|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
681
   |
Posted - 2013.06.01 20:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've seen a ton of threads on here saying that dropships are useless flying coffins that generate no warpoints and die in a flaming heap when a fly hits the windshield. I half agree with this.
This thread is not about ADS. Go somewhere else. You're not welcome here.
Firstly, CCP has already stated that they are looking into ways to give pilots WP for doing their real job (transporting) instead of being forced to gunship (which they aren't designed to do). The thing holding them back right now is that they are trying to find ways that are hard to exploit / unexploitable for WP's.
As for durability, I'm quite sure people won't be satisfied with their medium aerial vehicle until they become flying HAV's with instagib rifles. The problem with durability is visibility and range. As soon as you take off, everyone can see you. This makes forge gunners smile as they snipe you from four planets away. I don't think that the solution to survivability is more EHP, but for a decay effect on forge rounds.
For example, a forge gunner is in his redline and sees you take off from your redline (I know their range isn't that far; bare with me). The current system has him apply all of his damage at any range, so you get your face blown in while the heavy dances around.
In the decay situation, the farther away you are, the more the round dissipates on travel, therefore the projectile has less mass when it lands, causing less damage. The same forge gunner is in the same spot as the same dropship takes of from the same spot. He fires a forge shot, the round decays as it travels, and the dropship feels a tickle and carries about its business.
Now the dropship moves closer to the forge gunner to drop off blueberries. The forge gunner doesn't like blueberries. The dropship made the mistake of hovering near the forge gunner. Mr. Forgey blaps him in the face from about 15m away, leaving little decay on the round, and hits the pilot directly in the face so hard that his great great great great grandmother felt it in her grave. She spontaneously combusted, creating a small explosion underneath the tree she was buried, lighting it on fire, spreading, and razing hundreds of miles of land in what seems to be an unstoppable forest fire.
Another thing about dropships is that they are designed to be a troop transport. These maps aren't terribly hard to traverse on foot. Why do I need a transport? Why would I put myself in a pi+Ķata for the world to see so I can save a few seconds on my jog?
I think this problem will alleviate itself when we get larger maps with bigger teams, but for now, these vehicles fill a niche role that doesn't exist quite yet. The maps are not big enough to need tactical troop insertions, nor will the team sizes atm allow for a third of the team to be inside one vehicle and still have a strong presence on the ground.
If you decided to read all of this, you'll notice three things;
1. You are a glutton for pain and should probably seek help for your "reading" habit.
2. I didn't mention swarms.
3. Not one word on dropship turrets
Swarms in their current state are fine. I read that CCP is looking into a lock-on warning, which will be a huge nerf to them, but right now a swarm launcher at extreme distance gives the pilot plenty of time to decide what to do about the fiery balls of death flying towards them. If the swarms were fired from close range, well, you flew too close to AV and are going to pay the price.
As for dropship turrets... I think having these things on dropships make people think that these are supposed to be gunboats. For now, that is really the only role they can fill, but later (when we see WP's for transporting and large maps), I'd like to see these removed in place for more fitting options.
TL;DR - Dropship EHP is fine. Forge shots need a decay effect. Dropships are trying to fill a role (transport) that isn't needed at present, but will open up later. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 20:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:The game can barely handle the current map sizes with 16 vs 16. Waiting for larger maps and more players is a losing proposition, it's unlikely to happen for quite some time (ever?).
If they didn't think they could do it, they wouldn't have instilled the hope and promise of 5km * 5km maps and large-scale battles. Have a bit of faith.
DUST Fiend wrote:Been saying the FG falloff thing for a looooooong time now, and CCP even said they want to add in falloff to the weapons, so it's just a matter of when....
Perfect. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
685
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 20:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Huh, was kind of expecting some hate and fire in here...
Where all the DS pilots at? Caldari Logi / Tac AR's? |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
685
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 20:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Falloff on a rail gun though? 
Railguns kind of need to keep their range. Tanks need to keep the ability to fend one another off from a distance. I can't really come up with any scenario where the HAV would be able to engage another HAV from range and at the same time balance the DS.
Maybe have the angle of the shot determine the decay? Iunno how we could lorefluff this concept, but shots that travel straight would retain more mass than a shot angled towards the sky. Although I could see how this would make railsniping the only role an HAV could fill...
Iunno. I'd say fly higher. HAV's can't do that. That, or we could reduce the maximum height the rail can aim at. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
690
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 21:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
HK Rage wrote:I personally believe that dropships should be like uplinks for WP, everytime a person gets onboard, thats 20WP for the pilot and they cannot get another 20WP from the same person unless they died.
Cap that at 100WP per x time and it'll allow you to take a full load without exploiting it with your corpmates.
Also, there should be a reward for transporting, like +5 WP for traveling x distance * number of passengers, so a full load gives you 25 WP per distance. Not sure how we would set this though, since someone might take a full load and do aerial doughnuts. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
690
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 22:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote: I can't really come up with any scenario where the HAV would be able to engage another HAV from range and at the same time balance the DS. That's why I personally stand on the point of view that the dropship should be designed to stand up to HAV fire, but receive all the downside that entails. I can't tell how that'd work out, but it should be something the devs should look into. Perhaps they could even have different kinds of dropships - smaller ones that are supposed to use speed tanking and larger ones that will try to tank the dps for a limited time.
IIRC, CCP announced that we were getting jets (or some kind of fixed-wing aircraft) as light frames, so that would satisfy the speed tank aspect. The ones we currently have go down fast after a couple of hits, but they're not one-shot pi+Ķatas. Haven't heard anything about heavy aircraft yet.
From what I can tell, it seems as though they are already doing this. |
|
|
| |
|