DUST Search - To Those Who Believe Large Blasters Are CQC

All Channels

General Discussions

To Those Who Believe Large Blasters Are CQC

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:12:00 - [1] - Quote What distance qualifies as CQC? Are you saying this to defend your precious HAVs? What drugs are you smoking, and may I please have some? If you thought 400m was bad, then what is 550m? Yeah, I bet you didn't know that Large Blasters even had that range did you? And this ain't a joke, except for the part about Large Blasters being a CQC weapon. That's a hilarious joke. And I finally managed to snag a picture of this this. I wasn't even in a vehicle. I was in my plain old ADV logi suit. Do you guys believe that this is a problem? My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 8272	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:14:00 - [2] - Quote Turret AI OP Go take a Blaster Maddy into a fight at 550m and tell me how that works out for you Win ISK / Vids / O7
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:19:00 - [3] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Turret AI OP Go take a Blaster Maddy into a fight at 550m and tell me how that works out for you Yes, but some are under the impression that it is quite literally impossible to use a Blaster in anything outside of CQC. This mean's that it is quite possible, and with a little bit of elbow grease and luck, anybody could do this. Also, I don't use Blaster Maddys for the almost the same reason that I no longer have MLT ARs on my Starter Fits. Far too easy. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 265	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:20:00 - [4] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Turret AI OP Go take a Blaster Maddy into a fight at 550m and tell me how that works out for you You beat me to it. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Foundation Seldon Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords 238	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:22:00 - [5] - Quote So a couple things hilariously wrong about this thread. 1. Your antagonistic attitude really is doing you no favors, it's one thing to be smug and quite another to be smug and wrong. 2. Your picture doesn't qualify as proof. Note that the kill feed is listing a Large Blaster INSTALLATION. I see no reason to believe that the stats for HAV Large Turrets and Installation Large Turrets are in anyway analogous, especially with respect to range. 3. Here are the Large Blaster Turret (for HAVs) listed Effective and Optimal Ranges for 1.7 (assumption being range units in meters) Effective Range : 89.6m Optimal Range : 160m Source : http://dust514.com/news/2013/11/vehicles-in-uprising-1.7/ So, what else ya got? 1.7 LAVs - Thoughts and Discussion
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 265	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:22:00 - [6] - Quote Atiim wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Turret AI OP Go take a Blaster Maddy into a fight at 550m and tell me how that works out for you Yes, but some are under the impression that it is quite literally impossible to use a Blaster in anything outside of CQC. This mean's that it is quite possible, and with a little bit of elbow grease and luck, anybody could do this. Also, I don't use Blaster Maddys for the almost the same reason that I no longer have MLT ARs on my Starter Fits. Far too easy. You better be using a rail because Missile Maddy's **** me off in tank battles its exploiting the fact that CCP did not make them cost enough CPU, but as anti-infantry just lol. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 8273	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:22:00 - [7] - Quote Atiim wrote: Also, I don't use Blaster Maddys for the almost the same reason that I no longer have MLT ARs on my Starter Fits. Far too easy. So you like to gamble with missiles or keep that redline warm? Whatever works for you. Win ISK / Vids / O7
Lurchasaurus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 2102	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:26:00 - [8] - Quote Atiim wrote: What distance qualifies as CQC? Are you saying this to defend your precious HAVs? What drugs are you smoking, and may I please have some? If you thought 400m was bad, then what is 550m? Yeah, I bet you didn't know that Large Blasters even had that range did you? And this ain't a joke, except for the part about Large Blasters being a CQC weapon. That's a hilarious joke. And I finally managed to snag a picture of this. I wasn't even in a vehicle. I was in my plain old ADV logi suit. Do you guys believe that this is a problem? /facepalm So this made ma laugh harder than I have in months. This post certainly notifies me of a serious problem, but its not with the turret....
