DUST Search - jet fighters

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

jet fighters

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aviatnaut Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2013.06.05 03:57:00 - [1] - Quote i was hoping for jet fighters and am wondering when they come out, but also i was going to put in a request, that you being ccp limit the number in the air at a time even though i will be flying these 24/7 and noobs will take my spot if too many people take to the skies no one will play the ground. also a request to make these similar to bf3 jets but obviously more futuristic.
Aerion Spiritus The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 27	Posted - 2013.06.05 04:01:00 - [2] - Quote With the BF3 Jet style I say NOOO! Do not make it possible to jump out use some sort of AV than hop back in. I don't want to be chasing a guy whos also in a jet only for him to hop out and throw and av nade in my face.....
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 77	Posted - 2013.06.05 04:10:00 - [3] - Quote Based on concept art I can't wait for the Caldari jet. Also, I'd rather like jets to be more like the ones in Planetside 2 where you can hover in midair and strafe. A VTOL basically (I believe CCP has confirmed VTOL abilities on jets).
Aero Yassavi Imperial Resurrection Organization 8	Posted - 2013.06.05 04:41:00 - [4] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Based on concept art I can't wait for the Caldari jet. Also, I'd rather like jets to be more like the ones in Planetside 2 where you can hover in midair and strafe. A VTOL basically (I believe CCP has confirmed VTOL abilities on jets). I haven't played PS2, but it sounds a lot like the jets in Warhawk. If so that would be awesome! Only downside is it looks like it will just be Gallente and Caldari jets at first. Hopefully we get them all at once!
Charlotte O'Dell Molon Labe. League of Infamy 401	Posted - 2013.06.05 05:23:00 - [5] - Quote None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters.
Aerion Spiritus The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2013.06.05 05:42:00 - [6] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. I'm a vehicle user and vehicles were alright (changes were needed but not as drastic as current) before the change to vehicle engineering. THAT nearly paralyzed vehicles. Currently they are going around with casts on their arms and legs. Vehicles need the Vehicle Engineering back to 5% PG per level. I am an HAV and LAV user. I use caldari vehicles and EVERY one of my fits requires all the low power slots to have Powergrid Expansion units. So before they add more variants of vehicles (BRILLIANT IDEA) they need to fix the current vehicles or they will be working from a broken foundation.
tander09 RISE OF THE EMPIRE The Superpowers 18	Posted - 2013.06.05 08:11:00 - [7] - Quote CCP need to make sure we fight IN SPAICE with thees babies.
Matticus Monk Ordus Trismegistus 56	Posted - 2013.06.05 10:53:00 - [8] - Quote tander09 wrote: CCP need to make sure we fight IN SPAICE with thees babies. Yes, high altitude ops and expanded maps will make this quite fun. Additionally, high speeds, stealth technology, potentially provisions for a navigator/gunner would all be some intersting additions. Missiles that can track their targets would also be a plus.
Aerion Spiritus The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2013.06.05 10:55:00 - [9] - Quote tander09 wrote: CCP need to make sure we fight IN SPAICE with thees babies. Basically controlling fighters that get deployed from Super carriers?
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon Plus 722	Posted - 2013.06.05 11:02:00 - [10] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. This is wrong.

