DUST Search - CCP, please fix small turrets.

daishi mk03 wrote:

One mistake? No, your whole text is completely bullsh't and you know that.

I tell you what you did. You equipped one small turret after the other, shot an installation and watched the efficiency rating. That's all you did. Then you came to this forum, generalized your data for everything and stated that blasters and railguns are broken, while they are clearly not, because you are just to dumb to test things properly. Now you give me that dropship vs installation crap, which agains shows why swiss cheese is more intelligent.

Dropships can perfectly fine use railguns (vs infantry/tanks) and missiles (vs tanks/installations), because they need the range.
Tanks can equip all three kinds of turrets, whatever they want to do.
Small Blasters shine on LAVs for anti-infantry, still, LAVs can use all three turrets.

Thanks to people like you CCP crackheads read threads like this and destroy the game more and more.
You want to complain that you can't cut your bread (=installation) with a spoon (=small blaster)? Please leave society.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, some people know how to play (Dropship with small railgun)

http://youtu.be/atnP5DMr0nw?t=1m40s

greets to Dust Fiend


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Texs Red DUST University Ivy League 112	Posted - 2014.01.05 04:11:00 - [1] - Quote Okay, ran some numbers today and did some play tests. Missile turrets are clearly the favored turret to use but why? Because they are the only small turret that isn't broken. Small missile turret: Direct damage 455, splash 357.5 over 2.5 meters. Clip size 8 129% effective vs armor, 857 per hit (4,695.6 damage per clip) 69% effective vs shields, 314 per hit (2,778.6 damage per clip) Splash damage is almost equal to a direct hit from a railgun. Easy to hit infantry from an elevated position. True damage: As listed but is +29% vs armor, -31% vs shields Small railgun turret: Direct damage 377, clip size 24 63% effective vs armor, 237.5 per hit (6,604.3 but overheats at half clip so really is 3,300) 77% effective vs shields, 290 per hit (7,356 but overheats at half clip so really is 3,676) Almost impossible to hit infantry from an unstable platform. Ture damage: 263.9 (+7% vs shields, -7% vs armor) Small blaster turret: Direct damage 49.4, clip size 150 33% effective vs armor, 16 per hit (2,445 but overheats at half clip so really is 1,222) 44% effective vs shields, 21.7 per hit (2,714 but overheats at half clip so really is 1,357) Almost impossible to hit infantry from an unstable platform. True damage: 19 (+8.5% vs shields, -8.5% vs armor) What is up with these numbers? Your closest range turret (highest risk) has the poorest DPS while missiles are effective out to 250 meters (railguns only go 300) with splash damage almost equal to a direct railgun hit? Then you give railguns and blasters an overheat mechanic that effectively halves their clip size because the overheat duration is almost as long as reloading. The blaster has such poor DPS that a mass driver and flux grenades are more effective vs tanks/installations. Coupled with the fact that it is almost impossible to hit infantry with it on an unstable platform this turret is literally useless. Period. The efficiency ratings on hybrid weapons are just messed up but missiles get their actual listed values (+30% vs armor, -30% vs shields). If you were worried about railguns and blasters being overpowered then lower their damage, don't leave these messed up efficiency ratings. You are
Texs Red DUST University Ivy League 112	Posted - 2014.01.05 11:54:00 - [2] - Quote What I am talking about isn't just infantry, it's vehicles and installations. I mean look at the numbers I got from blasters, half a clip can't even take out the shields of an installation! And while managing the clip might work well on HAVs or LAVs on an incubus it's really hard not to overheat the railgun because the shots come out so fast plus everything else I have to worry about.
Texs Red DUST University Ivy League 112	Posted - 2014.01.05 13:01:00 - [3] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: Your numbers are wrong. Care to elaborate on that?
Texs Red DUST University Ivy League 112	Posted - 2014.01.05 13:52:00 - [4] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: Explanation post (will edit in and tell you why you are not more intelligent than swiss cheese) Edit: Since I'm not responsible for your existence I only give you some advices, why you are totally wrong. I) Your calculations are wrong: e.g. Small Missile Turret 4551,3 is NOT 857 II) Your tests are wrong: e.g. If you use Small Blasters against Infantry (OH MY GAWD DAISHI USES A HIGH ROF LOW DMG WEAPON AGAINST MOBILE TARGET AND NOT INSTALLATIONS!!!! WHY IS HE SO BETTER THAN ME*) it does correctly 110% / 90% vs shield/armor III) You are Dust University crap and part of the cancer flood of this forum e.g. no e.g. needed protip: look for someone who did manage to make it through elementary school and let him do stuff like this Fine, I made one mistake. You are missing the point though, I am not talking about infantry specifically. It's about its effectiveness on a dropship (an unstable firing platform) and against tanks/installations, where it is woefully ineffective.
Texs Red DUST University Ivy League 112	Posted - 2014.01.05 15:20:00 - [5] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: One mistake? No, your whole text is completely bullsh't and you know that. I tell you what you did. You equipped one small turret after the other, shot an installation and watched the efficiency rating. That's all you did. Then you came to this forum, generalized your data for everything and stated that blasters and railguns are broken, while they are clearly not, because you are just to dumb to test things properly. Now you give me that dropship vs installation crap, which agains shows why swiss cheese is more intelligent. Dropships can perfectly fine use railguns (vs infantry/tanks) and missiles (vs tanks/installations), because they need the range. Tanks can equip all three kinds of turrets, whatever they want to do. Small Blasters shine on LAVs for anti-infantry, still, LAVs can use all three turrets. Thanks to people like you CCP crackheads read threads like this and destroy the game more and more. You want to complain that you can't cut your bread (=installation) with a spoon (=small blaster)? Please leave society. Edit: Oh, and yeah, some people know how to play (Dropship with small railgun) http://youtu.be/atnP5DMr0nw?t=1m40s greets to Dust Fiend I can't honestly tell if you are trying to troll me or you really can't understand what I am trying to say. I never said railgun were not effective vs shield tanks nor that they were a failure at destroying installations, I fly an incubus with rails and I know how effective they are vs shield tanks. They struggle with armor tanks and do okay with installations but clearly you haven't used a railgun as your main turret on an ADS because it sucks at hitting infantry. If you watch your own video you can clearly see that he switches from using a rail turret to a missile turret once he has taken out the tank and decides to go anti-infantry. In the video he flying an incubus, which gives a bonus to hybrid turrets, and decides to use a missile turret instead of a blaster, a hybrid turret, for anti-infantry. Why? Because the blaster turret is horrible on a dropship. A missile turret has superior ability to hit infantry due to having splash damage that deals almost as much damage as a railgun and has like double to triple the engagement range. Also I agree about LAVs, to be honest they are the most poorly designed military vehicle I have ever seen. This is supposed to be the future but they leave all of the seats open, especially the gunner where he is only protected from fire coming from the front of the jeep. Look at modern military vehicles, the gunner sits mostly inside of the vehicle and has an armored plate on the front of the gun so he can only be hit in the shoulder and head region from the back or sides. Not his entire body from almost any angle like CCP made.