|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
194
 |
Posted - 2013.05.30 16:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mark Crusader wrote:I would like to see this implemented as a "Stabilizer" function. A button, that while held down, would heavily dampen lateral and vertical motion and level the craft out. This would make maneuvering in tight spaces, holding position, recovering control, and landing easier, but at a significant speed and agility penalty. Skilled pilots who don't need the assistance as much would retain an upper hand. This actually seems like it would have some merit. It'd basically be the equivalent of scoping-in, a sacrifice to maneuverability and speed in favour of precision and stability. Most importantly, a skilled pilot might not need it, and so would show a clear advantage over an unskilled one (while making the craft itself more accessible to more people, thus increasing its use on the battlefield; gal drops could be devastating in PlanetSide, and it makes me sad we don't really see DS getting used for the transports they are, increasing mobility on the battlefield.)
We really need a sisi client to test some of these things without plugging them in on TQ. |

Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
197
 |
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Klivve Cussler wrote:I'm in favor of fixing the other stuff mentioned, but I'm of two minds on the auto-hover.
Flying a militia or standard dropship is like balancing a meter stick (it's like a yardstick, but the correct length) on the palm of your hand. You're always making small changes to stay in control and balanced.
The assault dropship, however, is different. It's the sports car of dropships, and the controls are correspondingly more sensitive. When I first took off, I nearly hit the MCC. It took a few minutes to get the hang of it. After several hours of practice, my python is a lean mean flying machine in my hands. I can hover, fly nap of the earth, and even performed a textbook split-S to avoid fire from another dropship (if Von Richtoven - sorry only glanced at your name- is out there, that was an awesome match, and I think you had me on points).
I do understand that Assault dropships are tricky to fly and difficult to master. The question is: should they be? Having put the effort in myself, I'm inclined to think that yes they should be, but I'm aware that I'm biased. From a gameplay perspective, dropships are certainly not capable of the kind of tactics shown in the trailers - Anti air fire is too powerful for that - but they are useful in the roles they are designed for if you take that into consideration when you plan your tactics. I think that right now, they're about right from a difficulty perspective, but could use enhancements to increase overall situational awareness when piloting.
I guess my stance is this: I'm in favor of dropships. If dropships become too unpopular, then CCP may do something drastic, and I lose my Close Air Hot Rod. So if the auto-hover feature is available, I'm glad, since people won't be complaining about how hard it is to fly, and CCP won't be tempted to nerf the controls. I won't use it, though.
Be warned though, a hovering dropship is simply a large shiny pinata for forge and rail gunners, and I'll be taking pot shots at you as well. What would you say to Mark's post that I quoted? I'd be curious to see others' perspectives on it, since it seemed to offer a fair and balanced compromise.
Also, i'm tempted to +1 you just for the meter stick comment lol (check the link ) http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/can-you-play-rugby-in-it.jpg |

Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
197
 |
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Klivve Cussler wrote:LOL! Love that show.
My opinion on the stabilizer functionality is much the same: While it would lower the barrier for entry for the dropship, which I'm in favor of since popular things don't get messed with, I feel that a pilot dependent on it over a battlefield is only going to come to grief at the hands of a forge or rail gunner.
At low speeds and altitudes, which is when this would be most useful, a dropship stabilized as you describe is simply free WP for the opposing team. If you aren't jinking on the edge of control, you're a free meal. I don't see those as downsides, though. I'm looking at it from the angle of lowering the skill barrier to entry, while leqving the skill ceiling unaffected.
What show is it? I'd a dirty self-hating american with no tv while i'm stationed in germany (and no interest in tv when i was in the US; i can get my doctor who online ). |

Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
198
 |
Posted - 2013.05.30 18:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Klivve Cussler wrote:That's Top Gear. The UK edition.
My primary concern about these ideas is that they will change the complaint from "These things are too hard to fly" into "These things are too easy to kill" Right now I think a well flown dropship is very survivable as long as you are not presenting yourself as a target for more than a few seconds at a time. I don't want a flying tank (although a hovering tank would be cool). The current balance makes air superiority a very tenuous thing, giving advantage to the brave and the bold without taking away from the ground battle.
So I'm in favour of auto-hover and stabilization, but against the next set of demands to buff the Dropship. There will always be whinging, and most of it baseless, in the wrong direction (e.g. nerf the tac ar outright, rather than give it significant recoil and put it in the sniper progression where it belongs as the marksman rifle it is), or both.
The best we can do is fight against the whinging as best we can. I think the lack of dropship usage is a bigger problem than try-hards whinging about getting killed in them.
My natural reaction whenever seeing either a buff or nerf thread is to play smarter/better (e.g., you just suck, or you're not utilizing the counter that's already there; this applies to all games, not just dust and eve, and not just after i started playing dust or eve). I want to see play encouraged, but whinging ignored.
I think the inevitable "i die too easy" is worth dealing with if we can make it more approachable so people at least try it more.
Do you see any issues balance or mechanic related with the stabilizer idea? Inevitable whinging isn't enough in my mind, since people will always whinge, the trick is ignoring the ones with no merit (like this would be.)
Full disclosure: i haven't messed with dropships since the build where we had BPOs for them, so it's hard for me to comment on more than just what appear to be somewhat legitimate complaints that seem to explain my observations. |

Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
203
 |
Posted - 2013.05.31 16:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
CLONE117 wrote:i would like the dropship to fly similar to the falcon vehicle on halo reach.
the dropship is designed to assist the infantry on the ground as everything else is pretty much designed to make the infantryman's job easier.
the drop ship is to much of a hassle to fly right now its extremely difficult NOT to crash its hard to to slow down and speed up and it practically blows up each to u very gently bumb into a building or a wall or some tower thing as its hard to fly.
its also next to impossible to land with out it taking massive damage.
as it takes lots of damage when trying to land.
i think the dropship should be alittle easier to fly so pilots can maneuver effectively in close quarters environments.
it should be possible to land quickly, pick up several team members, take off easily without having to worry about any buildings or towers nearby, and transport them out of the heavy firefight zone or drop them off into one or land the down at an enemy objective.
the pilots only worry should be enemy vehicles and av users.
not a giant building that could simply be avoided if the dropship had better maneuverability.
right now the name drop ship is quite accurate since they are ships and they do seem to drop out of the sky quite often. Just want to point out that the landing part is the only one there that really matters; people can and should be doing aerial drops for insertion, not actually landing, as that's just silly. |
|
|
|