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 265	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:30:00 - [9] - Quote You do know you can strafe a blaster by walking left or right, it can't track you fast enough unlike rails which can hit a moving LAV twice in quick succession so you finally got a turret to shoot at you and ran as far as you could while remaining in it's view. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 756	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:31:00 - [10] - Quote is the assault rifle a cqc weapon? they are both blasters. why the kitten would you have a cqc weapon on a tank? "I really wanna utilize those tight corners and the natural agility of the HAV to it's advantage" so... this was poorly thought through and took an unappreciated attitude. "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:32:00 - [11] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Atiim wrote: Yes, but some are under the impression that it is quite literally impossible to use a Blaster in anything outside of CQC. This mean's that it is quite possible, and with a little bit of elbow grease and luck, anybody could do this. Also, I don't use Blaster Maddys for the almost the same reason that I no longer have MLT ARs on my Starter Fits. Far too easy. You better be using a rail because Missile Maddy's ** me off in tank battles its exploiting the fact that CCP did not make them cost enough CPU, but as anti-infantry just lol. Sounds personal. And what happens if I just upgrade my core skills? Any tanker worth his salt should have plenty of CPU for things like that. Missiles are my favorite turrets are Missiles, and I don't see what the problem is with running them on a Madrugar. Just like dropsuit can fit any weapon in it's tier, Missile turrets should be available for all vehicles. And you think I should use a Gunnlogi instead? Why? I don't think you realize this, but any Madrugar pilot with nitrous can run laps around a Gunnlogi. Heck, one time I turned my hardners and nitrous on and Fing Flattened a Gunnlogi. I didn't fire at him or anything. I F**ing crushed him by running around in circles and driving on top of him. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4508	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:33:00 - [12] - Quote Atiim wrote: What distance qualifies as CQC? Are you saying this to defend your precious HAVs? What drugs are you smoking, and may I please have some? If you thought 400m was bad, then what is 550m? Yeah, I bet you didn't know that Large Blasters even had that range did you? And this ain't a joke, except for the part about Large Blasters being a CQC weapon. That's a hilarious joke. And I finally managed to snag a picture of this. I wasn't even in a vehicle. I was in my plain old ADV logi suit. Do you guys believe that this is a problem? My furthest kill was about 90m Though we are firing very large calibre plasma sheathed rounds.... what ever you did you were either unlucky because something else was firing at you....I have never seen an unmanned large blaster fire at anything further than 100m away. Its also hilarious...since at 543m most players couldn't even see you. Not the gun it self's fault, the issue is the AI that can target at that distance. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:36:00 - [13] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: You do know you can strafe a blaster by walking left or right, it can't track you fast enough unlike rails which can hit a moving LAV twice in quick succession so you finally got a turret to shoot at you and ran as far as you could while remaining in it's view. You think I just stood there? You thought I said, "Hey look, something's magically shredding my suit to pieces, I better check my ammo count"? I wish I had dual hardners and a nitrous to get me out of that. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1440	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:39:00 - [14] - Quote Hit detection with blasters is incredibly meh atm. I wouldnt even use them in CQC "HP needs no buff, certain weapons need nerf. Or else all other become obsolete." GÿåForum warrior lvl.1Gÿå
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 265	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:42:00 - [15] - Quote Atiim wrote: Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Atiim wrote: Yes, but some are under the impression that it is quite literally impossible to use a Blaster in anything outside of CQC. This mean's that it is quite possible, and with a little bit of elbow grease and luck, anybody could do this. Also, I don't use Blaster Maddys for the almost the same reason that I no longer have MLT ARs on my Starter Fits. Far too easy. You better be using a rail because Missile Maddy's ** me off in tank battles its exploiting the fact that CCP did not make them cost enough CPU, but as anti-infantry just lol. Sounds personal. And what happens if I just upgrade my core skills? Any tanker worth his salt