DUST Search - Another Dropship Mistake.

All Channels

General Discussions

Another Dropship Mistake.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 76	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:22:00 - [1] - Quote In the past i have raised heavy debate over the issues that currently surround dropships, but recently after cross-examining my assault dropship just to see if i had it as maxed as i could in terms of the best defense and the strongest offense (XT-Accelerated Missile Launchers) I came to a very sudden and basic realization; A dropship is completely inopperable if just 1 side turret is taken out, even on an assault DS where side-gunners are not even needed, nor wanted. If pilots were able to remove side guns for CPU/PG preservation, they could better max their sheild or armor buffs and become the better tank the dropship was meant to be. This option should be available for all ships as long as their pilots decide to sacrifice fire power for better defense. This could increase the capabilities of not only assault dropships but especially logi's that desperately need to tank in order to safely move troops around the battlefield. So my question to CCP is a very simple one; Why the hell are dropships unable to fly if you just want to remove a stupid side-turret, and better yet, why was this rule even introduced into Dust in the first place?
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 77	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:34:00 - [2] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Suggestion Add in armor plate or shield generating side turrets, it would have essentially the same effect you are after ...shield generating side turrets? There are side turrets that affect your shield as well? Because in Dust there is no such thing at this point in time. And an armor plate would be irrelevant because i fly caldari which means i am a shield tanker.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 77	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:36:00 - [3] - Quote Nguruthos IX wrote: dropship mistake #1 buy dropship You obviously do not understand the issue at hand if you think I just don't understand how to purchase a dropship, i have been flying maxed Eryx Logi's since Alpha and now am flying both Eryx and Python dropships.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 77	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:37:00 - [4] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Suggestion Add in armor plate or shield generating side turrets, it would have essentially the same effect you are after ...shield generating side turrets? There are side turrets that affect your shield as well? Because in Dust there is no such thing at this point in time. And an armor plate would be irrelevant because i fly caldari which means i am a shield tanker. I mean instead of a turret you get something that adds shields or health, not something you need someone manning for the bonus I have shield buffs in the shield slots, but the cpu and pg only goes so high and restricts me from fully buffing the shields to where i would like to have them in assault dropships, and i have done the math; if i were able to remove the side turrets which would elimate those PG and CPU requirements, i would have enough to support my front XT-Accelerate launcher and have 2 more supplemental shield extenders.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 78	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:43:00 - [5] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Suggestion Add in armor plate or shield generating side turrets, it would have essentially the same effect you are after ...shield generating side turrets? There are side turrets that affect your shield as well? Because in Dust there is no such thing at this point in time. And an armor plate would be irrelevant because i fly caldari which means i am a shield tanker. I mean instead of a turret you get something that adds shields or health, not something you need someone manning for the bonus I have shield buffs in the shield slots, but the cpu and pg only goes so high and restricts me from fully buffing the shields to where i would like to have them in assault dropships, and i have done the math; if i were able to remove the side turrets which would elimate those PG and CPU requirements, i would have enough to support my front XT-Accelerate launcher and have 2 more supplemental shield extenders. What Im suggesting seems to be flying over your head so I will try and break it down Instead of the side turrets which you have no use for eating up PG and CPU instead you get a side turret that does nothing offensively and instead boosts your shields and armor So this way instead of PG and CPU being used up by two things you have no use for you have it being used to boost your shields like you wanted I really dont know how I can make this more clear I just edited my last reply in the ancipation that this is what you meant, and that's impossible. If you select the "S" slot where the weapons go, it won't let you fit anything except small turrets in those slots. That means no shield extenders, no armor extenders, nothing except side turrets only. And if you remove them, it makes the entire ship unable to fly.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:49:00 - [6] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Yeah you still arent getting it, Im saying a small turret that acts like an extender while still being flagged as a turret Can you please give me the name of such a turret? Because to my knowledge there is no such thing as a turret that gives you a boost to your shield or armor in existence in dust.