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. |
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 01:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Ops Fox wrote:@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. I would personally figure that a Gunship would be a Light aircraft, Fighter a medium, and Attacker a Heavy. Kinda fits how those are sized IRL, and means that you can make an educated guess as to what you're dealing with when looking at the icon on the radar. I still think it'd be nice to have a separate icon for VTOL assets, but one step at a time. |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 02:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Ops Fox wrote:@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. I would personally figure that a Gunship would be a Light aircraft, Fighter a medium, and Attacker a Heavy. Kinda fits how those are sized IRL, and means that you can make an educated guess as to what you're dealing with when looking at the icon on the radar. I still think it'd be nice to have a separate icon for VTOL assets, but one step at a time.
well, LAAs are fighters, they even had a video of a CCP employee flying a gallante varient so they aren`t gunships. |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
204
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 02:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:
well, LAAs are fighters, they even had a video of a CCP employee flying a gallante varient so they aren`t gunships.
Link and even if they are nothing is set in stone yet. It would make sense for a gunship like vehicle to be a light aircraft so it can maneuver and stay on the infantry. where as a fighter should rule the open skies with lots of damage potential. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
223
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 03:39:00 -
[34] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Ops Fox wrote:@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. I would personally figure that a Gunship would be a Light aircraft, Fighter a medium, and Attacker a Heavy. Kinda fits how those are sized IRL Not always true. Gunships are generally larger than Fighters because they don't need to be agile and need to carry more guns. Of course, that's the fixed-wing version, not the helicopter version. |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
204
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 03:44:00 -
[35] - Quote
when i think of gunship I think Apache not AC-130s.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/AC-130H_Spectre_jettisons_flares.jpg
AC-130 "gunship"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/AH-64D_Apache_Longbow.jpg
Apache "gunship" |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 05:06:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ops Fox wrote:Shouper of BHD wrote:
well, LAAs are fighters, they even had a video of a CCP employee flying a gallante varient so they aren`t gunships.
Link and even if they are nothing is set in stone yet. It would make sense for a gunship like vehicle to be a light aircraft so it can maneuver and stay on the infantry. where as a fighter should rule the open skies with lots of damage potential.
here ya go my freind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCw @ the 5:20 mark he calls it in.
although it is on the old engine I will bet on that the avrage LAA will be:
1 passenger (whom is the pilot), 2 small turrets, always accelorating but might have the option to slow or speed up its speed by small mesures, high altidtude capibilitys. most liekly a SS turret module since you can have an S and another S turret module (becuse the must be the same turret).
good for strafe runs, railgun LAAs with compressed + damage mods will most liekly be able to take out a tank if positions right (I fly DSes and knowing S railguns are getting buffed to be ebtter precise damage then S missles, and the tanks that are profisinaly fitted (Gunlogis and Sagerises) I can tell that since both shots hit the same spot).
beside the standard varient I would assume an Enforcer like varient is most likely.
seeing how CCP has the tanks I would assume a HAA would be the gunship. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 14:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:Ops Fox wrote:Shouper of BHD wrote:
well, LAAs are fighters, they even had a video of a CCP employee flying a gallante varient so they aren`t gunships.
Link and even if they are nothing is set in stone yet. It would make sense for a gunship like vehicle to be a light aircraft so it can maneuver and stay on the infantry. where as a fighter should rule the open skies with lots of damage potential. here ya go my freind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED-YF-v7WCw @ the 5:20 mark he calls it in. although it is on the old engine I will bet on that the avrage LAA will be: 1 passenger (whom is the pilot), 2 small turrets, always accelorating but might have the option to slow or speed up its speed by small mesures, high altidtude capibilitys. most liekly a SS turret module since you can have an S and another S turret module (becuse the must be the same turret). good for strafe runs, railgun LAAs with compressed + damage mods will most liekly be able to take out a tank if positions right (I fly DSes and knowing S railguns are getting buffed to be ebtter precise damage then S missles, and the tanks that are profisinaly fitted (Gunlogis and Sagerises) I can tell that since both shots hit the same spot). beside the standard varient I would assume an Enforcer like varient is most likely. seeing how CCP has the tanks I would assume a HAA would be the gunship. Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity. |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
164
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these.
LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential)
The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference.
VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret
|
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:09:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret
actully if you ask a DS who uses 2 gunners they can tell you a LAA has a good chance on destroying a tank if it goes with AV turrets (note S railguns are getting buffed), just position your LAA correctly and since both shots hit the same spot that tank won`t have a good chance if its cought by surprise.
