DUST Search - Large blaster turrets removal?

All Channels

General Discussions

Large blaster turrets removal?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
8213 BIG BAD W0LVES 1474	Posted - 2014.01.27 07:59:00 - [1] - Quote We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Fish in a bucket!
8213 BIG BAD W0LVES 1474	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:01:00 - [2] - Quote Reserved. For when I wake up in the morning to fully detail this out. Fish in a bucket!
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 515	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:04:00 - [3] - Quote Depends on what CCP intends for them to be. If AI, then lower fire rate, add dispersion, lower effectiveness to vehicles. If AV, greater dispersion, light aim assist for vehicle targets.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1694	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:06:00 - [4] - Quote 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
TheAmazing FlyingPig Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 5516	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:06:00 - [5] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Depends on what CCP intends for them to be. If AI, then lower fire rate, add dispersion, lower effectiveness to vehicles. If AV, greater dispersion, light aim assist for vehicle targets. I've always thought blaster turrets large and small should have a dispersion. Their current laser-accuracy doesn't feel right, and would definitely reduce their power at a distance, giving AV'ers a good chance at destroying / scaring away the tank. Never forget May 14, 2013: Beta 2.0
8213 BIG BAD W0LVES 1474	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:14:00 - [6] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, seriously dude. Get this through your skull. Nobody likes you, agrees with you, respects your opinion; tankers included. You're a delusional f*ck who is the posterchild for everything that's wrong with the playerbase. Go away already. You're a scrub. And like most scrubs, they don't know they're scrubs. -on behalf of EVERYONE Fish in a bucket!
Rorick Crawely SMARTCREW Canis Eliminatus Operatives 7	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:20:00 - [7] - Quote I don't think they should be nerfed, I like the idea of adding in dispersion. When I run round a corner and I see a tank I should **** myself and run for cover, not just run on by because his blaster has been nerfed to hell. I think that there should be two kinds of tanks; AI and AV and I believer that we have that right now. Infantry just need more ways to counter vehicles and then the problem won't be so bad. Right now all you can do is carry a swarm launcher, forge gun or AV grenades. I am a Scout btw, not a tanker.
Vicious Minotaur Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 612	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:21:00 - [8] - Quote Large Blaster Turrets are a major problem in vehicle vs infantry combat. How many infantry complain about Large rails? Or large missiles? Virtually none. Blaster tanks get all the hate, and rightfully so. They might be balanced in regards to vehicle vs vehicle, but that is it. If AV is not supposed to dominate vehicles, then vehicles (specifically blaster HAVs) should not be able to dominate infantry. All three dimensions of battle, infantry, terrestrial vehicles and aerial vehicles need to be balanced within their individual dimension AND with each other dimension. Right now, there is a problem with the "AND."
Rorick Crawely SMARTCREW Canis Eliminatus Operatives 7	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:26:00 - [9] - Quote Vicious Minotaur wrote: Large Blaster Turrets are a major problem in vehicle vs infantry combat. How many infantry complain about Large rails? Or large missiles? Virtually none. Blaster tanks get all the hate, and rightfully so. They might be balanced in regards to vehicle vs vehicle, but that is it. If AV is not supposed to dominate vehicles, then vehicles (specifically blaster HAVs) should not be able to dominate infantry. All three dimensions of battle, infantry, terrestrial vehicles and aerial vehicles need to be balanced within their individual dimension AND with each other dimension. Right now, there is a problem with the "AND." Blasters should be AI tanks not AV, that being said they should be able to rip infantry a new one. So maybe have their vehicle damage decreased but keep their current damage against infantry intact. Any real life and in other video games tanks are deadly against both vehicles and infantry, I don't see why that can't apply to Dust?
RuckingFetard Better Hide R Die 683	Posted - 2014.01.27 09:12:00 - [10] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WoT is the other way <<<<<<<<<<<<<< On a side note, it's funny how blaster turret QQ intensified after the buff Running pure shield tanked Caldari 'cuz me a hippy