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:52:00 - [7] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Yeah you still arent getting it, Im saying a small turret that acts like an extender while still being flagged as a turret Can you please give me the name of such a turret? Because to my knowledge there is no such thing as a turret that gives you a boost to your shield or armor in existence in dust. It doesnt exist, what I was suggesting is that they add something that does that Well you were asserting that i do that as if it were currently in existence, and that option sounds like it would be completely unnecessary when you could simply revert the need for it to not work without turrets. Users should have the ability to choose whether they want side turrets or not, its a simple fix, and trying to come up with brand-new turrets to solve the problem only makes the answer to this problem more complex. Infact, introducing new Small turrets that could boost vehicle PG/CPU would affect all vehicles able to carry small turrets, basically meaning LAV's are then dragged into the process. By keeping this issue a Drop-ship operational issue concerning side-turrets, and asserting the answer is to simply make them able to fly without side turrets, you retain the ability for no imbalances in any other area other than the currently problematic dropship.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 03:59:00 - [8] - Quote Skihids wrote: CCP demands that you shoot at things. They don't want you playing support. I don't know how they could be more clear about this: WPs earned only by killing. Mandatory turret placement. Completly buggered support modules. Then let Assault dropships have the ability to not include sideturrets at least, i get kills all the time by "shooting at things" and the entire statement that "CCP demands you shoot at things" is completely opinionated, in-fact their long term goal is to make vehicles an extremely integrated component into the game, not some run-n-gun call of duty copy that only encourages mindless killing, what are you, 4 years old? And WP is not only earned by killing, i am not sure if you have played dust before cooperatively or even playing skirmish. You can earn WP from capturing objectives, putting Drop Uplinks down, and hacking other units that are in enemy control, if anything i would say that Dust encourages support roles more than just shoot em up roles. I can't even believe someone with 1K likes on here would assert such blasphemy
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 04:03:00 - [9] - Quote Thor McStrut wrote: The reading comprehension failure in this thread gives me no hope for humanity. You both have good ideas. I think that CCP needs to remove the weapon requirement for making a valid fit for all things, vehicles and dropsuits alike. But, having different tactical options to fit in turret slots is a great idea too. I understood what he was trying to say after i realized he was trying to talk about possible future plans for the DS, he didn't exactly make that part very clear when suggesting i add turrets that boost my CPU/PG. And while i don't deny it's a good drop in the bucket for ideas, i was only debating that it would be a more time-consuming expense on the part of CCP to implement a whole new turret array that affects DS and LAV small turrets.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 04:04:00 - [10] - Quote Thor McStrut wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Skihids wrote: CCP demands that you shoot at things. They don't want you playing support. I don't know how they could be more clear about this: WPs earned only by killing. Mandatory turret placement. Completly buggered support modules. Then let Assault dropships have the ability to not include sideturrets at least, i get kills all the time by "shooting at things" and the entire statement that "CCP demands you shoot at things" is completely opinionated, in-fact their long term goal is to make vehicles an extremely integrated component into the game, not some run-n-gun call of duty copy that only encourages mindless killing, what are you, 4 years old? Actually, it is a fairly accurate statement. Opinions aside, all fitting are invalid until you fit at least one weapon on everything. Even logistics suits require a weapon to be fit. How is that not "demanding that you shoot at things?" What are you, 3 years old? Comparing infantry to Dropships is where you lose your point in this argument. Don't debate dropship issues if you have no experience with them please. Also, i made this edit to that reply to better-forward my argument against yours that CCP only encourages killing and no support roles; WP is not only earned by killing, i am not sure if you have played dust before cooperatively or even playing skirmish. You can earn WP from capturing objectives, putting Drop Uplinks down, and hacking other units that are in enemy control, if anything i would say that Dust encourages support roles more than just shoot em up roles. I can't even believe someone with 1K likes on here would assert such blasphemy

Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 04:19:00 - [11] - Quote Skihids wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Skihids wrote: CCP demands that you shoot at things. They don't want you playing support. I don't know how they could be more clear about this: WPs earned only by killing. Mandatory turret placement. Completly buggered support modules. Then let Assault dropships have the ability to not include sideturrets at least, i get kills all the time by "shooting at things" and the entire statement that "CCP demands you shoot at things" is completely opinionated, in-fact their long term goal is to make vehicles an extremely integrated component into the game, not some run-n-gun call of duty copy that only encourages mindless killing, what are you, 4 years old? And WP is not only earned by killing, i am not sure if you have played dust before cooperatively or even playing skirmish. You can earn WP from capturing objectives, putting Drop Uplinks down, and hacking other units that are in enemy control, if anything i would say that Dust encourages support