Something to note though, L missle turrets will eventualy lock onto airial and maybe all vehicles. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 19:09:00 -
[40] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret As to the first part, the only missiles we have right now are dumbfire.
Overall, I think a new weapon class would be the best way to go with this. Since the current vehicle weapons we have are referred to as "Turrets" specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if hard-mounted weapons are introduced later when there are vehicles that can use them. |
|
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
169
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 20:00:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret As to the first part, the only missiles we have right now are dumbfire. Overall, I think a new weapon class would be the best way to go with this. Since the current vehicle weapons we have are referred to as "Turrets" specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if hard-mounted weapons are introduced later when there are vehicles that can use them.
New weapon classes are fine but I am just saying that the mechanics for them are already in place.
Swarms - lock on missles HMG - basically the same framework for a nose turret like an Apache style gunship would have. Dumbfires - same mechanics as a swarm without lockon. You would get more per shot but there would be no guidance and would be weaker against vehicles.
This would also give LAA pilots different paths to skill into as it would either be an anti-infantry strafing vehicle or an anti-vehicle precision striker.
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:08:00 -
[42] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret As to the first part, the only missiles we have right now are dumbfire. Overall, I think a new weapon class would be the best way to go with this. Since the current vehicle weapons we have are referred to as "Turrets" specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if hard-mounted weapons are introduced later when there are vehicles that can use them. New weapon classes are fine but I am just saying that the mechanics for them are already in place. Swarms - lock on missles HMG - basically the same framework for a nose turret like an Apache style gunship would have. Dumbfires - same mechanics as a swarm without lockon. You would get more per shot but there would be no guidance and would be weaker against vehicles. This would also give LAA pilots different paths to skill into as it would either be an anti-infantry strafing vehicle or an anti-vehicle precision striker. Right.
Personally, I find close-air-support boring as sin. I'm gonna be the one gunning down all those LAAs. |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
169
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:11:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, when I think Gunship, I think a Cobra or Apache. Or a Hokum or Tiger if you're in Europe. Even the smallest Fighter aircraft we make today have a larger body than an attack helicopter due in part to the fact that you want it to be as narrow at the front as possible to make it harder to shoot down.
As far as weapons, I would think that aerial vehicles and possibly even MTACs would require a new class of body-mounted fixed-aim weapons, especially when you consider that guided air-to-air missiles are pretty much a necessity.
You wouldnt need completely new mechanics for the weapon systems on these. LAA (1 person) 3 Fixed hardpoints (not moveable turrets) 1 x medium front mount that is a blaster 2 x small mounts that could either be dumbfire missles or lock on swarms (same damage potential) The damage from these should not be able to one-shot a tank. The speed/maneuverability should make up for the damage difference. VTOL Gunship (2 person) 3 slots - 1 turret and 2 x hardpoints Introduce a weapon that is similar to the HMG for the turret with a little bit more of a range buff but more bullet spread (same damage) 2 x small mounts that have same options as LAA 1 x pilot who manages the 2 x small mounts 1 x gunner who manages the turret As to the first part, the only missiles we have right now are dumbfire. Overall, I think a new weapon class would be the best way to go with this. Since the current vehicle weapons we have are referred to as "Turrets" specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if hard-mounted weapons are introduced later when there are vehicles that can use them. New weapon classes are fine but I am just saying that the mechanics for them are already in place. Swarms - lock on missles HMG - basically the same framework for a nose turret like an Apache style gunship would have. Dumbfires - same mechanics as a swarm without lockon. You would get more per shot but there would be no guidance and would be weaker against vehicles. This would also give LAA pilots different paths to skill into as it would either be an anti-infantry strafing vehicle or an anti-vehicle precision striker. Right. Personally, I find close-air-support boring as sin. I'm gonna be the one gunning down all those LAAs.
Well, its all about options just like with everything else in DUST. It will give people even more choices in how to win a district
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 00:36:00 -
[44] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote: Well, its all about options just like with everything else in DUST. It will give people even more choices in how to win a district
Oh hell yeah, I'm all over that. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 02:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote: Well, its all about options just like with everything else in DUST. It will give people even more choices in how to win a district
Oh hell yeah, I'm all over that. Actually, since I didn't mention it before, I had a thread open for a bit on a possible change of mechanics for District capture. It was actually a suggestion for how I thought it could work, but since the current system has already been announced, I guess this could be thought of as an alternate approach. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=559125#post559125
I post this because it relates pretty directly to the idea of roles for Fighters, LAAs, or whatever aircraft variants we get. |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
142
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 05:50:00 -
[46] - Quote
Jakar Umbra wrote:
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.
