DUST Search - tank weapons have too long a range

Ulysses Knapse wrote:

lee corwood wrote:

Ulysses Knapse wrote:

Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Cry

Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc).

So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun?

for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing, so we really need to stop using that as a comparison.

Then let's all stop calling them "tanks".

Until people stop calling them tanks, I reserve the right to compare them with real-life tanks.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 714	Posted - 2014.01.03 01:53:00 - [1] - Quote was teamed up just a few mins ago to take on some tanks. 4 forge guns and 2 swarms and i noticed that they just sat there at 300+m with their blasters firing quite accurately at me almost insta killing me most of the time and managing to kill most of my av squad it appears to me that tank weaponry now has too long a range. if swarms cant deny any ground because tanks can shoot from outside it and forge guns can easily be dodged at range. and re/proxy and grenades are useless if the tanks dont come close then surely a range reduction on tank weapons is warrented to bring them into the fight and not have them sitting safe outside most av range if av has had range reductions to force them into cqc with tanks then surely tank weaponry should meet the same fate to bring them into cqc with infantry. they should atleast have a 25-50% range reduction to discourage sniping from afarr. the best tankers are all close range anyway so this shouldn't affect them too much https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Meee One Clones Of The Damned Zero-Day 72	Posted - 2014.01.03 02:00:00 - [2] - Quote +1 That or remove the range notification from targeting enemies inside vehicles.
Stinker Butt Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 319	Posted - 2014.01.03 04:58:00 - [3] - Quote One that 5 point skirmish map with all the pipes, you can sit in your red zone in the hills with a rail turret and destroy vehicles dropping in the enemy red zone. The range is insane. Please give tanks some balance
Vicious Minotaur Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 492	Posted - 2014.01.03 05:18:00 - [4] - Quote Indeed. I've been killed by a blaster tank at over 190m. Rail tanks act as super pre-nerf forge guns, capable of denying the entire map to other vehicles. Missile tanks seem fine to me. They are the most balanced of the three large turrets, by far.
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 568	Posted - 2014.01.03 08:47:00 - [5] - Quote Yes for blasters and rails (>125, 350-400m respectively), but missiles need to shoot like 300m, inaccurately of course. Dropship Specialist Kills- Incubus: 4; Pythons: 1; Other DS: 28 Gêå1; Tanks: 27 Gêå2 1/1
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 717	Posted - 2014.01.03 09:52:00 - [6] - Quote they should apply this to installation turrets also. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 340	Posted - 2014.01.03 10:31:00 - [7] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: they should apply this to installation turrets also. Disagree. Installation turrets are stationary, usually placed in inconvenient locations, and are one of the few viable methods for infantry to take out tanks and dropships.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 718	Posted - 2014.01.03 10:44:00 - [8] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: they should apply this to installation turrets also. Disagree. Installation turrets are stationary, usually placed in inconvenient locations, and are one of the few viable methods for infantry to take out tanks and dropships. the problem is if you reduce tank turret range how do you take out turrets. sure they are one of the few viable ways to take out tanks but to not allow tankers to take them out would just make for long tank qq threads to appear and ultimately would not be balanced. it would also be nice if a single redline rail wasn't capable of taking out 50% of the turrets on the map before the first objective is taken meaning more turrets still alive to use against these tanks https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 340	Posted - 2014.01.03 11:20:00 - [9] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the problem is if you reduce tank turret range how do you take out turrets. Drive up to them, or go up to them on foot and hack them. If they're behind your enemies redline, go away. You have no business being back there. There's no objectives there. If you reduce the range on them, they become useless for taking out dropships, and it's already hard enough as it is.
m621 zma OMFGZOMBIESRUN 87	Posted - 2014.01.03 13:01:00 - [10] - Quote I found myself in a Sica yesterday, popped another HAV from 500.66m

Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1013	Posted - 2014.01.03 16:36:00 - [11] - Quote Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
lee corwood Knights Of Ender Public Disorder. 297	Posted - 2014.01.03 16:57:00 - [12] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing, so we really need to stop using that as a comparison. For another, I don't think anything needs to be done until all races have their content and a true balanced architecture is formed. We can QQ all we want about each individual thing, but I'm fairly certain the community at large can see how convoluted the balance currently is in this game. Minmatar Logisis \| Heavy lover. Come get some badass Band-Aids from this chick
Suanar Daranaus Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 106	Posted - 2014.01.03 17:00:00 - [13] - Quote Give Swarms their Lock range back BUT keep the reduced damage in place. There, Fixed
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1015	Posted - 2014.01.03 17:26:00 - [14] - Quote lee corwood wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing, so we really need to stop using that as a comparison. Then let's all stop calling them "tanks". Until people stop calling them tanks, I reserve the right to compare them with real-life tanks. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 721	Posted - 2014.01.03 17:42:00 - [15] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: lee corwood wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing, so we really need to stop using that as a comparison. Then let's all stop calling them "tanks". Until people stop calling them tanks, I reserve the right to compare them with real-life tanks. fair enough. you want balance based on RL tanks. increase the cost back to what they were before 1.7, return swarms to their old range but decrease costs by 75%, increase all damage on av so they can kill all tanks with 1 shot. thats rl balance right there for you... as you see its not as simple as that https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
lee corwood Knights Of Ender Public Disorder. 297	Posted - 2014.01.03 17:43:00 - [16] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: lee corwood wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing, so we really need to stop using that as a comparison. Then let's all stop calling them "tanks". Until people stop calling them tanks, I reserve the right to compare them with real-life tanks. You're right, because real life logic against fantasy made up logic makes for great math. Also, you're right, we need to stop calling them tanks in these forums. No where in the game are they called tanks. They are Heavy Attack Vehicles. Not tanks. Minmatar Logisis \| Heavy lover. Come get some badass Band-Aids from this chick
Kigurosaka Laaksonen Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 46	Posted - 2014.01.03 17:54:00 - [17] - Quote lee corwood wrote: for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing This particular futuristic fantasy is (supposedly) held to, as it happens, standards more futuristic than the real thing. Dusts is an FPS with online only multiplayer and the maps and team sizes reflect that. It is NOT a game set in New Eden that takes place across thousands of planets between teams of hundreds of players. It calls itself that, but fails to live up. That's why we get problems like this.
lee corwood Knights Of Ender Public Disorder. 298	Posted - 2014.01.03 17:59:00 - [18] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: lee corwood wrote: for one, this is a fantasy game. nothing is really held to standards of the real thing This particular futuristic fantasy is (supposedly) held to, as it happens, standards more futuristic than the real thing. Dusts is an FPS with online only multiplayer and the maps and team sizes reflect that. It is NOT a game set in New Eden that takes place across thousands of planets between teams of hundreds of players. It calls itself that, but fails to live up. That's why we get problems like this. I think the problem is CCP doesn't know where the hell its going. They had a direction in the past that is now as clear as mud. They keep trying to come up with more content that doesn't seem to align with any sort of infrastructure which leaves us grasping at straws and more often, at the most similar object we have in our world today to compare it to. However, by doing so, we are doing ourselves a disservice but arguing pointlessly among each other on how we feel they 'should' work instead of trying to get clarity on their balance from the source (which is CCP who I don't think has a clue at the moment). Minmatar Logisis \| Heavy lover. Come get some badass Band-Aids from this chick
Stinker Butt Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 320	Posted - 2014.01.03 18:45:00 - [19] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? No other weapon in game follows normal weapon physics in regards to range. -1 for a pathetic attempt at a reality check in a video game. Please give tanks some balance
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 949	Posted - 2014.01.03 20:46:00 - [20] - Quote Rails having very long range is perfectly okay. But, that does not mean they should be perfectly efficient, no. Having for example reduced damage or otherwise real hard to hit at extreme distances makes it work. (hopefully the latter) Large blasters though have a bit too long effective range: I was on line harvest west road close to supply depot shooting at top of charlie warehouse and similar distance around it. And as the Ion Cannon's power and accuracy were such I managed to get 12-15 kills within minute or so putting few blaster rounds per silhouette. Minimal scatter and great power. It seems that large blaster has moderately long optimal after which the falloff is short. That doesn't exactly fit close range high damage weapon... Missiiles I can't comment on. Tank spam getting onto your nerves? An improvement:

low genius The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance 1067	Posted - 2014.01.03 21:40:00 - [21] - Quote I got killed by a blaster at 68 meters yesterday. really didn't like that.
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 366	Posted - 2014.01.04 00:49:00 - [22] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: TheEnd762 wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: they should apply this to installation turrets also. Disagree. Installation turrets are stationary, usually placed in inconvenient locations, and are one of the few viable methods for infantry to take out tanks and dropships. the problem is if you reduce tank turret range how do you take out turrets. sure they are one of the few viable ways to take out tanks but to not allow tankers to take them out would just make for long tank qq threads to appear and ultimately would not be balanced. it would also be nice if a single redline rail wasn't capable of taking out 50% of the turrets on the map before the first objective is taken meaning more turrets still alive to use against these tanks How do you take out turrets? If you're playing Public there's a good chance your own Blueberries will start with your own and take the rest of them out too. lol I yell at my screen everytime I see that...everytime. :'( Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 467	Posted - 2014.01.04 01:39:00 - [23] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oh, boohoo, Railguns can shoot me dead at over 500 meters, so unfair... Guess what? Modern-day tank guns have an effective range of over 4,000 meters with relatively standard ammunition, with certain specialty munitions giving them over 8,000 meters of range. These aren't guns designed for artillery, no, they're the same guns used in most main-battle tanks (Leopard 2s, M1A1 Abrams, etc). So, tell me, what's wrong with Large Railgun Turrets having over 500 meters of effective range? That's an eighth of what you see on modern tanks. Prototype Rail Rifles have an effective range of slightly over 100 meters, compared to most modern assault rifles that have an effective range of over 500 meters, which is a fifth. Tell me, why should railgun turrets have a lower fraction of the range of their modern equivalent than a handheld railgun? Modern AV can pop most tanks in 1 hit. Want me to 1 shot wonder your tank?
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 730	Posted - 2014.01.04 02:05:00 - [24] - Quote forget the installations for now then and concentrate on the vehicles. there is a distinct advantage for them over everything else https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1023	Posted - 2014.01.04 11:39:00 - [25] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: Modern AV can pop most tanks in 1 hit. Want me to 1 shot wonder your tank? Modern assault rifles can pop most heads in 1 hit. Want me to 1-shot wonder your dropsuit? What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 734	Posted - 2014.01.04 14:17:00 - [26] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Thurak1 wrote: Modern AV can pop most tanks in 1 hit. Want me to 1 shot wonder your tank? Modern assault rifles can pop most heads in 1 hit. Want me to 1-shot wonder your dropsuit? i think thats the point he is trying to make. you can't base it on rl because it just doesn't fit in with dust but on the other hand it does need some element of realistic balance https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find


Pages: 1 :: [one page]