Aerion Spiritus The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 31	Posted - 2013.06.05 21:28:00 - [11] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. This is wrong. Charlotte O'Dell. You should play EVE. The ships have Tech I which is considered the base. Than there are Tech II which are specialised for certain roles and use the same base as a Tech I ship. This is what CCP are doing with vehicles.
Meeko Fent Mercenary incorperated 29	Posted - 2013.06.06 03:33:00 - [12] - Quote For Jets to Work, Remove the Red Line, so they have room to Fly. Its one of the Most Suggested Ideas, And the Devs seem to Not Understand what the Populace Wants.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1834	Posted - 2013.06.06 03:57:00 - [13] - Quote Aviatnaut wrote: i was hoping for jet fighters and am wondering when they come out, but also i was going to put in a request, that you being ccp limit the number in the air at a time even though i will be flying these 24/7 and noobs will take my spot if too many people take to the skies no one will play the ground. also a request to make these similar to bf3 jets but obviously more futuristic. BF3 flight mechanics are far too floaty and easymode. I'm hoping for flight mechanics more similar to the Ace Combat series, since this IS a console game after all. I don't really see the need to limit the number in the air, either. As soon as you get too many aircraft, everyone on both teams goes AV, and all the planes just die. It pretty much balances itself out. Also, don't forget that this game isn't just about Ambush. If everyone is flying in a Skirmish match, they'll just lose.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 773	Posted - 2013.06.06 04:02:00 - [14] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. Can't wait till you're eating your words when they do come
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1836	Posted - 2013.06.06 04:53:00 - [15] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. Can't wait till you're eating your words when they do come Yup. Mad poster is mad. I'm willing to bet Marauders are coming back as a higher tier HAV. Maybe even Proto.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 583	Posted - 2013.06.06 05:15:00 - [16] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. Can't wait till you're eating your words when they do come Yup. Mad poster is mad. I'm willing to bet Marauders are coming back as a higher tier HAV. Maybe even Proto. and I bet they are going to be weaker then the standard ones because the standard ones are meant to be proto in CCP eyes
negative49er One-Armed Bandits Unclaimed. 13	Posted - 2013.06.09 07:34:00 - [17] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Harpyja wrote: Based on concept art I can't wait for the Caldari jet. Also, I'd rather like jets to be more like the ones in Planetside 2 where you can hover in midair and strafe. A VTOL basically (I believe CCP has confirmed VTOL abilities on jets). I haven't played PS2, but it sounds a lot like the jets in Warhawk. If so that would be awesome! Only downside is it looks like it will just be Gallente and Caldari jets at first. Hopefully we get them all at once! PS2 have more than one meaning
medomai grey Fenrir's Wolves RUST415 24	Posted - 2013.06.09 07:50:00 - [18] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. What Charlotte said! It's not like vehicles have proto turrets or proto modules! If you want to apply the same dropsuit tier system to vehicles, understand that you are asking for really crappy slot allocations until you invest enough SP to get to proto tier vehicles that have the same slot layouts you presently have. Unless this is what you really want and don't mind shooting yourself in the foot, HTFU. Hug, kisses, and the occasional knife in the back, Grey
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 91	Posted - 2013.06.09 13:45:00 - [19] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: For Jets to Work, Remove the Red Line, so they have room to Fly. Its one of the Most Suggested Ideas, And the Devs seem to Not Understand what the Populace Wants. All that aerial vehicles need is a separate red line. Back in the early days of Chromosome when I tried dropships I remember flying over the infantry red line and I could go out further. I don't know now if this has changed in Uprising. BF3 uses the same mechanics that allows aerial vehicles to fly further than the regular limits for ground combat.
Godin Thekiller Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 135	Posted - 2013.06.09 14:37:00 - [20] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. What Charlotte said! It's not like vehicles have proto turrets or proto modules! If you want to apply the same dropsuit tier system to vehicles, understand that you are asking for really crappy slot allocations until you invest enough SP to get to proto tier vehicles that have the same slot layouts you presently have. Unless this is what you really want and don't mind shooting yourself in the foot, HTFU. Hug, kisses, and the occasional knife in the back, Grey He's talking about the removed Marauder and BO HAV's. You must be new here. Welcome to New Eden. Peace, Godin

Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1497	Posted - 2013.06.09 15:37:00 - [21] - Quote Aerion Spiritus wrote: With the BF3 Jet style I say NOOO! Do not make it possible to jump out use some sort of AV than hop back in. I don't want to be chasing a guy whos also in a jet only for him to hop out and throw and av nade in my face..... Pilot suits. Only CCP knows specifics, as far as I can tell, but it seems like they're going to be terrible infantry (probably sidearm only), but pilots with this suit will be at a big advantage over say, a heavy pilot.
EXASTRA INVICTAS Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 111	Posted - 2013.06.09 15:42:00 - [22] - Quote That said, CCP needs to consider a small redesign of the Gallente fighter. It's way too overcomplicated to be true Gallente tech. Our equipment is supposed to be smooth, and visually appealing, and use badass plasma. The current model looks too much like a bug. They got the Gallente RDV and HAV perfect. Fighter should just be smoother, look like one flowing frame. Current comparison between Caldari and Gallente fighters looks too much like "Modern Human design vs 'da Aliens design' " Edit: I will be speccing into the Gallente fighter no matter what, however, because that's how I roll.
medomai grey Fenrir's Wolves RUST415 25	Posted - 2013.06.09 20:51:00 - [23] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. Godin Thekiller wrote: He's talking about the removed Marauder and BO HAV's. You must be new here. Welcome to New Eden. Peace, Godin Marauder class and BPO HAVs where not once mentioned in Charlotte O'Dell's post. You must be new to reading comprehension. Keep reading more material, you'll get better with it the more you read. Screw peace. Fictional war is more fun, Grey
Aerion Spiritus Phaze O n e 35	Posted - 2013.06.09 23:45:00 - [24] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: None of you are vehicle users. Vehicles are not something CCP does well. I'll put it this way: everything EXCEPT vehicles has adv, pro, and officer varients. If we dont have proto tanks by now, we will never be getting fighters. Godin Thekiller wrote: He's talking about the removed Marauder and BO HAV's. You must be new here. Welcome to New Eden. Peace, Godin Marauder class and BPO HAVs where not once mentioned in Charlotte O'Dell's post. You must be new to reading comprehension. Keep reading more material, you'll get better with it the more you read. Screw peace. Fictional war is more fun, Grey I don't think he meant BPO HAVs. I think he meant Black OPs HAVs. As in cloaking fields (when they are implemented).
Aerion Spiritus Phaze O n e 35	Posted - 2013.06.09 23:46:00 - [25] - Quote EXASTRA INVICTAS wrote: That said, CCP needs to consider a small redesign of the Gallente fighter. It's way too overcomplicated to be true Gallente tech. Our equipment is supposed to be smooth, and visually appealing, and use badass plasma. The current model looks too much like a bug. They got the Gallente RDV and HAV perfect. Fighter should just be smoother, look like one flowing frame. Current comparison between Caldari and Gallente fighters looks too much like "Modern Human design vs 'da Aliens design' " Edit: I will be speccing into the Gallente fighter no matter what, however, because that's how I roll. I will enjoy shooting you while you "try" to turn fast enough to get a bead on me :P
Ser Chard Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 15	Posted - 2013.06.09 23:50:00 - [26] - Quote Can we give them large turrets? I'd like to see them mad powerful but unable to hover in place for repeated precise shots like an drop ship. Also, let us write stuff in the sky with them! We want chemtrails!
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 96	Posted - 2013.06.10 00:05:00 - [27] - Quote Ser Chard wrote: Can we give them large turrets? I'd like to see them mad powerful but unable to hover in place for repeated precise shots like an drop ship. Also, let us write stuff in the sky with them! We want chemtrails! I think large turrets will be more fitting for heavy aircraft. I'm unsure if what I've heard is rumor or not, but jets might be receiving two small turrets that you can operate. Also I do know that CCP has hinted at VTOL capabilities on jets, so it'd be possible to hover (and to hopefully strafe).
medomai grey Fenrir's Wolves RUST415 25	Posted - 2013.06.10 00:29:00 - [28] - Quote Aerion Spiritus wrote: I don't think he meant BPO HAVs. I think he meant Black OPs HAVs. As in cloaking fields (when they are implemented). Thanks for the correction. I didn't know cloaked tanks where in development. When they de-cloak in front of infantry, it'll give a whole new meaning to soiling yourself.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 96	Posted - 2013.06.10 04:13:00 - [29] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Aerion Spiritus wrote: I don't think he meant BPO HAVs. I think he meant Black OPs HAVs. As in cloaking fields (when they are implemented). Thanks for the correction. I didn't know cloaked tanks where in development. When they de-cloak in front of infantry, it'll give a whole new meaning to soiling yourself. Black Ops HAVs will be extremely thin. At least when they were available, they had reduced slot layouts and also less HP iirc. Anyways, my Enforcer or Maurader will have its turret pointed at any Black Ops HAV that dares to decloak. What we need are proto HAVs in the true meaning of proto. Not weaker variants that CCP use as lame excuses for expanding upon HAVs.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1857	Posted - 2013.06.10 04:40:00 - [30] - Quote Harpyja wrote: medomai grey wrote: Aerion Spiritus wrote: I don't think he meant BPO HAVs. I think he meant Black OPs HAVs. As in cloaking fields (when they are implemented). Thanks for the correction. I didn't know cloaked tanks where in development. When they de-cloak in front of infantry, it'll give a whole new meaning to soiling yourself. Black Ops HAVs will be extremely thin. At least when they were available, they had reduced slot layouts and also less HP iirc. Anyways, my Enforcer or Maurader will have its turret pointed at any Black Ops HAV that dares to decloak. What we need are proto HAVs in the true meaning of proto. Not weaker variants that CCP use as lame excuses for expanding upon HAVs. Honestly, I don't see the point of Black Ops HAVs, and I don't see any reason to bring them back. What they should do is implement Black Ops MAVs, because with what they showed and talked about at FanFest, those are higher-capacity APC-type vehicles, so having them be a stealthy mobile spawn point makes far more sense than a tank with only 3 slots.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.