ALL OF MY WANT!
Please listen to this man CCP, Give us fixed wing aircraft!(I can't fly those damn dropships!) |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 03:33:00 -
[47] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Jakar Umbra wrote:
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.
ALL OF MY WANT! Please listen to this man CCP, Give us fixed wing aircraft!(I can't fly those damn dropships!) I'm still interested in how the racial pilot suits are going to balance out.
On that subject, what are you all's thoughts on that? I personally was in mind of a suit with little to no high-or low slots, but has equipment slots for providing bonuses for vehicles that only that suit class can use, kind of like what it seems we'll have with the Command suits and the AoE bonuses that only they will likely be able to use. |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 13:25:00 -
[48] - Quote
Also, does the pilot suit give EXTRA bonuses for same race vehicles? |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
142
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 21:07:00 -
[49] - Quote
I'd like the racial suits to give a bonus to vehicles in general(fire rate, armor, shields, those kinds of things), and then a secondary bonus to racial vehicles(minmatar gets speed/ROF improvements, caldari gets range/shielding, gallente gets armor/blaster damage, ammar gets armor/ laser damage{whenever lasers are implemented}).
also, the vehicle benefit module idea sounds like a sweet gig for pilots. or maybe even a dedicated gunner, maybe something they can use to cool down a gun they're on(not all of them at once), or to provide shorter term vehicle module(like a hardener that halts 50% of all damage, but only lasts for 3 seconds, and has a 45 second cooldown) like performance? |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
206
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 02:03:00 -
[50] - Quote
Id be happy with a smaller close air support version of the drop ship that is actually meant to attack ground targets. I also wouldn't mind a drop ship that could take a bit more damage.
I would rather the Close air support be smaller so it can better maneuver in streets or so I can get to infantry under those huge rigs. |
|
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 04:00:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ops Fox wrote:Id be happy with a smaller close air support version of the drop ship that is actually meant to attack ground targets. I also wouldn't mind a drop ship that could take a bit more damage.
I would rather the Close air support be smaller so it can better maneuver in streets or so I can get to infantry under those huge rigs.
thats the Assualt DS, has a gun S turret or 2 for the pilot, low flying, highly menuevable but weak, low passenger count coming in both gallante and Caldari in Uprising. |
Red Acer
IMMA TRY IT OUT
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 06:47:00 -
[52] - Quote
i was talking to my friends about this very thing, telling them how i wish they had a wider selection for aerial vehicles, like some sort of light assault aircraft or a heavy bomber, this needs to be in the game to make it feel like an actual battle, where stuff will just blow up around you, dog fights are going on above, tanks and artillery firing on enemy locations, just pure chaos with you in the middle of it |
Galrick M'kron
Sand Mercenary Corps Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:20:00 -
[53] - Quote
Give DS pilots "deployment WP": For one minute after a merc is lands from a dropship, the pilot gains WP equal to 20% of all WP that merc gains. The WP caps at 1000 for 1 minute. This would encourage dropship pilots to do their job as a troop transport. Other direct-offense based aerial vehicles probably wouldn't need this, since they'd be getting plenty of WP from kills. |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
187
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:38:00 -
[54] - Quote
I would just like to know if this is in the plans for the next build or two (after Uprising) or if its just a rough sketch of things to come.
IE - should I focus on infantry right now and not worry about a pilot suit or should I go HAV/DS and level up the pilot suit so I will be ready when there are aerial vehicles available besides the sky taxi |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 16:46:00 -
[55] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:I would just like to know if this is in the plans for the next build or two (after Uprising) or if its just a rough sketch of things to come.
IE - should I focus on infantry right now and not worry about a pilot suit or should I go HAV/DS and level up the pilot suit so I will be ready when there are aerial vehicles available besides the sky taxi
the Assault DropShip varient (unknown if its standar, advance or proto, but there will be Caldari and Gallante) will be coming in Uprising (May 6th) aswell as the Gallante Pilot DropSuit.
Also to the guy talking about the bomber and stuff check this out, its a jet fighter and 1 of thye varients has a turret on the bottum: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=69385&find=unread |
Iskandar Zul Karnain
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
312
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 17:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
Best aerial vehicles suggestion thread I've seen. Great job. I'd love to see this in Dust. |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
187
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:27:00 -
[57] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:I would just like to know if this is in the plans for the next build or two (after Uprising) or if its just a rough sketch of things to come.
