DUST Search - Large blaster turrets removal?

Sgt Kirk wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Sgt Kirk wrote:

Atiim wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

You agree with that Atiim?

I agree.

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

Solution: low tracking speed. AI laser dominance problem solved....on paper!

Fair Call. Lasers do have poor tracking in EVE....however we do have to find some way to make them viable anti vehicle weapons.... however we also don't have to assume lasers will operate like their light weapon counterpart.

See MWO Large ERM lasers.

I can only imagine that there will be beam and Pulse lasers for the Amarr. Much like how Caldari have railgun (even though railguns can be both Gallente and Caldari >:[...) and missile in DUST.

I imagine Minmatar will get artillery/cannon type turrets and Gattling weapons.

But that only leaves Gallente with one turret type....unless...DRONES!

but I digress.

What if the beam type laser worked with a charging mechanic and similarly to the scrambler then time you charge it depends on the damage done to it. When firing the weapon it acts like a laser rifle except the beam last for a certain amount of time instead of when you let go of the trigger.

It would be ideal for massacring shield targets from range but because of the charge shot mechanic and because you have to keep your aim on the target while your beam is firing it would not be ideal for close range combat and dealing with smaller targets within a certain distance.

A pulse type on the other hand would be more like medium ranged and slightly more suited for Lighter targets and more mobile targets but can still engage other heavily armed objects.