roles more than just shoot em up roles. I can't even believe someone with 1K likes on here would assert such blasphemy No, I'm not four years old. I'm a bitter dropship pilot who lobbied for meaningful misions for nearly one year and witnessed CCP trash the dropship further with each release. My opinion is sarcastic but supported by the evidence. The only way to ern WPs with a dropship is to kill and blow stuff up. Now CCP Blam is working on a bomber variant rather than fix the shield transfer module or the aclive scanner for dropship use. Your suggestion was made months ago snd ignored by CCP. Stick around for another year and you too can become a bitter ex dropship pilot. It's the moment you begin to give up advocating for the right thing that the mission has been lost. Believe me, i have been replied to by CCP devs (including CCP Blam) as well and promised many things regarding dropships but have been let down just like you, but that doesn't mean i am not going to stop at least making the best effort i can into trying to have if anything a little dent in affecting the horrible managing on behalf of CCP as far as DS pilots are concerned. If anything, you should join us non-bitter veteran DS pilots like myself in constantly reviving this issue, which is a primary goal i intend to keep
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 04:24:00 - [12] - Quote Thor McStrut wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Thor McStrut wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: Skihids wrote: CCP demands that you shoot at things. They don't want you playing support. I don't know how they could be more clear about this: WPs earned only by killing. Mandatory turret placement. Completly buggered support modules. Then let Assault dropships have the ability to not include sideturrets at least, i get kills all the time by "shooting at things" and the entire statement that "CCP demands you shoot at things" is completely opinionated, in-fact their long term goal is to make vehicles an extremely integrated component into the game, not some run-n-gun call of duty copy that only encourages mindless killing, what are you, 4 years old? Actually, it is a fairly accurate statement. Opinions aside, all fitting are invalid until you fit at least one weapon on everything. Even logistics suits require a weapon to be fit. How is that not "demanding that you shoot at things?" What are you, 3 years old? Comparing infantry to Dropships is where you lose your point in this argument. Don't debate dropship issues if you have no experience with them please. Also, i made this edit to that reply to better-forward my argument against yours that CCP only encourages killing and no support roles; WP is not only earned by killing, i am not sure if you have played dust before cooperatively or even playing skirmish. You can earn WP from capturing objectives, putting Drop Uplinks down, and hacking other units that are in enemy control, if anything i would say that Dust encourages support roles more than just shoot em up roles. I can't even believe someone with 1K likes on here would assert such blasphemy Ok. How many kills can you get before you stop earning WP? How much repping can you do before you stop earning WP? Is there a cool down timer that starts after you've done a certain level of killing in which you can no longer earn WP? How many WPs do you earn from deploying that squad from your DS? How many WPs do you earn picking up and redeploying that squad in your DS? DS issues are many. But the fact that you can't fly your DS without turrets fit is parallel to the issue that you can't deploy a dropsuit without a weapon fit, regardless of the tactical role you'd like to play on the battlefield. I'm not here to derail your thread, just to point out that you clearly don't have the mental capacity to communicate with other gamers on this board. If you are so knowledgeable of this game, then you'd clearly understand that no turret exists that performed the task that he was suggesting, and that he then must clearly be asking for something to potentially be added to the game that might solve your issue without breaking what CCP believes to be a requirement. It's called reading comprehension. I suggest you practice it. I was merely trying to understand his argument in the first place, and if you think i can't have meaningful discussions on this forum with other veteran gamers i suggest you go view the hyperlink i including in the original post.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 79	Posted - 2013.07.01 05:05:00 - [13] - Quote Galvan Nized wrote: This has already been suggested in Feedback/Requests. Dships yes this is a great idea, weapons being optional Really adds to customization. Definitely a no on LAVs though. People need to learn how to use the turrets and not just run everything over. That's the point i was making with the suggestion to make turrets that only increase CPU/PG, because that means that would affect LAV's as well, and you're right, it would only further the amount of inbalance that exists in dust already.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 80	Posted - 2013.07.01 06:22:00 - [14] - Quote Mac Dac wrote: agree on most vehicles turrets are a waste of pg and cpu and often pilots have to buy turrets that cost less cpu and pg which in terms is a waste of isk to the already expensive cost of top of the line vehicles we need to have a decant chance on the battlefield. i remember back when squads were just 4 people. LAV drivers were asking to remove turrets for an extra seat so they wouldnt have to leave a man behind. And still, CCP implements things that no one even asks for... Lolol