IE - should I focus on infantry right now and not worry about a pilot suit or should I go HAV/DS and level up the pilot suit so I will be ready when there are aerial vehicles available besides the sky taxi the Assault DropShip varient (unknown if its standar, advance or proto, but there will be Caldari and Gallante) will be coming in Uprising (May 6th) aswell as the Gallante Pilot DropSuit. Also to the guy talking about the bomber and stuff check this out, its a jet fighter and 1 of thye varients has a turret on the bottum: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=69385&find=unread
Thats the thing though. I have zero interest in being a sky taxi driver even if it does have a small turret on the front of it. The DS would also do nothing for my learning curve as the mechanics would be different between a slow VTOL and a fixed wing fighter. |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:36:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:Shouper of BHD wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:I would just like to know if this is in the plans for the next build or two (after Uprising) or if its just a rough sketch of things to come.
IE - should I focus on infantry right now and not worry about a pilot suit or should I go HAV/DS and level up the pilot suit so I will be ready when there are aerial vehicles available besides the sky taxi the Assault DropShip varient (unknown if its standar, advance or proto, but there will be Caldari and Gallante) will be coming in Uprising (May 6th) aswell as the Gallante Pilot DropSuit. Also to the guy talking about the bomber and stuff check this out, its a jet fighter and 1 of thye varients has a turret on the bottum: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=69385&find=unread Thats the thing though. I have zero interest in being a sky taxi driver even if it does have a small turret on the front of it. The DS would also do nothing for my learning curve as the mechanics would be different between a slow VTOL and a fixed wing fighter.
sorry, I think I quoted the wrong post. |
Kitten Commander
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
187
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:Shouper of BHD wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:I would just like to know if this is in the plans for the next build or two (after Uprising) or if its just a rough sketch of things to come.
IE - should I focus on infantry right now and not worry about a pilot suit or should I go HAV/DS and level up the pilot suit so I will be ready when there are aerial vehicles available besides the sky taxi the Assault DropShip varient (unknown if its standar, advance or proto, but there will be Caldari and Gallante) will be coming in Uprising (May 6th) aswell as the Gallante Pilot DropSuit. Also to the guy talking about the bomber and stuff check this out, its a jet fighter and 1 of thye varients has a turret on the bottum: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=69385&find=unread Thats the thing though. I have zero interest in being a sky taxi driver even if it does have a small turret on the front of it. The DS would also do nothing for my learning curve as the mechanics would be different between a slow VTOL and a fixed wing fighter. sorry, I think I quoted the wrong post.
No worries. I just wish we could get some involvement from a DEV to even let us know if this is something that will happen in the next couple builds or not. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1313
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 19:36:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kitten Commander wrote:No worries. I just wish we could get some involvement from a DEV to even let us know if this is something that will happen in the next couple builds or not. I'm right there with you. One of the main reasons I got into this game was so that I could specialize as a pilot, and I'd really like more information on what kind of options we'll have. |
|
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
56
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 05:33:00 -
[61] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:No worries. I just wish we could get some involvement from a DEV to even let us know if this is something that will happen in the next couple builds or not. I'm right there with you. One of the main reasons I got into this game was so that I could specialize as a pilot, and I'd really like more information on what kind of options we'll have.
I got a speculation thread in geniral discusions all about the LAAs getting all the known facts about them, inclueding photos most havn`t seen explaining the turret mechanics and stuff, its called: [speculation] LAAs 4/18/13
real photos, trailers, gameplay and artwork. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1317
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 15:35:00 -
[62] - Quote
Shouper of BHD wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Kitten Commander wrote:No worries. I just wish we could get some involvement from a DEV to even let us know if this is something that will happen in the next couple builds or not. I'm right there with you. One of the main reasons I got into this game was so that I could specialize as a pilot, and I'd really like more information on what kind of options we'll have. I got a speculation thread in geniral discusions all about the LAAs getting all the known facts about them, inclueding photos most havn`t seen explaining the turret mechanics and stuff, its called: [speculation] LAAs 4/18/13 real photos, trailers, gameplay and artwork. Yeah I saw your thread, and I'd recommend everyone in this one check it out. |
CPL Bloodstone
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
47
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 19:01:00 -
[63] - Quote
+1 |
Jakar Umbra
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
51
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 03:04:00 -
[64] - Quote
Wow, I come back to find four pages of solid discussion. Good to know my friend and I aren't the only people who want more out of piloting in this game. Here's a bump in the hopes more people get in on the conversation.