Lorhak Gannarsein 1340	Posted - 2014.01.27 10:21:00 - [11] - Quote I would agree with this, except that then what is the purpose of HAVs? When MAVs and/or medium sized turrets make it into the game, for dedicated anti-infantry, then large turrets should all be rebuilt to be anti-vehicle. Rather than removing them, until such a time as there is an alternative anti-infantry primary turret, nerf them against infantry . In the same way that infantry weapons like rifles are nerfed against vehicles. EDIT: While we're on the topic, it might be wise to give railguns some dispersion or something, so they're harder to use against infantry. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
m twiggz Pradox One Proficiency V. 293	Posted - 2014.01.27 10:30:00 - [12] - Quote 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Ever notice how fast the turrets, rail, blaster and missile, rotate when they're not manned by a player? Instant 180s and such.
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 340	Posted - 2014.01.27 11:32:00 - [13] - Quote BLASTERS ARE FOR KILLING PEOPLE THAT IS THEIR MAIN FUNCTION QUIT WHINING ABOUT IT AND RUN AWAY FROM IT
ANON Cerberus Tiny Toons 175	Posted - 2014.01.27 11:54:00 - [14] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Depends on what CCP intends for them to be. If AI, then lower fire rate, add dispersion, lower effectiveness to vehicles. If AV, greater dispersion, light aim assist for vehicle targets. No more f***ing aim assist! Fed up of that enough as it is.
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 691	Posted - 2014.01.27 12:00:00 - [15] - Quote I've only used my blaster tank against other tanks. Are you saying I've been using it wrong?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2301	Posted - 2014.01.27 12:33:00 - [16] - Quote Blasters are fine Intelligence is OP
BattleCry1791 PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 386	Posted - 2014.01.27 12:48:00 - [17] - Quote Trying to think forward here....eventually there will be a MAV....a personnel transport vehicle. Personally I'd like to see that be the AI vehicle of choice with a medium sized blaster and the SOMA get's a "ballistic" form of the rail gun. They'd ban me, but I'm too funny and more importantly, I'm right.
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 301	Posted - 2014.01.27 12:51:00 - [18] - Quote I think the idea with large blasters is to use them in blitzkrieg warfare, and they are significant in all types of warfare. they fullfill many roles such as holding objectives, keeping enemies at a place where they are not a threat to allies, make noise and ***** up enemy frontlines. Having no blasters wouldnt work. then there wouldnt be any reason to call in a tank. there would be AVs hunting AVs for no reason. they are no threat on the battlefield, why would you have to take them out? blasters create balance. I agree they might do less damage to dropsuits and should have less range. WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514 put your seatbelts on, ITs GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE!! and please SUCK ON MY BIG BLACK BLASTER!
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1098	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:16:00 - [19] - Quote 8213 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, seriously dude. Get this through your skull. Nobody likes you, agrees with you, respects your opinion; tankers included. You're a delusional f*ck who is the posterchild for everything that's wrong with the playerbase. Go away already. You're a scrub. And like most scrubs, they don't know they're scrubs. -on behalf of EVERYONE Amen. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2301	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:18:00 - [20] - Quote RuckingFetard wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WoT is the other way <<<<<<<<<<<<<< On a side note, it's funny how blaster turret QQ intensified after the buff What buff? Blasters always did this damage, we even had compressed blasters which did 150 per shot at proto level and not the 136 we have now All thats changed is that the blasters have ammo which infantry were screaming for Intelligence is OP