should have plenty of CPU for things like that. Missiles are my favorite turrets are Missiles, and I don't see what the problem is with running them on a Madrugar. Just like dropsuit can fit any weapon in it's tier, Missile turrets should be available for all vehicles. And you think I should use a Gunnlogi instead? Why? I don't think you realize this, but any Madrugar pilot with nitrous can run laps around a Gunnlogi. Heck, one time I turned my hardners and nitrous on and Fing Flattened a Gunnlogi. I didn't fire at him or anything. I F**ing crushed him by running around in circles and driving on top of him. Yes and I backed over a madrugar and instapopped literally in half a second I dropped all of his armor. If missiles were meant for armor tanks they would have more PG they should not be superior to the blaster in tank battles yet require less fitting so you can have more DPS and more HP, CCP screwed up they were supposed to make them Caldari decreased PG increased CPU which is what Gunlogi's have but they didn't increase the CPU cost enough. Armor missile tanks are scrubs. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:42:00 - [16] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: So a couple things hilariously wrong about this thread. 1. Your antagonistic attitude really is doing you no favors, it's one thing to be smug and quite another to be smug and wrong. 2. Your picture doesn't qualify as proof. Note that the kill feed is listing a Large Blaster INSTALLATION. I see no reason to believe that the stats for HAV Large Turrets and Installation Large Turrets are in anyway analogous, especially with respect to range. 3. Here are the Large Blaster Turret (for HAVs) listed Effective and Optimal Ranges for 1.7 (assumption being range units in meters) Effective Range : 89.6m Optimal Range : 160m Source : http://dust514.com/news/2013/11/vehicles-in-uprising-1.7/ So, what else ya got? It doesn't do favors, but it keeps me entertained. And I wish I a picture of the killfeed. Unfortunately I don't always anticipate being WTFpwned by an Invisible blaster turret from 550m. It took some time for my Xoom to turn on. I've got exactly what you see there. I could get a friend who was playing with me to vouch for this, but that wouldn't be credible in the fact that any good friend will lie for someone. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 265	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:45:00 - [17] - Quote Atiim wrote: Benjamin Ciscko wrote: You do know you can strafe a blaster by walking left or right, it can't track you fast enough unlike rails which can hit a moving LAV twice in quick succession so you finally got a turret to shoot at you and ran as far as you could while remaining in it's view. You think I just stood there? You thought I said, "Hey look, something's magically shredding my suit to pieces, I better check my ammo count"? I wish I had dual hardners and a nitrous to get me out of that. Yes You have to be the ultimate scrub to be killed by a blaster installation at 500m+ Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:47:00 - [18] - Quote knight of 6 wrote: is the assault rifle a cqc weapon? they are both blasters. why the kitten would you have a cqc weapon on a tank? "I really wanna utilize those tight corners and the natural agility of the HAV to it's advantage" so... this was poorly thought through and took an unappreciated attitude. It doesn't have to be CQC, but when a Gallente blaster weapon has the range of a Caldari Sniper RIfle, that creates a problem. Heck, I wouldn't even care if it was 100-235m. But 550m? That's idiocy. That's like what, 50m away from a sniper rifle's max range? Even the freaking Thale's doesn't have the zoom fidelity of 550m. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4508	Posted - 2013.12.04 00:48:00 - [19] - Quote Atiim wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: So a couple things hilariously wrong about this thread. 1. Your antagonistic attitude really is doing you no favors, it's one thing to be smug and quite another to be smug and wrong. 2. Your picture doesn't qualify as proof. Note that the kill feed is listing a Large Blaster INSTALLATION. I see no reason to believe that the stats for HAV Large Turrets and Installation Large Turrets are in anyway analogous, especially with respect to range. 3. Here are the Large Blaster Turret (for HAVs) listed Effective and Optimal Ranges for 1.7 (assumption being range units in meters) Effective Range : 89.6m Optimal Range : 160m Source : http://dust514.com/news/2013/11/vehicles-in-uprising-1.7/ So, what else ya got? It doesn't do favors, but it keeps me entertained. And I wish I a picture of the killfeed. Unfortunately I don't always anticipate being WTFpwned by an Invisible blaster turret from 550m. It took some time for my Xoom to turn on. I've got exactly what you see there. I could get a friend who was playing with me to vouch for this, but that wouldn't be credible in the fact that any good friend will lie for someone. LOL yup now you know what its like being WTFpwned by and invisible something..... oh the sweet justice! Its event better that it was a blaster turret. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 01:00:00 - [20] - Quote True Adamance wrote: LOL yup now you know what its like being WTFpwned by and invisible something..... oh the sweet justice! Its event better that it was a blaster turret. Yeah, except HAVs have enough time to turn on hardners and nitrous to GTFO if they are being hit like that. I noticed I was getting hit, but without a way to shoot up to 50-60% resistances and have super speed and be repped at incredible strength in a near instantaneous time frame, I died. One does not simply get "WTFPwned" by AV without having the chance to react. Your failure to react deserves your death. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND

True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4508	Posted - 2013.12.04 01:07:00 - [21] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: LOL yup now you know what its like being WTFpwned by and invisible something..... oh the sweet justice! Its event better that it was a blaster turret. Yeah, except HAVs have enough time to turn on hardners and nitrous to GTFO if they are being hit like that. I noticed I was getting hit, but without a way to shoot up to 50-60% resistances and have super speed and be repped at incredible strength in a near instantaneous time frame, I died. One does not simply get "WTFPwned" by AV without having the chance to react. Your failure to react deserves your death. As did yours. I think you are the only man in dust to have been killed by a 200m range weapon at nearly two and a half times that distance........ "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 757	Posted - 2013.12.04 01:23:00 - [22] - Quote Atiim wrote: knight of 6 wrote: is the assault rifle a cqc weapon? they are both blasters. why the kitten would you have a cqc weapon on a tank? "I really wanna utilize those tight corners and the natural agility of the HAV to it's advantage" so... this was poorly thought through and took an unappreciated attitude. It doesn't have to be CQC, but when a Gallente blaster weapon has the range of a Caldari Sniper RIfle, that creates a problem. Heck, I wouldn't even care if it was 100-235m. But 550m? That's idiocy. That's like what, 50m away from a sniper rifle's max range? Even the freaking Thale's doesn't have the zoom fidelity of 550m. your kidding right, this is some kind of joke? we are seriously comparing the range of the primary on a main battle tank to the range of a large caliber sniper rifle. I'm not one to use real world equivalences in a game especially one set in the far future. but I think this adequately demonstrates the enormity of your comparison. Cheytac M200 Intervention effective range: 2000+ yards or a little over a mile. M1 abrams 120mm smooth bore effective range: 2.5 miles you are comparing a man portable railgun to a blaster so big it needs a set of tracks. why in new eden would the railgun have better range. "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:21:00 - [23] - Quote knight of 6 wrote: Atiim wrote: knight of 6 wrote: is the assault rifle a cqc weapon? they are both blasters. why the kitten would you have a cqc weapon on a tank? "I really wanna utilize those tight corners and the natural agility of the HAV to it's advantage" so... this was poorly thought through and took an unappreciated attitude. It doesn't have to be CQC, but when a Gallente blaster weapon has the range of a Caldari Sniper RIfle, that creates a problem. Heck, I wouldn't even care if it was 100-235m. But 550m? That's idiocy. That's like what, 50m away from a sniper rifle's max range? Even the freaking Thale's doesn't have the zoom fidelity of 550m. your kidding right, this is some kind of joke? we are seriously comparing the range of the primary on a main battle tank to the range of a large caliber sniper rifle. I'm not one to use real world equivalences in a game especially one set in the far future. but I think this adequately demonstrates the enormity of your comparison. Cheytac M200 Intervention effective range: 2000+ yards or a little over a mile. M1 abrams 120mm smooth bore effective range: 2.5 miles you are comparing a man portable railgun to a blaster so big it needs a set of tracks. why in new eden would the railgun have better range. No, I was comparing a Gallente weapon, which according to lore is supposed to be short range; to a Caldari weapon that according to lore is supposed to be long range. Though I do admit I could have worded this a bit better Although, you can complain about my analogy comparing a vehicle weapon to an infantry weapon all you like. It won't make my analogy any less valid or invalid because the principal still applies. A Gallente SHORT RANGE WEAPON should never have range compared to a Caldari LONG RANGE WEAPON. Even if it's mounted on a tank, infantry arms, or even a motherfluxing starship. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:21:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: LOL yup now you know what its like being WTFpwned by and invisible something..... oh the sweet justice! Its event better that it was a blaster turret. Yeah, except HAVs have enough time to turn on hardners and nitrous to GTFO if they are being hit like that. I noticed I was getting hit, but without a way to shoot up to 50-60% resistances and have super speed and be repped at incredible strength in a near instantaneous time frame, I died. One does not simply get "WTFPwned" by AV without having the chance to react. Your failure to react deserves your death. As did yours. I think you are the only man in dust to have been killed by a 200m range weapon at nearly two and a half times that distance........ My suit wasn't fast enough to get to cover. And I don't have speed mods like my tank. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4516	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:22:00 - [25] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: LOL yup now you know what its like being WTFpwned by and invisible something..... oh the sweet justice! Its event better that it was a blaster turret. Yeah, except HAVs have enough time to turn on hardners and nitrous to GTFO if they are being hit like that. I noticed I was getting hit, but without a way to shoot up to 50-60% resistances and have super speed and be repped at incredible strength in a near instantaneous time frame, I died. One does not simply get "WTFPwned" by AV without having the chance to react. Your failure to react deserves your death. As did yours. I think you are the only man in dust to have been killed by a 200m range weapon at nearly two and a half times that distance........ My suit wasn't fast enough to get to cover. And I don't have speed mods like my tank. And? "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 1572	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:24:00 - [26] - Quote All large turrets on Installations DO NOT have the same range as HAV Turrets, there is a large difference between a kilometer-aware turret Blaster Installations and some HAV Blaster with a 40 meter optimum where anything past 60m is tickled and anything past 100 is dreaming. A Turret Missile on an Installation can also shoot a kilometer, yet no HAV Large Missile can touch anything even a third of that distance. Why are you bringing up HAVs in your original post as if you were shot by the same thing? Closed Beta Vet Reading the forums detracts from overall enjoyment of the game
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:24:00 - [27] - Quote True Adamance wrote: And? You implied that my death was warranted because I didn't react in time, when it was far from. That, or I'm misreading your post. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Lurchasaurus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 2121	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:25:00 - [28] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Atiim wrote: You think I just stood there? You thought I said, "Hey look, something's magically shredding my suit to pieces, I better check my ammo count"? Yes You have to be the ultimate scrub to be killed by a blaster installation at 500m+ "He shouldve realized at that point I was lying as I'd already had my morning poo and I don't read newspapers." CB Vet
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1563	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:28:00 - [29] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: All large turrets on Installations DO NOT have the same range as HAV Turrets, there is a large difference between a kilometer-aware turret Blaster Installations and some HAV Blaster with a 40 meter optimum where anything past 60m is tickled and anything past 100 is dreaming. A Turret Missile on an Installation can also shoot a kilometer, yet no HAV Large Missile can touch anything even a third of that distance. Alright, but this problem still needs to be addressed. The AI shouldn't have became hostile from 550m. Even 200m is questionable. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4516	Posted - 2013.12.04 03:31:00 - [30] - Quote Atiim wrote: Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: All large turrets on Installations DO NOT have the same range as HAV Turrets, there is a large difference between a kilometer-aware turret Blaster Installations and some HAV Blaster with a 40 meter optimum where anything past 60m is tickled and anything past 100 is dreaming. A Turret Missile on an Installation can also shoot a kilometer, yet no HAV Large Missile can touch anything even a third of that distance. Alright, but this problem still needs to be addressed. The AI shouldn't have became hostile from 550m. Even 200m is questionable. Yeah its an issue and a bad one when redline rails start doing this to infantry and tanks....no fun for anyone. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.