DUST Search - Large blaster turrets removal?

1st Lieutenant Tiberius wrote:

Racro 01 Arifistan wrote:

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.

Okay let me see if I understand; The Large Blaster is the best and most balanced weapon in the game that you use to show infantry players that your HP means squat to its power and that Railguns (the only thing that can kill you) is ridiculous and overpowered.

So you enjoy driving around with a ton of HP toting around a supercharged Assault Rifle that has High Damage, High DPS, High ROF and Excellent accuracy and you are convinced that your 20/0 or 30/0 games are epitomes of top tier gameplay.

Aight bud, I think I understand now.

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
8213 Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 1536	Posted - 2014.01.29 07:12:00 - [91] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: I'd said it already, and I'll say it again: This is ******* stupid. You know its funny that people complain about RRs as being to effective vs. infantry. But a turret that can shoot 100 rounds straight, do 100 damage a shot, has no recoil because its mounted, has 5000HP, and 10,000sEHP, and its sole purpose is to kill squishy unarmed soft-body contacts is okay... How about we let the guns and small turrets take care of the infantry...? Fish in a bucket! Darken's Testament
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1703	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:49:00 - [92] - Quote Obodiah Garro wrote: Large blaster dispersion does sound like a legit idea Dispersion on a barrel that long? You cannot be serious. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 303	Posted - 2014.01.29 18:40:00 - [93] - Quote 8213 wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: I'd said it already, and I'll say it again: This is ******* stupid. You know its funny that people complain about RRs as being to effective vs. infantry. But a turret that can shoot 100 rounds straight, do 100 damage a shot, has no recoil because its mounted, has 5000HP, and 10,000sEHP, and its sole purpose is to kill squishy unarmed soft-body contacts is okay... How about we let the guns and small turrets take care of the infantry...? Does the proto RR cost 300k? NO!!! but it still does half the damage the Ion cannon does against infantry, costs 6x less and doesn't get f*cked in the ear by railguns so often. That's why people complain.. WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514 put your seatbelts on, ITs GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE!! and please SUCK ON MY BIG BLACK BLASTER!
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1168	Posted - 2014.01.30 00:56:00 - [94] - 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. Spkr4theDead NONSENSE is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh look!! its tank fanboy!!! Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1168	Posted - 2014.01.30 01:02:00 - [95] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Obodiah Garro wrote: Large blaster dispersion does sound like a legit idea Dispersion on a barrel that long? You cannot be serious. A LARGE weapon on a LARGE vehicle shooting LARGE rounds that land exactly on SMALL targets.........LOL!! CCP fail. A guy uses a handgun to kill mice running full out......LOL!! not happening!! Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 128	Posted - 2014.01.30 01:07:00 - [96] - Quote The attitude that rails are AV and blasters are AI has always been a silly one. Especially when every other Rail has been good vs. armor, and blasters are good versus shields. Large turrets should be AV Small Turrets are for infantry The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 138	Posted - 2014.01.30 03:53:00 - [97] - Quote 1st Lieutenant Tiberius wrote: Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: 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. Okay let me see if I understand; The Large Blaster is the best and most balanced weapon in the game that you use to show infantry players that your HP means squat to its power and that Railguns (the only thing that can kill you) is ridiculous and overpowered. So you enjoy driving around with a ton of HP toting around a supercharged Assault Rifle that has High Damage, High DPS, High ROF and Excellent accuracy and you are convinced that your 20/0 or 30/0 games are epitomes of top tier gameplay. Aight bud, I think I understand now. most of the time when i kill infnatry is because they happen to stray in front of me and are unfortuante enough to die. or simply shoot at me with thier rifles. or they are aving me. unless the railgun is activley hunting for me it isnt that hard to deal with. but as with gallente tradition blasters are meant for ridicluos damage outputs at close ranges but suffer friom dealing damage at range. besides. i cnat kill you in a building like an assault dropship can.
Soldiersaint Deepspace Digital 712	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:07:00 - [98] - Quote So you want a BIG CANNON to do less damage to SMALL SOLDIERS. man your head must be on backwards or something.
Nocturnal Soul Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1788	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:16:00 - [99] - Quote I agree with adding dispersion and that's it. New born sAMARRi
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4243	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:24:00 - [100] - Quote milk