Also, looking back at my OP I was pondering the way I had the skills laid out and was wondering, if it could not go like this as an alternative:
Level 1 unlocks the skills for Dropships and Attackships since they would both essentially fall under small VTOL craft.
Level 2 nothing
Level 3 Fighters and Fighter Bombers. Fixed winged aircraft. Both craft not necessarily specialised so the fighter can be a generalist in all air to air, while the FIghter Bomber can be a generalist in well... bombing. Higher tiers which would be unlocked from higher levels in the skill would be more specialised like the higher level Caldari Fighter would be more efficient at using air to air missiles, with such things as reduced lock on times or better tracking.
Level 4 would unlock nothing as well
Level 5 would unlock what I originally referred to as Heavy Aircraft. The reason I don't want to elaborate too much is that there are in fact a variety of things that could fall into this category. An example would be something that I would call a Mobile Command Outpost. This craft would only be of use in much larger battles and may even go as far as to be unlocked with a Piloting Proficiency Skill or whatever the equivalent would be referred to as. It would be smaller than a MCC, but able to manouevre around the battle at high altitude. On board would be a CRU with a bay capable of holding I would estimate four people before it was full. It could be equipped with logistics gear to repair other aircraft as well as flak to defend itself from other Aircraft. I ponder whether or not it should have anything air-to-ground for the sake of balance though. At best I would say one weapon of that sort, probably under control of a secondary person in the craft. Like I said though this would be for the much larger battles in the future.
The motivation behind my questioning the skill system is for the sake of balance. There could be other potential solutions. If you guys have any I'd like to hear them.
With the reveal of the new concept art, particularly the ones showing fighters and what looked to be a LAA I'm more excited moving forward in this game. Let's keep this conversation going even after Uprising hits. Hopefully the Devs are reading. |
Shouper of BHD
Better Hide R Die
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 07:04:00 -
[65] - Quote
Jakar Umbra wrote:Wow, I come back to find four pages of solid discussion. Good to know my friend and I aren't the only people who want more out of piloting in this game. Here's a bump in the hopes more people get in on the conversation.
Also, looking back at my OP I was pondering the way I had the skills laid out and was wondering, if it could not go like this as an alternative:
Level 1 unlocks the skills for Dropships and Attackships since they would both essentially fall under small VTOL craft.
Level 2 nothing
Level 3 Fighters and Fighter Bombers. Fixed winged aircraft. Both craft not necessarily specialised so the fighter can be a generalist in all air to air, while the FIghter Bomber can be a generalist in well... bombing. Higher tiers which would be unlocked from higher levels in the skill would be more specialised like the higher level Caldari Fighter would be more efficient at using air to air missiles, with such things as reduced lock on times or better tracking.
Level 4 would unlock nothing as well
Level 5 would unlock what I originally referred to as Heavy Aircraft. The reason I don't want to elaborate too much is that there are in fact a variety of things that could fall into this category. An example would be something that I would call a Mobile Command Outpost. This craft would only be of use in much larger battles and may even go as far as to be unlocked with a Piloting Proficiency Skill or whatever the equivalent would be referred to as. It would be smaller than a MCC, but able to manouevre around the battle at high altitude. On board would be a CRU with a bay capable of holding I would estimate four people before it was full. It could be equipped with logistics gear to repair other aircraft as well as flak to defend itself from other Aircraft. I ponder whether or not it should have anything air-to-ground for the sake of balance though. At best I would say one weapon of that sort, probably under control of a secondary person in the craft. Like I said though this would be for the much larger battles in the future.
The motivation behind my questioning the skill system is for the sake of balance. There could be other potential solutions. If you guys have any I'd like to hear them.
With the reveal of the new concept art, particularly the ones showing fighters and what looked to be a LAA I'm more excited moving forward in this game. Let's keep this conversation going even after Uprising hits. Hopefully the Devs are reading.
you sir need to read my thread :D no need to speculate, some of theese are factual, the fighter bomber is a varient of the LAA that has a turret on the bottum (360 view) and all the LAAs work like hawks in WarHawk (SPIN TO WIN!!!!!) where it can change to hover, if the wings are up its in landing mode, sideways its flieng, and down is hover so thoose wanted a fighter jet and thoose wanted an apache you both won.
