Aerius Corius
FACTION WARFARE ARMY
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
0
   |
Posted - 2014.02.23 21:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:I prefer to run missiles or rails on my gunlogi but most of the time when im on squad my squad leaders want blaster support simply because of its raw killing power, I have seen threads about removing large blasters altogether but I don't think this is the solution ,
My personal solution would be to change the blasters rate of fire to that of the old compressed blasters as they had quite a slow rate of fire and only slightly higher damage than the satterd, this would make it still viable to get enemy infantry kills while defending your self but would take much more skill to get those kills because of the decreased rate of fire. I also think the slower rate of fire would make the turret feel more tank , i.e. slow firing but powerful cannon .
This.
Blaster RoF should go down a good deal - maybe even a shot per second. I see the turret types as functioning like so to make each a choice in strategy...
Missiles: Medium RoF, Splash Dmg, medium range, medium rotation
Blasters: High RoF, Low Damage, Short Range, High Rotation
Rails: Low RoF, High DMG, High Range, Low Rotation
Projectiles: Medium RoF, Medium Dmg, Medium Range, Medium Rotation
Blasters need to be the end all be all for anti-infantry tanks, no doubt, but they could be balanced a little better to not be so damn good at their job. Ambush mode suffers heavily from this. That said, blasters need to be anti-infantry NOT anti-armor, the "low dmg" I list is relative to vehicle dmg. A blaster should still hose you in five shots or less, regardless of suit type. The high rotation and RoF make it effective for up close infantry...like busting up a squad on a capture point. But the rotation, not the RoF, is really why a blaster should be good against infantry and essentially unimportant against vehicles.
Missiles need to be a form of medium range artillery against infantry and a decent threat to armor, especially LAV's. Missiles can take multiple infrantry out if used well, but would have trouble up close with a slower rotation. If enemy armor arrives, missiles are more effective than blasters and still have some rotation to deal with an LAV.
Rails work fine right now (tanks on hills are a pain, yes, but this is an anti-armor problem not a tank problem). Rails should be slow rotating, huge dmg, slow firing, anti-armor. They should have a relatively small blast radius - making infantry kills very difficult but not impossible at range. Really, rails need to be the anti-armor choice - the slow rotation can track a tank at mid-range, tough to hit an LAV or dropship nearby, and a blaster/missile tank could potentially outmaneuver up close. Rails should have a higher aim though - they should be able to aim around 60 degrees up or so to hit dropships at some distance without going frolicking in the red-line.
Projectiles need to be the happy middle of all-around effective, jack of all trades. Decent at anti-armor like missiles, but more pinpoint accurate (a good threat to LAV compared to missiles which take time to arrive at target) and capable of infantry kills at mid-range in the hands of a skilled pilot. Projectiles also should have a higher aim - again they should be able to aim around 60 degrees up or so to hit dropships at some distance without going to hills or red-line.
These concepts should apply to small armaments too - LAV's with rails could be a quick solution to a tank that has squadmates pinned in a building. Dropships with blasters can do closer encounters with infantry and better handle that pesky AV dropsuit - or a dropship with projectiles makes a great versatile artillery platform against infantry or vehicles.
Food for thought.
|