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2301	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:19:00 - [21] - Quote 8213 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, seriously dude. Get this through your skull. Nobody likes you, agrees with you, respects your opinion; tankers included. You're a delusional f*ck who is the posterchild for everything that's wrong with the playerbase. Go away already. You're a scrub. And like most scrubs, they don't know they're scrubs. -on behalf of EVERYONE u mad bro? Intelligence is OP
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 98	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:32:00 - [22] - Quote Blasters should be a strong disadvantage against other vehicles. Currently, it's too easy to kill a tank with a blaster. If a blaster HAV wants to be protected against vehicles, they need to get a second gunner with a small railgun. Two for defense against good HAV pilots. If you nerf the blaster against vehicles, you will automatically make them less common/more easily countered and also make the gunner positions more useful. It's win for everyone.
Sextus Hardcock 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 222	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:41:00 - [23] - Quote Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote: BLASTERS ARE FOR KILLING PEOPLE THAT IS THEIR MAIN FUNCTION QUIT WHINING ABOUT IT AND RUN AWAY FROM IT I can't, the tank is faster than me. I have found a viable counter though. It involves hiding in the cellar and whimpering. I am the sixth son Chrome Vet
Sextus Hardcock 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 222	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:42:00 - [24] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Blasters are fine Nah, Blasters are ******* great! They aren't balanced however. I am the sixth son Chrome Vet
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 194	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:46:00 - [25] - Quote To answer your question, no. DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2766	Posted - 2014.01.27 13:54:00 - [26] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: Blasters should be a strong disadvantage against other vehicles. Currently, it's too easy to kill a tank with a blaster. If a blaster HAV wants to be protected against vehicles, they need to get a second gunner with a small railgun. Two for defense against good HAV pilots. If you nerf the blaster against vehicles, you will automatically make them less common/more easily countered and also make the gunner positions more useful. It's win for everyone. This might be the best solution. A tank with an AI main gun shouldn't destroy one with an AV main gun so easily. That would force drivers to equip small AI turrets and an AV main or vice versa.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3361	Posted - 2014.01.27 14:10:00 - [27] - Quote The only problem I see with this is that you would only see railtanks on the field, which would get boring realy fast. The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game. Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
RuckingFetard Better Hide R Die 683	Posted - 2014.01.27 14:18:00 - [28] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: RuckingFetard wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 8213 wrote: We have small turrets, which are primarily AI. Aren't large blasters a little much? I just don't agree with them. They're kind of unfair actually. Shouldn't small turrets be used for small targets, like infantry. And large for large targets, like vehicles? I think large blaster turrets are simply a bad idea. Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WoT is the other way <<<<<<<<<<<<<< On a side note, it's funny how blaster turret QQ intensified after the buff What buff? Blasters always did this damage, we even had compressed blasters which did 150 per shot at proto level and not the 136 we have now All thats changed is that the blasters have ammo which infantry were screaming for Me not sure where I read this, but I do recall reading a small buff for the various turrets due to ammunition now being limited Running pure shield tanked Caldari 'cuz me a hippy
1st Lieutenant Tiberius 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 942	Posted - 2014.01.27 14:28:00 - [29] - Quote They need to be less of a supercharged AR and more of a tank turret, low ROF high damage and actually takes some skill to hit infantry. I have to agree that having a huge AR that does 130 DMG per shot on a tank that has waves of invulnerability is kind of... Off. I say increase the damage, lower the ROF Significantly and make it a short-medium range ballistic turret made to ** up tanks and, IF the pilot is skilled enough, able to take out infantry with well placed shots as well. Then fix the small rails and make it the infantry killer and maybe a feature where a small turret on a tank can be disabled (or damaged enough that the operator dies and the turret is unusable) this will allow the small turrets to decimate the infantry but have a counter that does not include blowing up the tank its stuck on. The Sinwarden**
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 301	Posted - 2014.01.27 15:38:00 - [30] - Quote 1st Lieutenant Tiberius wrote: They need to be less of a supercharged AR and more of a tank turret, low ROF high damage and actually takes some skill to hit infantry. I have to agree that having a huge AR that does 130 DMG per shot on a tank that has waves of invulnerability is kind of... Off. I say increase the damage, lower the ROF Significantly and make it a short-medium range ballistic turret made to **** up tanks and, IF the pilot is skilled enough, able to take out infantry with well placed shots as well. Then fix the small rails and make it the infantry killer and maybe a feature where a small turret on a tank can be disabled (or damaged enough that the operator dies and the turret is unusable) this will allow the small turrets to decimate the infantry but have a counter that does not include blowing up the tank its stuck on. we already have that. Its called railgun WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514 put your seatbelts on, ITs GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE!! and please SUCK ON MY BIG BLACK BLASTER!



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.