I was called a boss for healing a guys tank today from ym DS, was happy that I was effective in the short time I had to rep and got recognition, but I think its to all the pilots out there
Fanfest will mention the LAAs so watch it! |
nightchild 777
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 15:11:00 -
[66] - Quote
id also like to see the possibility of small defence drones. a couple little drones that fly around the ship to either attempt to shoot down/intercept incoming swarms or other targeted shots. considering that the swarms fire about 4 mini missles maybe have it so that despite the drones one or two of these missles still get through usually. and another nice countermessure would be to maybe have a mounted turret gun that shoots down incomming projectiles. like navy ships have but on a smaller scale. |
Skybladev2
LUX AETERNA INT RUST415
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
I just want bombs (to bomb tanks), this will be very cool and not so difficult to add to existing version. |
Evolution-7
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 20:19:00 -
[68] - Quote
BUMP |
pegasis prime
The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY
315
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 22:46:00 -
[69] - Quote
Id love to see things like high altitude recon ships with scanning and sensor blocking capabilities directing friendly artillary havs ohh the carnage . Imagine one of then flying arround with a squadren of fighters as an escort the ariel and ground battles could be so epic . This will most likly not happen untill we are given larger maps and player battlesizes(sigh). |
darkiller240
INGLORIOUS-INQUISITION
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 22:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
+1 |
|
Evolution-7
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 09:51:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP do not be afraid to take ideas from Planetside 2,
The main problem is that not all the vehicles and classes where released at once. I think that this should have happened and that the monthly updates should be maps, game-modes, features, and the occasional guns/new unseen vehicles |
Funky Chunky
EchoTeam
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 02:36:00 -
[72] - Quote
I just want them all to look awesome |
Aizen Intiki
Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack
368
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 02:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
Keep in mind that fighters will have (well, at least the Gallente one) a VTOL function, and have 2 people, and the gunship is a Heavy Aircraft. |
Dunk Mujunk
Red Star Jr. EoN.
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:04:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kitten Commander already brought this up, and Jakar Umbra acknowledged it as well, but the map sizes definitely need to be enlarged before any fixed wing, fast aircraft could really be brought in, otherwise you're most likely looking at a cluster **** in the sky, unless you're just throwing in glorified DS's with different weapons. Grand Theft Auto: San Andres introduced properly functioning fixed wing aircraft to the series, only to take them away for GTA:IV. This was (to my understanding at least) due to the fact the map size of GTA IV was waaaaay smaller than GTA SA (way more detailed, but way smaller). You'd basically cruise straight across the map in no time at all. It would be the same in Dust on the current map sizes, and just as Kitten Commander said you'd look up and see a bunch of aircraft doing figure 8s basically.
Besides the horizontal, you have to consider the vertical as well. I've never taken a DS to its tippy top altitude, but i'm almost positive that the area of any given map would have to be greatly expanded in the vertical sense to accommodate decent fighter aircraft mechanics, or to keep the whole idea from feeling kinda tacky.
The only other issue I see isn't really an issue, but I wouldn't really want to many wild variations on aircraft being thrown in until the amount of players per side is jacked up. If you figure you field say 2 fighters, 1 dude each, and 1 gunship or bomber and say 2 guys there, then throw in 1 tank with a driver and gunner, and an LAV with a driver and a gunner, that's 8 people that are floating around in vehicles, no boots on the ground. That's fine and all, I just don't want battles to become almost exclusively vehicle on vehicle, with only a smattering of actual ground troops duking it out on foot. Of course, I guess they do have the limit on the amount of vehicles your team can field at once but, ideally, i'd like to see battles able to support enough people to be able to put a fighter wing up, a group of bombers and or gunships, a little 3-4 tank platoon with some LAVs to scout for the column, as well as a large ground force akin to what we see now. I don't know what the max player size per side can be atm though, so this may be a total non issue.
All in all though the ideas in this thread sound awesome, would love to have air battles raging overhead while i'm fighting down in the mud.
DISCLAIMER: I realize my newness, don't take my 2 cents for anything more than what it is. |
Ulysses Knapse
Bojo's School of the Trades
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:25:00 -
[75] - Quote
I remember this thread. It was awful before, and it still is. Unimaginative, with poor attention to detail.
If you are going to suggest something, it needs to be creative or well-designed. This thread lacks both qualities. |
Evolution-7
the unholy legion of darkstar DARKSTAR ARMY
55
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 18:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
Bump. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |