS further more a varient of the DS (or the HAA).
fighters/fighter bombers are LAA (Light Attack Aircraft), something we do know are that there are madruager & Enforcer HAVs. Understandiong that both the LAA and HAV is ment for direct combat they will have attacker varients more often then not, so what are thoose varients for? the Madruagers are HP vehicles ment to deal out damage as they get the job done, LAAs will most definitly have 1 varient based off of this, now the Enforcer, the Enforcers are weak and slow but deal great sums of damage, I`m 100% sure they will have a LAA varient with this same purpose that is used for strafe runs (aka your fighter bomber).
DS (DropShip): are used for for support and you can take it for an expensive airial logi bro, main purpose is for transport so the Logi varient is the outstanding varient for this, but a DS are used as triagers aswell and favored as gunships so you will also find a Assualt varient for battle, I would hope for a Trieger varient aswell in the later future.
HAA: not much is known, but it has to be carried by a RDV so not much larger then a tank, I would guess a airborn tank like vehicle that has to circle its targets like a Vulture but I truly don`t know.
btw, would you like to see a little gameplay of the LAA in the last engine?: skip to 5:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCw
thats the gallante LAA, I can`t confirm what avrient since they havn`t released the names of the varients and they would all look the same anyways |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
159
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 03:06:00 -
[27] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:I wouldn`t worry about it (the Author of the OP), vehicles are very well orginized, although CCP said there was a 'Gunship', I think we can agree they were refaring to the DS further more a varient of the DS (or the HAA). fighters/fighter bombers are LAA (Light Attack Aircraft), something we do know are that there are madruager & Enforcer HAVs. Understandiong that both the LAA and HAV is ment for direct combat they will have attacker varients more often then not, so what are thoose varients for? the Madruagers are HP vehicles ment to deal out damage as they get the job done, LAAs will most definitly have 1 varient based off of this, now the Enforcer, the Enforcers are weak and slow but deal great sums of damage, I`m 100% sure they will have a LAA varient with this same purpose that is used for strafe runs (aka your fighter bomber). DS (DropShip): are used for for support and you can take it for an expensive airial logi bro, main purpose is for transport so the Logi varient is the outstanding varient for this, but a DS are used as triagers aswell and favored as gunships so you will also find a Assualt varient for battle, I would hope for a Trieger varient aswell in the later future. HAA: not much is known, but it has to be carried by a RDV so not much larger then a tank, I would guess a airborn tank like vehicle that has to circle its targets like a Vulture but I truly don`t know. btw, would you like to see a little gameplay of the LAA in the last engine?: skip to 5:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCwthats the gallante LAA, I can`t confirm what avrient since they havn`t released the names of the varients and they would all look the same anyways
Is it sad that I am jealous of that game?
Lets see
- Large map - Complex building environments - The rocket launcher is a secondary - LAA
Imagine that with the updated modeling and game play we have now
|
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 03:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:Shouper of BHD wrote:I wouldn`t worry about it (the Author of the OP), vehicles are very well orginized, although CCP said there was a 'Gunship', I think we can agree they were refaring to the DS further more a varient of the DS (or the HAA). fighters/fighter bombers are LAA (Light Attack Aircraft), something we do know are that there are madruager & Enforcer HAVs. Understandiong that both the LAA and HAV is ment for direct combat they will have attacker varients more often then not, so what are thoose varients for? the Madruagers are HP vehicles ment to deal out damage as they get the job done, LAAs will most definitly have 1 varient based off of this, now the Enforcer, the Enforcers are weak and slow but deal great sums of damage, I`m 100% sure they will have a LAA varient with this same purpose that is used for strafe runs (aka your fighter bomber). DS (DropShip): are used for for support and you can take it for an expensive airial logi bro, main purpose is for transport so the Logi varient is the outstanding varient for this, but a DS are used as triagers aswell and favored as gunships so you will also find a Assualt varient for battle, I would hope for a Trieger varient aswell in the later future. HAA: not much is known, but it has to be carried by a RDV so not much larger then a tank, I would guess a airborn tank like vehicle that has to circle its targets like a Vulture but I truly don`t know. btw, would you like to see a little gameplay of the LAA in the last engine?: skip to 5:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCwthats the gallante LAA, I can`t confirm what avrient since they havn`t released the names of the varients and they would all look the same anyways Is it sad that I am jealous of that game? Lets see - Large map - Complex building environments - The rocket launcher is a secondary - LAA Imagine that with the updated modeling and game play we have now
well, they all are coming except #3... attatchments to guns have been lightly mentioned such as scopes/iron sights, but it has alot to do with the User Market. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:Shouper of BHD wrote:I wouldn`t worry about it (the Author of the OP), vehicles are very well orginized, although CCP said there was a 'Gunship', I think we can agree they were refaring to the DS further more a varient of the DS (or the HAA). fighters/fighter bombers are LAA (Light Attack Aircraft), something we do know are that there are madruager & Enforcer HAVs. Understandiong that both the LAA and HAV is ment for direct combat they will have attacker varients more often then not, so what are thoose varients for? the Madruagers are HP vehicles ment to deal out damage as they get the job done, LAAs will most definitly have 1 varient based off of this, now the Enforcer, the Enforcers are weak and slow but deal great sums of damage, I`m 100% sure they will have a LAA varient with this same purpose that is used for strafe runs (aka your fighter bomber). DS (DropShip): are used for for support and you can take it for an expensive airial logi bro, main purpose is for transport so the Logi varient is the outstanding varient for this, but a DS are used as triagers aswell and favored as gunships so you will also find a Assualt varient for battle, I would hope for a Trieger varient aswell in the later future. HAA: not much is known, but it has to be carried by a RDV so not much larger then a tank, I would guess a airborn tank like vehicle that has to circle its targets like a Vulture but I truly don`t know. btw, would you like to see a little gameplay of the LAA in the last engine?: skip to 5:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCwthats the gallante LAA, I can`t confirm what avrient since they havn`t released the names of the varients and they would all look the same anyways Is it sad that I am jealous of that game? Lets see - Large map - Complex building environments - The rocket launcher is a secondary - LAA Imagine that with the updated modeling and game play we have now well, they all are coming except #3... attatchments to guns have been lightly mentioned such as scopes/iron sights, but it has alot to do with the User Market. We've actually been told that the art assets are already deploy-able, and all their waiting on is the actual system to be implemented. Also, unless you're talking about a small AV weapon the size of a LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon), there's no way something like that should be a secondary. Besides, the AV grenades are more than powerful enough as it is.
On the subject of AV though, unless we get another buff to Swarm Launcher speed, we're going to need a heavier and faster missile launcher designed to take down fast-moving air targets.
|
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
202
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 22:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
@Shouper
Gunships should be light aircraft not Heavy aircraft, that way they can stay closer to the infantry without being an easy target. If they were Heavy aircraft then their size and lock time(if different lock time is ever implemented) would make them poorly suited to staying near the ground to support infantry. A smaller Air to Ground vehicle would present a smaller target and could more easily maneuver around in tighter spaces infantry frequent like streets. If it was a heavy craft then it couldn't get as close increasing the change to miss your target. there also the fact that you want your gunship to be harder to detect so that way infantry can just take cover prepare for your arrival. Infantry will have more than enough firepower to tear anything out of the skies so trying to tank it is not a good idea, especially for a vehicle that has to actively be near hostile targets to work.
Fighter/bombers should be heavy so they can maximize the damage they do in a single strike and so they can more easily rule the skies. if a gunship was bigger than them then there is a change that a gunship could out do a fighter, which is bad for a fighter. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |