DUST Search - Assault Dropship equipped with frontal Swarms, proper or game breaking?

All Channels

General Discussions

Assault Dropship equipped with frontal Swarms, proper or game breaking?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Andius Fidelitas The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 74	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:07:00 - [1] - Quote I am curious as to what the Dust user thinks of this: An assault dropship, instead of the traditional light weapon, is equipped with a swarm launcher instead. For me, it makes sense, I mean, in today's modern armed forces, a diverse array of aircraft sport smart weapons to destroy intended targets, especially targets of mobile nature. And I think that it wouldn't be imbalanced in any way. Considering that this type of dropship, can be a dedicated anti-vehicle and anti-installation platform, and with such power and precision, it loses the ability for the pilot itself (I don't know if said Assault ship should keep it's side turrets with a weapon as effective as a swarm launcher, you tell me if they should) to personally kill infantry, so a forge gunner will have little to fear from return fire. Plus the pilot still needs to manuever in a such a way to get a lock on on the target (and for those of us who repair HAV's and LAV's from the sky, we get plenty of practice in that area already). It would make the dropship a viably and legit threat in terms of firepower, and vehicle denial capabilities (which could lead to interesting dogfights of course, be it dropships fighting to lock on each other, or shooting each other with dumb-fire weapons, heheh). What do you all think?
Green Living 0uter.Heaven League of Infamy 411	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:09:00 - [2] - Quote Could be interesting. Dropships NEED something to say the least. I think some lock on swarms would at least allow the DS pilot to ferry passengers and destroy the LAV fodder
Xocoyol Zaraoul Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 327	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:09:00 - [3] - Quote At a glance, this sounds pretty cool.
Cosgar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 1447	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:11:00 - [4] - Quote Tanks need to be buffed in a manner to defend themselves so things are relatively fair.
Brutus Va'Khan Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 10	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:13:00 - [5] - Quote I have also been intrigued by anti-vehicle vehicles. To me, I see it as you can take anti-infantry or vehicle stuff and specialize that way. But when these vehicles can cost over 1 million ISK... Lets just say a lot of tank drivers will be very unhappy.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 5099	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:15:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Blam did mention about giving missiles their function but not sure what the plan of execution is.
Andius Fidelitas The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 74	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:16:00 - [7] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Tanks need to be buffed in a manner to defend themselves so things are relatively fair. On this I actually agree. I mean, tanks are meant to be tough to kill in the first place. Besides, I dropship with seeker missiles makes sense, given how a dedicated anti-air vehicle is going to be rolling out. I mean, hellooooo, a vehicle specifically designed to dispatch an element that is currently only usefull to take over the high ground of an installation, and is as threatening as a pillow? At least it will give the anti-air vehicle a proper purpose: dispatching a powerfull asset as an anti-vehicle/installation dropship.
Andius Fidelitas The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 74	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:18:00 - [8] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Blam did mention about giving missiles their function but not sure what the plan of execution is. What do you mean, "Giving their function?".
Xocoyol Zaraoul Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 329	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:19:00 - [9] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Tanks need to be buffed in a manner to defend themselves so things are relatively fair. We (speaking as an HAV pilot) have the ability to swat dropships from the sky with impunity via railguns. We don't need a "buff" against dropships.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 5100	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:20:00 - [10] - Quote Andius Fidelitas wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Blam did mention about giving missiles their function but not sure what the plan of execution is. What do you mean, "Giving their function?". Missiles all mention locking abilities. I urged blam that if they do lock on they need to seriously make them lock fire only and reduce their rate of fire significantly while leaving us with rocket turrets which fire unguided rockets.

Cosgar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 1447	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:27:00 - [11] - Quote Andius Fidelitas wrote: Cosgar wrote: Tanks need to be buffed in a manner to defend themselves so things are relatively fair. On this I actually agree. I mean, tanks are meant to be tough to kill in the first place. Besides, I dropship with seeker missiles makes sense, given how a dedicated anti-air vehicle is going to be rolling out. I mean, hellooooo, a vehicle specifically designed to dispatch an element that is currently only usefull to take over the high ground of an installation, and is as threatening as a pillow? At least it will give the anti-air vehicle a proper purpose: dispatching a powerfull asset as an anti-vehicle/installation dropship. Yeah, I've been discussing this with some vehicle enthusiasts. (not just murder taxi drivers) We have vehicles, but most of the time, they're focusing on AI. I'm not saying re-purpose tanks altogether, but give them something else to shoot at. The way dropships control is a bit too awkard to actually make point and click weapons viable too, especially for a VTOL type vehicle. If they're not going to change DS controls, or allow portable CRUs to generate WP, give them something to do. Tanks however, need some serious help. So far HAV pilots are stuck with standard vehicles, no PG to equip heavy class modules, and infantry with access to prototype AV. If that isn't imbalanced, I don't know what the hell is. When Marauders ever come back, I seriously hope they're actually sturdier, maybe even at the cost of damage. I'd rather see tanks that can take a lot of punishment at the cost of DPS over the glass cannons we have now.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 332	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:28:00 - [12] - Quote Cosgar wrote: When Marauders ever come back, I seriously hope they're actually sturdier, maybe even at the cost of damage. I'd rather see tanks that can take a lot of punishment at the cost of DPS over the glass cannons we have now. Oh god I would love this so much, I still miss my Sagaris.
Andius Fidelitas The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 75	Posted - 2013.06.13 00:28:00 - [13] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: [ Missiles all mention locking abilities. I urged blam that if they do lock on they need to seriously make them lock fire only and reduce their rate of fire significantly while leaving us with rocket turrets which fire unguided rockets. Oh! I see. Well, I guess that does make sense. I do hope he sees it fit to also include said lock-on missiles into the front turret of a dropship in the future. Or if there is a rapid fire seeker missiles variant, make it one with limited ammo, so that said dropship is forced to land and restock somehow, and thus limiting it's "Trigger happy" capacity for those who are into that sort of thing, and to insure that the fun won't "last long", hehehe.


Pages: [1] :: 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.