dogmanpig black market bank 121	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:28:00 - [101] - Quote 8213 wrote: 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. canister shells for MBT, RL and BF4 bradley, RL IFV striker... ect... do i really need to go on? and by teal life i hope you mean real life because i hate the color teal. cannon http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Cannon -A large mounted weapon that fires heavy projectiles usually projectile weapon whoses round is over 15mm and has a long barrel is considered a cannon. You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way. Level 11 2/10 Forum alt. "Its worth half a penny and a reach around"
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1171	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:37:00 - [102] - Quote Soldiersaint wrote: So you want a BIG CANNON to have less tracking ability versus SMALL SOLDIERS. man your head must be on right or something. Fixed. Yep. The same as trying to use a Desert Eagle versus some houseflys. Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1171	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:55:00 - [103] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Blasters are BROKEN Fixed. Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
trollface dot jpg The Bacon Corporation 144	Posted - 2014.01.30 05:05:00 - [104] - Quote 1st Lieutenant Tiberius wrote: Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: 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. Okay let me see if I understand; The Large Blaster is the best and most balanced weapon in the game that you use to show infantry players that your HP means squat to its power and that Railguns (the only thing that can kill you) is ridiculous and overpowered. So you enjoy driving around with a ton of HP toting around a supercharged Assault Rifle that has High Damage, High DPS, High ROF and Excellent accuracy and you are convinced that your 20/0 or 30/0 games are epitomes of top tier gameplay. Aight bud, I think I understand now. Damn! Someone call the burn ward, dat fool just got ROASTED! RIP MAG, you will be missed. MAG Vet ~ Raven
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 356	Posted - 2014.01.30 09:50:00 - [105] - Quote bunch a crybabies gettn slaughtered by blasters ha ha go fkn die
8213 Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 1556	Posted - 2014.01.30 09:55:00 - [106] - Quote Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote: bunch a crybabies gettn slaughtered by blasters ha ha go fkn die bunch a crybabies getting slaughtered by rail turrets, ha ha go fkn die Fish in a bucket! Darken's Testament
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 356	Posted - 2014.01.30 09:57:00 - [107] - Quote i kill plenty of dipshlts in sicas come on and try it fool FEED ME!!!
Tailss Prower 501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit 137	Posted - 2014.01.30 10:19:00 - [108] - 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? well actually if you think about it right now blasters are the weakest vs vehicles missles and railguns on actual tanks not a stock sica would win against a blaster tank almost every time so right now they seem to be mroe focused on AI but thats my thoughts on it but the adding dispersion doens't sound so bad but you do got to remember it is a tank or heavy mobile platform as many seem to be staying
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1711	Posted - 2014.01.30 18:38:00 - [109] - Quote 8213 wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: I'd said it already, and I'll say it again: This is ******* stupid. You know its funny that people complain about RRs as being to effective vs. infantry. But a turret that can shoot 100 rounds straight, do 100 damage a shot, has no recoil because its mounted, has 5000HP, and 10,000sEHP, and its sole purpose is to kill squishy unarmed soft-body contacts is okay... How about we let the guns and small turrets take care of the infantry...? Oh yeah, because a little handheld gun should be more effective than something the length of 3 mercs, that requires a vehicle powerplant to run, and probably also itself has a ton of circular magnets to propel whatever it is it's firing. You people, if left to have sole discretion in designing a game, with devs that have to follow your whims, would make an RPG-9 more powerful than an Abrams MBT, simply because infantry can use it. And another thing? You'd make the M2 heavy machine gun actually do damage to tank armor. That's how biased and insane you all are. To you, a tank cannot be a tank. Anything that cannot be destroyed by a rifle is OP, and must either be nerfed, or more preferable to you, removed from the game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
J4yne C0bb Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 193	Posted - 2014.01.30 19:28:00 - [110] - Quote TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote: 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. I like the idea of large blasters having greater dispersion, but not the small. Dispersion to large blasters would go a long way to prevent tanks from steamrolling infantry, a situation that's become so prevalent since 1.7. Large turrets should be used primarily against installations/vehicles. However, the small turrets should retain their accuracy, since they are only good for defense of the tank against infantry anyway. Heavy dispersion to large blasters (so that they are only good for other vehicles/installations) is actually a good compromise to the never-ending qq between tankers and AV, regarding whether it should take multiple squad members to take 1 tank down or not. If it takes 3 AV mercs to take down 1 tank, then it should take 3 tank mercs (1 driver, 2 on the small blasters) to rofl-stomp the field. Only fair. Min Logi \| aka Punch R0ckgroin, Fatsuit

Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 223	Posted - 2014.01.30 20:22:00 - [111] - 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? Haha! If you think the QQ about tanks is bad now, just wait until I get a coaxial small blaster to my main turret. This would effectively make every large turret (including the purebreed AV-kinds) effective against infantry as well.
Seigfried Warheit Caught Me With My Pants Down 180	Posted - 2014.01.30 20:58:00 - [112] - Quote replace large blaster turrets with large plasma cannons
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 626	Posted - 2014.01.30 21:54:00 - [113] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Obodiah Garro wrote: Large blaster dispersion does sound like a legit idea Dispersion on a barrel that long? You cannot be serious. On a massive rapid firing cannon, you dont think it shakes a little? I know your not serious your ******* stupid man.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2014.01.31 18:09:00 - [114] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: The attitude that rails are AV and blasters are AI has always been a silly one. Especially when every other Rail has been good vs. armor, and blasters are good versus shields. Large turrets should be AV Small Turrets are for infantry Not flexible enough. Sometimes an ADS wants to hunt HAVs. We need variants. A big AI blaster is a supression tool. It denies an area for infantry and causes fear in LAVs and can damage (if not outright kill) other tanks. A big AV blaster should be a close combat tool, capable of attacking other HAVs like a honey badger and killing unaware LAVs with a few shots. A small AI blaster should be like a slightly longer ranged HMG, with no AV capability. A small AV blaster should do moderate damage against HAVs and do honey badger mode against LAVs. The idea here is that, yes, bigger turrets are generally better AV and smaller are generally better AI. But their variants are tuned in ways that bridge the gaps. An AV LAV can kill a HAV by abusing the slow tracking speed of tanks. (Provided that you find a spot where the ground doesn't remind you that we don't have suspension systems and stabilized vehicle-mounted weapons in the future) An AI HAV would have an easier time killing LAVs than the AV variant, while being good enough against infantry to cause area denial.


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