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 80	Posted - 2013.07.01 16:23:00 - [15] - Quote TEXA5 HiTM4N wrote: sadly all dropships are only useful if you are playing people that won't pull out basic swarms or a militia forge gun. whatever group is in charge of the balance for this game needs to be yelled at. Well in CCP's defense i can at least manage to take miltia weapons relatively easily, but anything above my 600K dropships has an issue with immensely.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 82	Posted - 2013.07.01 21:48:00 - [16] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: This should not happen. There is nothing wrong with the tank that you can give to assault dropships. If you can't fit stuff then get better skills if you still can't fit then get mods for pg (there is no way that you have too little cpu) if you still can't fit after that you're doing something wrong. The biggest advantage assault dropships have is their speed and maneuverability, if you can't use that to your full advantage it doesn't matter how much tank you put on, you'll still get shot down. Even with the 3000 dps you can put out with missiles, if you can't fly well in a ADS then tank won't help In no way do i deny that the assault dropship's biggest advantage it has going for it is speed. My current fitting has the 2 best torque boosters available, and an overdrive injector to boot. The only issue this presents is i can't include more than 1 shield extender with it (Its shields begin low enough as it is), and if i were able to remove the side turrets which on an assault dropship matter absolutely 0%, i could add those 2 other shield extenders i would need, and in no way would it be the tank my Eryx is either, it would still be very vulnerable, but not as much as it unreasonably is right now.I know how to outrun missles easy, but can't avoid forge guns because they are impossible to detect before they hit you, And this turret option doesn't only refferr to assault dropships, because Logi ships such as the Eryx would be extremely benefited if they could focus to the core on support and moving troops in and out of objectives, while managing a great shield or armor buff. And the fastest, and easiest solution to that would be to enable operation without side turrets. Many here have also made the point that even in EVE you can fly ships without turrets to better your fitting while managing your CPU/PG better.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic 82	Posted - 2013.07.01 22:21:00 - [17] - Quote Well as long as i try with literally all i've got to make the current situation for DS pilots better, it will make me feel even more confident that i did everything i could have done, and if CCP decides to truly throw us to the way-side, it would make it that much easier for me to never look back at this game. But there are still many more updates to come, and if by when they introduce the truly large-scale maps that include 24v24 and still haven't made ANY updates to the dropships, i will either respec or back out at that time. But until then, I am trying to make my best effort in making this point as obvious as possible.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic Top Men. 85	Posted - 2013.07.02 04:03:00 - [18] - Quote Midas Fool wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: A dropship is completely inopperable if just 1 side turret is taken out, even on an assault DS where side-gunners are not even needed, nor wanted. If pilots were able to remove side guns for CPU/PG preservation, they could better max their sheild or armor buffs and become the better tank the dropship was meant to be You're flying dropships wrong bro You have no idea the way that i actually fly dropships, so i wouldn't jump to conclusions there.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic Top Men. 85	Posted - 2013.07.02 04:07:00 - [19] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Okay. I totally understand the OP's and many of you others' wish about stripping turrets to save PG/CPU. I wished for that at one point (and still almost fantasize about it sometimes!) but I was wrong. The is one HUGE REASON WHY ABILITY TO STRIP TURRETS IS VERY BAD: It screws up the module fitting balance. Every vehicle hull has gone thru such amount of balancing ( Ever noticed how close all sensible fits usually are? No perfect fit fits with huge amount of extra PG/CPU). The same with every module type. Multiply that by most powerful combinations - that's a enormous amount of variations to consider while balancing. IF one could leave turret slots empty, in DS's case that would give some 200PG and 30 CPU free. That would mean even +50% boost to PG, all left for other uses! Suddenly tanking modules would have to take dropships with 400 PG and 600 PG into account at the same time! To make things even worse the same (small) modules have to take entirely different hulls into account (LAV and DS). I'm admiring how well the modules are balanced, most of the time there are sweet bitter choices to make. So, it's not the balancing being difficult, it's the high probability of balancing becoming outright impossible. Actually the way dropships are being handled right now in comparison to assault forge guns and proto swarm launchers they are immensely underpowered, and could even use the ability to have more shields to their advantage. Even when compared to their tank counterparts, the amount a tank can actually (tank) is remarkable when compared to the same ISK priced dropship, which has much less shield or armor capabilities. And if your comment to this is that dropships aren't meant to be the tank of the sky then why is a jet in current development & planning? That role is the true attack/fighter role that relies on its firepower, and the dropship is the relatively low firepower/high armor (supposedly) air vehicle. The imbalances are insane right now in vehicles and to think that they wouldn't remove turrets because they believe their balancing is at such a perfect level that all fits are equal than that's completely ridiculous. Dropships have a long way to go before they are actually useful for the roles CCP asserts they are truly "versatile" for.
Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic Top Men. 85	Posted - 2013.07.02 04:11:00 - [20] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: Serimos Haeraven wrote: In no way do i deny that the assault dropship's biggest advantage it has going for it is speed. My current fitting has the 2 best torque boosters available, and an overdrive injector to boot. The only issue this presents is i can't include more than 1 shield extender with it (Its shields begin low enough as it is), and if i were able to remove the side turrets which on an assault dropship matter absolutely 0%, i could add those 2 other shield extenders i would need, and in no way would it be the tank my Eryx is either, it would still be very vulnerable, but not as much as it unreasonably is right now.I know how to outrun missles easy, but can't avoid forge guns because they are impossible to detect before they hit you, And this turret option doesn't only refferr to assault dropships, because Logi ships such as the Eryx would be extremely benefited if they could focus to the core on support and moving troops in and out of objectives, while managing a great shield or armor buff. And the fastest, and easiest solution to that would be to enable operation without side turrets. Many here have also made the point that even in EVE you can fly ships without turrets to better your fitting while managing your CPU/PG better. Interesting choice putting two jovians on, you don't really need the second one as the dropship is plenty fast with one and the other low slot could be used for something better what with stacking penalties and all. On my dropship I just use one jovian the rest of the highs I use for my shield tank. You are a fool to say that the side turrets on the assault dropship are worthless, a gunner in those turrets is much more effective than you can be with your little kitten cannon. Why? Because you have to fly the dropship, and fly it well. Also for taking out tanks XT cycled missiles can put out over 3000 dps if you have gunners and all missiles hit. Not worthless, my gunner went 10-0 while I went 4-0, he was more stable and is completely focused on turreting, he even killed a swarm launcher we were fighting. The added dps is essential for assault dropships. Hopefully with early warning systems pilots will be able to react better to forge guns. Ultimatly, I think it would be more creative to come up with other support turrets for logi ships as it would be nice to see a logistics vehicle be used for more than just murder taxi and super buffer tank dropship, something like I dunno, logistics!! I wouldn't be so quick to undermine the power of 2 jovians combined with an active fuel injector on an assault dropship, the manuverability it has combined with the firepower of even 1 XT-Accelerated on the front makes the assault dropship nearly un-hittable when it comes to tanks. I don't know why you think it's impossible to aim well while flying in a circular orbit around the target and still maintain fire on whatever you're aiming at, because i can do it every time against tanks without them even being fast enough to track their barrel around to hit me while i circle them, not to mention the XT-Accelerated puts out the most firepower out of all the small missle turrets for each hit, and i can land each rotated shot on the target, especially when it's a tank.

Serimos Haeraven Deep Space Republic Top Men. 91	Posted - 2013.07.03 15:19:00 - [21] - Quote While i may take your suggestion about removing 1 jovian and replacing it with a dmg mod, the max dmg % it allows modules to actually effect is only 4%, so I'm still moderately hesitant to doing it. Also, the reason i use the XT-Accelerated isn't because it has a flashy name, it's because of the increased range that allows me to engage enemies from a much farther distance than the other missle launchers. This benefits me immensely in moving fast in dropship battles while still being able to engage the enemy from a long distance, which often times they can't because they usually are never carrying an XT-accelerated on their fit.