"My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6227	Posted - 2014.01.27 21:20:00 - [61] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: You agree with that Atiim? I agree. But my main concern is having Giant Laser Rifles melting everyone. Solution: low tracking speed. AI laser dominance problem solved....on paper! Fair Call. Lasers do have poor tracking in EVE....however we do have to find some way to make them viable anti vehicle weapons.... however we also don't have to assume lasers will operate like their light weapon counterpart. See MWO Large ERM lasers. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1402	Posted - 2014.01.27 21:25:00 - [62] - Quote Blaster tanks hope not to get r@ped by enemy rails. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1546	Posted - 2014.01.27 21:35:00 - [63] - Quote now , im not for the removal of any content to be quite honest as thatys the last thing this game needs is things that just need a bit of tweaking removed , I personally like to run missiles and rails on my gunlogis as they are both caldari tech and no doubt some gallenty hav operatives also run blasters because they love gallente tech. removing any racial content instead of improving or adding is bad plain and simple. now that's out of the way , I have proposed in the past that blasters are gallente tech and should be high dps close range weapons to fall in line with eve lore , to accomplish this they should have their fire rate reduced by 25% but have their direct hit damage increased by 25% thusly keeping the high dps but also making it harder to hit infantry with the lower rate of fire harder but not impossible and would require a bit more tracking skill , the higher direct hit damage and would compensate for its lower rate of fire when vehicle combat is considered , also it would make the turret feel a bit more tank like. The missiles and rails actually feel like your are shooting a canon but the blasters are a bit meh to be honest. Its gone from suck .....to blow level 1 forum warrior
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4165	Posted - 2014.01.27 21:40:00 - [64] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: You agree with that Atiim? I agree. But my main concern is having Giant Laser Rifles melting everyone. Solution: low tracking speed. AI laser dominance problem solved....on paper! Fair Call. Lasers do have poor tracking in EVE....however we do have to find some way to make them viable anti vehicle weapons.... however we also don't have to assume lasers will operate like their light weapon counterpart. See MWO Large ERM lasers. I can only imagine that there will be beam and Pulse lasers for the Amarr. Much like how Caldari have railgun (even though railguns can be both Gallente and Caldari >:[...) and missile in DUST. I imagine Minmatar will get artillery/cannon type turrets and Gattling weapons. But that only leaves Gallente with one turret type....unless...DRONES!
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6235	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:37:00 - [65] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: You agree with that Atiim? I agree. But my main concern is having Giant Laser Rifles melting everyone. Solution: low tracking speed. AI laser dominance problem solved....on paper! Fair Call. Lasers do have poor tracking in EVE....however we do have to find some way to make them viable anti vehicle weapons.... however we also don't have to assume lasers will operate like their light weapon counterpart. See MWO Large ERM lasers. I can only imagine that there will be beam and Pulse lasers for the Amarr. Much like how Caldari have railgun (even though railguns can be both Gallente and Caldari >:[...) and missile in DUST. I imagine Minmatar will get artillery/cannon type turrets and Gattling weapons. But that only leaves Gallente with one turret type....unless...DRONES! but I digress. What if the beam type laser worked with a charging mechanic and similarly to the scrambler then time you charge it depends on the damage done to it. When firing the weapon it acts like a laser rifle except the beam last for a certain amount of time instead of when you let go of the trigger. It would be ideal for massacring shield targets from range but because of the charge shot mechanic and because you have to keep your aim on the target while your beam is firing it would not be ideal for close range combat and dealing with smaller targets within a certain distance. A pulse type on the other hand would be more like medium ranged and slightly more suited for Lighter targets and more mobile targets but can still engage other heavily armed objects. Technically any laser variant that uses the charge mechanism would be a pulse laser but I like the above ideas. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Rusty Shallows 919	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:18:00 - [66] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: RuckingFetard wrote: Big Snip 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 No one screamed for that. The limited-ammo was first part of discussions when comparing Large Rails to Forge Guns. The Devs decided to add ammunition and the rest of us figured it would be a good balancing factor. Maybe someday munitions magazine will matter. Large Blasters are functioning better now than pre-1.7 ergo they've been buffed. Joel II X wrote: I've only used my blaster tank against other tanks. Are you saying I've been using it wrong? That was funny so many levels. Well done. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Lorhak Gannarsein 1342	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:43:00 - [67] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: RuckingFetard wrote: Big Snip 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 No one screamed for that. The limited-ammo was first part of discussions when comparing Large Rails to Forge Guns. The Devs decided to add ammunition and the rest of us figured it would be a good balancing factor. Maybe someday munitions magazine will matter. Large Blasters are functioning better now than pre-1.7 ergo they've been buffed. Joel II X wrote: I've only used my blaster tank against other tanks. Are you saying I've been using it wrong? That was funny so many levels. Well done. Blaster effective range seems to have increased. More importantly their hit detection improved dramatically. It's still not good, but there it is: Large Blasters are actually unable to apply their ful DPS to infantry targets. Hope they don't fix it, or the QQ will be immense. You might see me joining in. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 494	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:44:00 - [68] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 [/quote] I believe he's referring to the general buff to Tank durability that turned Blaster Tanks into monsters. The Infantry vs. Blaster tank game is basically Attack On Titan, without all the cool flying around.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6239	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:50:00 - [69] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 I believe he's referring to the general buff to Tank durability that turned Blaster Tanks into monsters. The Infantry vs. Blaster tank game is basically Attack On Titan, without all the cool flying around.[/quote] Scouts vs Tanks? That would be interesting! "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 488	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:58:00 - [70] - Quote All I would do is nerf the range, if they had to come within nade range they wouldn't be the monsters they are, at least not for as long once the AV nades came raining down. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4172	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:01:00 - [71] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Technically any laser variant that uses the charge mechanism would be a pulse laser but I like the above ideas. My bad, I'm not too knowledgeable about terms.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6243	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:11:00 - [72] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: True Adamance wrote: Technically any laser variant that uses the charge mechanism would be a pulse laser but I like the above ideas. My bad, I'm not too knowledgeable about terms. Yeah the ScR is a pulse laser as it discharges "pulses" of energy...but as for the other suggestions I really like them. We also could consider that the Arc Canon could be a possible weapon type. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro Omega Elite Mercs INC. 91	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:11:00 - [73] - 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Tank of Duty is right here, with a 12 foot barrel blastin you back to dos. FAME
Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 208	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:37:00 - [74] - Quote The blaster turret is analoguous to a real life autocannon, usually mounted on IFV's and mostly effective against light vehicles. (which would explain why the blaster turrets has the fastest tracking speed of all large turrets, since they have to be able to track LAV's running past them). The thing is, any full auto, large calibre weapon like an autocannon is going to make mince meat out of human targets if used against them as well. It wouldn't make sense for them to only be effective against vehicles in terms of damage.
Beld Errmon The Southern Legion 1267	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:43:00 - [75] - Quote What a nonsense idea, blasters are terrible in tank vs tank making them worse at tank vs infantry would be re-tarded, theres already a huge trade off, the problem isn't the turret its a teams lack of counter tankers.
wripple WarRavens League of Infamy 118	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:46:00 - [76] - Quote What would the purpose of the tank be then? If you're proposing large turrets to be vehicle killers then nobody would ever run vehicles.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4172	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:47:00 - [77] - Quote wripple wrote: What would the purpose of the tank be then? If you're proposing large turrets to be vehicle killers then nobody would ever run vehicles. Why don't tanks have coaxil weapons?
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6248	Posted - 2014.01.28 03:51:00 - [78] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: wripple wrote: What would the purpose of the tank be then? If you're proposing large turrets to be vehicle killers then nobody would ever run vehicles. Why don't tanks have coaxil weapons? Why Indeed Sgt Kirk...why indeed. As to you wripple it so that all vehicles have roles on the battlefield. HAV currently fill the role of jack of all trades masters of all. This is wrong and causing the current issues with HAV. As I stated in an earlier post like the current dropsuits, frame sizes, and roles....designated battlefield doctrines are required in vehicles. LAV need to be fast, lightly armoured, high anti infantry damage out put, but very susceptible to AV. MAV (when released) could fulfil the role of mobile ground based troop movement. As such they need to fulfil an infantry support role in the form of either logistics based reps, and or Anti Infantry medium turret fire power. As such they need to be somewhat resilient, moderately fast, and the link between LAV and HAV. HAV then would finally fulfil a role. The top tier Anti vehicle ground unit only susceptible to AV fire and other HAV. I say this because tanks are unbalancing gameplay as it is. Tankers want to be resilient, have a clear role, massive firepower, and have good tank fights. Take the anti infantry role out of the driver/gunners hands (put that capacity in the hands of coaxial or sponson gunners (aka light turrets)) and you require team work to deal with smaller targets, infantry cannot complain about large blaster massacres, tanking becomes skilled SP and ISK sink, and somewhat serves to balance HAV against other vehicles. Its all about giving ever vehicle a role, not leaving tanks as top dogs in every regard. Also since this makes massacres that much harder to achieve you loose the FoTM tankers who have jumped into every match spamming blaster tanks to get easy kills. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6248	Posted - 2014.01.28 03:53:00 - [79] - Quote Beld Errmon wrote: What a nonsense idea, blasters are terrible in tank vs tank making them worse at tank vs infantry would be re-tarded, theres already a huge trade off, the problem isn't the turret its a teams lack of counter tankers. Still you have to agree that no one in the history of ever mounted a .50 cal as their tanks main gun when they could have had a 165mm cannon...... "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Beld Errmon The Southern Legion 1270	Posted - 2014.01.28 05:09:00 - [80] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Beld Errmon wrote: What a nonsense idea, blasters are terrible in tank vs tank making them worse at tank vs infantry would be re-tarded, theres already a huge trade off, the problem isn't the turret its a teams lack of counter tankers. Still you have to agree that no one in the history of ever mounted a .50 cal as their tanks main gun when they could have had a 165mm cannon...... if you want to give me a coaxial MG i'll accept a larger blaster being anti tank only.

RuckingFetard Better Hide R Die 684	Posted - 2014.01.28 05:29:00 - [81] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dust 514<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< GTFO you two. But I hate CoD and WoT. Where am I supposed to go? :( Titanfall Running pure shield tanked Caldari 'cuz me a hippy
Hawkings Greenback KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 97	Posted - 2014.01.28 05:58:00 - [82] - Quote Joel II X wrote: I've only used my blaster tank against other tanks. Are you saying I've been using it wrong? Love killing other tanks with my blaster. Always feel dirty on the inside when I have tried rail tanks. GÇ£Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.GÇ¥ GÇò Frank Zappa
Lazy Scumbag Intara Direct Action Caldari State 123	Posted - 2014.01.28 06:08:00 - [83] - Quote Rorick Crawely wrote: 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? Blaster tanks are the reason for all the anger, and the reason tanks will eventually be nerfed again. Vehicle mounted weapons should be powerful, but blaster tanks are over the top. Small mounted blasters are worse than infantry weapons, which should be fixed... but the large blaster is completely unbalanced within the game. There is no answer. How about efficient LAV mounted AV weapons. That would finally make the mandatory LAV weapon useful.
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1014	Posted - 2014.01.28 06:36:00 - [84] - 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 You know... I think I like the cut of your jib. +1 just because. Also, + 1 to the important stuff in the thread too because blah blah blah nerf tanks To apply to L.O.T.I.S. or to squad with us, join our public chat channel: L.O.T.I.S.
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 560	Posted - 2014.01.28 06:36:00 - [85] - Quote Large blaster dispersion does sound like a legit idea
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2304	Posted - 2014.01.28 14:03:00 - [86] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: RuckingFetard wrote: Big Snip 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 No one screamed for that. The limited-ammo was first part of discussions when comparing Large Rails to Forge Guns. The Devs decided to add ammunition and the rest of us figured it would be a good balancing factor. Maybe someday munitions magazine will matter. Large Blasters are functioning better now than pre-1.7 ergo they've been buffed. They havnt been buffed it seems If anything the hit detection finnaly got fixed since im getting more kills and less shield flare but no damage Maybe thats why its not OP because it actually works now Intelligence is OP
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1774	Posted - 2014.01.28 22:31:00 - [87] - 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. Idk what you're smoking, but a particle cannon will beat an ion cannon unless the PC is cornered and cannot escape the 15m radius of doom...which, when the PC guy has 585m to work with, is very easy. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 199	Posted - 2014.01.29 03:03:00 - [88] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: To answer your question, no. To elaborate on my answer, you want CCP to go backwards by removing blaster turrets. Your approach is wrong. Period. In the specific instance of vehicle weaponry, CCP needs to go forwards by introducing energy turrets (small and large pulse and beam), projectile turrets (small and large autocannon and artillery), and a second type of missile launcher. DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 308	Posted - 2014.01.29 03:15:00 - [89] - Quote Message from Godin: I'd said it already, and I'll say it again: This is ******* stupid.
Rynoceros Rise Of Old Dudes 2272	Posted - 2014.01.29 03:44:00 - [90] - Quote When it's just one HAV, it's a manageable problem for a team of 16. When there is one covering every possible spawn point, it is ******* ridiculous. How many tanks do you super totally awesome guys need versus 16 ground troops? When there are 3 tanks in a match it isn't unreasonable to assume that each one will require 3-4 AVers. That's 12-16 players just working AV while the other team cruises in with 13 infantry ready to just stand there and accept the win or help the HAVs camp the spawns. Totally legit, balanced tactic and working as intended, I'm sure. Natalie Portman.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page