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.

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.

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.

you're forgetting that blaster tanks are almost always killed by rails

some one got hurt by the large blaster.

yes its great for killing infantry but no.

like other gallente tech it is designed for enagaging any type of target.

the blaster is a high damage, high dps, hgih ROF turret and exellent accuracy like other gallente designs. it is NOT only desgined for killing mealsy infantry but opposing vehiclesas well.

useing its constant damage to shear through defences it is capable of killing tanks and infantry alike. however for all its advantages it overheats quite quickly and has the worst range of all turret types. missiles have a better range and are designed for pummuling targets witha volley of missiles form close-mid-long range suffers at killing infantry best for anti-vehicle.

the railgun....................nothing needs to be said about it. exept its ridiculosy and overpowerlingly good at vehcile killing decent at infantry killing.

the blaster is intended as the all-rounded turret able to deal with both infantry adn vechicles effeceltivley.

if you take away the blaster then HAV's lose the turret that is mid ground between infatry,vehicle killer. and the best and most balanced weapon in the game.

infantry have bettween 200-700 ehp. blasters deal 100+ damage a shot. blaster is designed to show you your hp means squat to its power.

Blasters are fine

BLASTERS ARE FOR KILLING PEOPLE THAT IS THEIR MAIN FUNCTION QUIT WHINING ABOUT IT AND RUN AWAY FROM IT

Seems like we have two possible approaches.

Either make all small turrets AI with some versions being very weak AV (missiles and rails) and all big turrets into AV with skillshot infantry kills. So tanks have to use extra turrets with additional gunners to murder infantry, while LAVs are completely dominated by tanks. Though assault dropships have the advantage of being able to fly outside of the maximum angle of a tank's main turret, even if their weapons are all mostly AI.

Or make it weapon type based - Rails are full AV, missiles are AV/AI (Personally, I'd think that missiles as AA would make more sense) and blasters are full AI. Which would mean that a tank can decide to go main AI (If the enemy has no tanks) and use secondary AV with additional gunners. Or an HAV can be fitted to go main AV, with AI as secondary. Either way, that would allow HAV drivers to customize to a single target type when going solo and would require a trio of operators to get full damage on both types of targets (On the assumption that a double small turret is comparable to a single big turret).
This would also mean that an LAV can actually be used as an anti-tank platform by combining a railgun with enough agility to avoid a tank's main turret.

The former requires all tanks to avoid infantry unless they work with multiple operators, which might be an interesting dynamic of segregation. The latter gives tanks more freedom in how they specialize and might be more to a tanker's tastes.

Either way, everyone agrees that a blaster should not murder tanks and infantry.

Actually, there's a third approach - Keep small turrets as they are (With both AV and AI), but make ALL big turrets AV, which is kind of inconsistent.


By the way, how good are a secondary gunner's vertical angles of aim? I wonder if they have an easier time getting dropships at close range than the main turret.

the main problem of this is you really can't have a tanks main weapon not be able to deal with other tanks.
a tank with no AV power would be at an extreme disadvantage
the reason for this this is that if there are 2 tanks of the field they are going to fight there is simple no way to avoid this due to tanks speed and the lay out of the maps
a tank must have AV power this is their primary job
a tank that can't fight other tanks would be like a logi (not amarr) using a swarm launcher
as for having to use small turrets for Ai may not be a bad thing but before you can have that there MUST be a way for the driver of the tank to control who the hell is sitting in that seat
VEHICLE LOCKS ALREADY CCP!!!

the main problem of this is you really can't have a tanks main weapon not be able to deal with other tanks.
a tank with no AV power would be at an extreme disadvantage
the reason for this this is that if there are 2 tanks of the field they are going to fight there is simple no way to avoid this due to tanks speed and the lay out of the maps
a tank must have AV power this is their primary job
a tank that can't fight other tanks would be like a logi (not amarr) using a swarm launcher
as for having to use small turrets for Ai may not be a bad thing but before you can have that there MUST be a way for the driver of the tank to control who the hell is sitting in that seat
VEHICLE LOCKS ALREADY CCP!!!

Large Blaster Turrets are a major problem in vehicle vs infantry combat.
How many infantry complain about Large rails? Virtually none.

whats ludicrous is the rail rifle can do that stuff to infantry much better than the large blaster turret. at longer ranges. because large blaster turret can kill a target thats standing still extremely fast doesnt mean it can kill a moving target in with the at the same speed. it seems to either have hit detection probs. an invisible dispersion no1 knows about. or there is alot of missing involved. seeing how ive overheated my blaster on some groups of infantry on occasion. and used up to 50 rounds to kill a moving player.

i dont have any problems with the turrets at all. even when im fighting them with a swarm launcher with av nades.

Do you want me to tell you what is wrong with your statements?

Call of Duty is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< WoT is that way.

Then cut the Blaster ROF by a large margin and increase the damage to that DPS stays relatively the same then maybe we'll be able to distinguish between good and bad tankers, because the right now the state of tanks blur that line immensely.

Even I can go 20/0 in a Blaster Soma and I'm and absolutely **** tank pilot :/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dust 514<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

GTFO you two.

To start, yes I do think that Large Blaster Turrets should be removed. Tankers already have the cake. They shouldn't be able to eat it while blowing the counterpart's cake away too.

However, until CCP releases the Medium Attack Vehicle [MAV] HAVs would have no purpose on the battlefield. The only reason to field an HAV would be if someone else was to field an HAV. This would be flawed because without HAVs being able to effectively kill infantry, there would never be a need for the opponent to field an HAV in the first place.

Along with this, the 80GJ Blasters are the only Gallente Turret. It's bad enough that Matari and Amarrian pilots aren't able to effectively use their LP. If you remove a racial weapon, you'll need to replace it.

Until the MAVs arrive, I'd just settle on adjusting the ROF of the Turrets.

So, a blaster is an AI weapon. However, one that does 100 base damage and fires full auto for 120 rounds straight while being mounted on a 5000 HP mobile hull is ludicrous.

If you want to kill infantry, then use fair AI weaponry. AV weaponry can't out DPS a blaster turret. Why should something so high HP as a tank get a turret that 1-4 shots anything in the game? Why do we even have small turrets?

Tankers think that light AV should be used for LAVs and heavy AV for HAVs.
So shouldn't their turrets follow the same formula?

To keep Gallente technology on HAVs I suggest a PLC type turret. No other game, or in teal life, does a Heavy Attack Vehicle have a AI cannon mounted to it to roll through infantry.

LAVs are supposed to be for AI. HAVs for AV and installations.

You agree with that Atiim?

I agree.

But my main concern is having Giant Laser Rifles melting everyone.