|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1609
   |
Posted - 2013.10.29 06:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Make large turrets "AV Turrets" and small turrets "AP turrets". These changes are keeping in mind the upcoming turret ammo.
What changes for large turrets:
-Missiles and railguns lose their splash
-Missiles get more missiles per salvo, higher damage per missile
-Railguns get longer initial spool time, higher direct damage
-Blaster RoF is reduced to 120RPM (2RPS)
-Blaster damage is increased accordingly (around 3-4x) to compensate
-Blaster should overheat in the same amount of time as currently
Mostly these are changes to the blaster, obviously because currently as a large turret it's the most devastating against infantry. With the RoF nerf, infantry should essentially be able to run past a tank without being killed, BUT if they stand still or if the tanker is exceptionally accurate, they're goners because bullets will deal massive damage.
And without splash damage, railguns and missiles will lose much of their AP capabilities. Still possible, but difficult.
Now, as for AP (small turrets):
-Railguns need more splash, more direct/splash damage, slower overheat
-Blasters need a tad more range, and slower overheat
-Missiles should stay the same but perhaps lower the RoF to make the ammo feel like it lasts longer.
Essentially buffing railguns up so they actually have a chance against blasters and missiles in terms of AI.
With these changes, instead of small and large turret slots tankers will get two AP and 1 AV turret slot. Make it clear from the outset what the tank driver's role is, and that it is the job of his passengers/crew to support with anti-personnel small turrets.
> "I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1611
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 07:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:
I can agree with the idea that Large Turrets should be primarily AV and Small Turrets should be primarily AP, but I still think that Small Turrets should be reasonably effective against Light Vehicles. So, would Medium Turrets be middle-ground?
Missiles are currently very effective against LAVs and there won't be much changes to them. Small railguns are being buffed across the board so that means they're viable against installations/light vehicles too. Small blasters will be the AP of all AP turrets, and essentially should be glorified ARs mounted on a hardpoint with the gunner partially shielded by the vehicle.
What I envisage the roles of each turret to be:
NAME: % AV / % AP
Large Blaster: 80% / 20%
Large Missile: 90% / 10%
Large Railgun 90% / 10%
Small Blaster: 20% / 80%
Small Missile: 25% / 75%
Small Railgun: 40% / 60%
And each turret's variants should essentially fill in the gaps between. ie. scattered blasters are more infantry than vehicle, compressed would be more vehicle than infantry, etc.
And @Alena,
I suppose you're right. We probably need a higher vehicle cap, bigger maps and more players per map before these changes really will be implemented.
> "I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1613
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 07:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:I've just thought of something to alleviate the issues with Large Turrets being overly effective against infantry.
In World of Tanks (bear with me here), your aiming reticule widens and your gun's accuracy diminish when you either A. move the turret or B. move the tank. When you remain stationary, your aiming reticule refocuses and your gun's accuracy slowly returns to normal. There is no such system in Dust 514, which means how well you can fire at something is completely dependent on your level of skill. While rewarding skill is certainly a positive thing, I personally think it makes it too easy for tankers to hit infantry. I say this mechanic should be added. Large Turrets would be the most affected by it, and Medium Turrets would be somewhat affected by it, while Small Turrets wouldn't be affected by it at all. Also, modules and bonuses that increase tracking speed would reduce this phenomenon.
Any thoughts?
I like it, BUT this could be negated by the 'future tech' argument. Maybe projectile dispersion should increase based on whether or not you're taking damage. Taking more damage: bigger, unfocused reticle. Therefore the longer the tank withstands a pounding from AV, the more ineffective it gets in combat.
How the reticle is restored to maximum potential is something to be discussed too though. Should it be based on the current percentage of HP the tank has, or should accuracy keep diminishing until the tank returns to 100% armour? Explanation could be repair nanites focus on survivability/mobility first and offensive capability last.
And my bad with the percentages. To be honest all I wanted to show was whether the turret in question was better in AV or AP.
> "I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1641
|
Posted - 2013.10.31 00:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea for HAVs, since they are supposed to be able to shoot under intense fire..
For HAVs to be able to put out damage under intense fire. This would be a key role for HAVs, so there we go. Progression has been made amongst debate.
The ability to shoot under fire implies it can TAKE substantial amounts of damage (another key role of HAVs, I'd say) as opposed to being instapopped by AV (as can happen to some tanks currently) and I feel if it isn't penalised in some way after taking lots of damage, it's role becomes something too broad, and hence too powerful.
What I envisaged with my suggestion with accuracy reduction as you take damage is that in a tank 1v1, eventually both tanks cripple each other so severely that neither can 'finish off' the other. That's when the battle comes down to which side has infantry supporting the tank.
The shield/armour balance comes into it through the fact that only armour damage reduces accuracy. Armour tanks have the capability to repair armour damage and return to fights (endurance) with restored accuracy, whereas shield tanks who take little armour damage assuming they get away from fights just as their shields are depleted lose accuracy and cannot restore it independently; they need infantry with a repper, another remote repairing vehicle or a supply depot.
BTW: I only tank on an alt. with about 4m SP. My experience with HAVs is limited to that and a little dabbling in Chromosome, so there may be some... inaccuracies in my assumptions.
> "I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
|
|
|
| |
|