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!
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1761	Posted - 2014.01.27 15:42:00 - [31] - 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. you're forgetting that blaster tanks are almost always killed by rails Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 98	Posted - 2014.01.27 15:43:00 - [32] - 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. 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.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 137	Posted - 2014.01.27 15:49:00 - [33] - Quote 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.
Travis Stanush GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention 0	Posted - 2014.01.27 16:24:00 - [34] - Quote Rorick Crawely wrote: 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. This guy is right. Right now the best way to kill tanks solo is with other tanks as it should be. Infantry need to realize that the best way for them to kill tanks is to coordinate AV attacks. I have played both sides and let me tell you my worst fear is AV squads because I have been in them and I have killed many tanks.
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 602	Posted - 2014.01.27 16:32:00 - [35] - Quote 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.
8213 BIG BAD W0LVES 1492	Posted - 2014.01.27 17:34:00 - [36] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell 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. you're forgetting that blaster tanks are almost always killed by rails Exactly. Railguns are basically there now to simply rescue infantry from being slaughtered. The only defense to a blaster tank is hide, or die a bunch of times trying to AV. I use only rails now to simply protect my team. Large blasters are just a easy-button for racking up kills. We have LAVs, but nobody wants to fit them for AI when you can just use an 80J blaster. Fish in a bucket!
1st Lieutenant Tiberius 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 949	Posted - 2014.01.27 17:54:00 - [37] - Quote 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. The Sinwarden
TranquilBiscuit ofVaLoR F.T.U. IMMORTAL REGIME 1320	Posted - 2014.01.27 18:08:00 - [38] - Quote it's hilarious seeing these scrub tankers trying to defend their precious blaster. no matter how you slice it, they are NOT balanced in infantry vs. vehicle combat. if tanks can solo multiple infantry with ease, then surely it would only be fair if infantry could do the same or similar to tanks? props to the tankers who are willing to admit that blasters are broken in the state they are now, because you have to be delusional to think that one tank being able to dominate all infantry but 3 proto AVers have to work together to take out one tank is balanced. Anime > EVERYTHING
Glitch116 Black Phoenix Mercenaries Legacy Rising 24	Posted - 2014.01.27 18:42:00 - [39] - Quote while i will admit that blasters are mean to infantry they are still a very powerful av tool av work is actual the prime use of a blaster by skilled players as it lets a tanker engage multiple targets at once you are right that its effect on infantry is brutal but you cant nerf its AV power there needs to be a way to keep its tank killing power but still give infantry a chance I AM THE KING OF THE BLASTER!!! deal with it
Mortedeamor 1302	Posted - 2014.01.27 18:43:00 - [40] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Blasters are fine first reasonable comment ive seen +1 takahiro +1 for IWS to stay as cpm more-tae-dee-um-more stop asking how to pronounce my name its quiet irritating
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2455	Posted - 2014.01.27 18:49:00 - [41] - Quote Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote: BLASTERS ARE FOR KILLING PEOPLE THAT IS THEIR MAIN FUNCTION QUIT WHINING ABOUT IT AND RUN AWAY FROM IT AV'S MAIN FUNCTION WAS KILLING VEHICLES, YOU GUYS SHOULDNT HAVE WHINED ABOUT IT FOR 6 MONTHS AND SHOULD HAVE JUST RUN AWAY See, I can play that game as well Now back on topic I do agree that the large blaster turret has always been a ridiculous poorly balanced idea and that so many people seemed to flock to tanks and use a blaster turret to make up for the lack of their gun game just reinforces my thinking The Gallente turret functioning more like the plasma cannon seems a better idea IMO Im not drunk, the planet just happens to be especially wobbly today.
Glitch116 Black Phoenix Mercenaries Legacy Rising 24	Posted - 2014.01.27 18:52:00 - [42] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: 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. 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!!! I AM THE KING OF THE BLASTER!!! deal with it
1st Lieutenant Tiberius 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 951	Posted - 2014.01.27 18:56:00 - [43] - Quote Glitch116 wrote: Sole Fenychs wrote: 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. 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!!! 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 :/ The Sinwarden**
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 101	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:00:00 - [44] - Quote Glitch116 wrote: 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!!! You can say the same thing about swarm launchers and AV grenades. Those are crippling and don't grant you overdrive modules, in contrast to HAVs. A tank outfitted to hunt infantry is absolutely deadly. High specialized if you remove AV capabilities, but still incredibly deadly. The lack of AV capability in that setup means that they'll need their team to support them against other tanks. If you instead get an AV tank, you will be useless until you actually find another vehicle to fight. You will also need infantry/blaster support to counter AV infantry. Both vehicle types are highly specialized when solo. As they should be, with the fact that they need specialized armament to be taken down. That's the balance - Either you murder infantry and need support to kill tanks or you murder tanks and need support against infantry. And I absolutely agree on vehicle locks. I don't pick up blueberries with my dropship because they tend to stay even if you try to land and recall. I want the ability to kick them out in order to force them to make a proper drop. I also want the ability to park a dropship in the air and man the side turret by myself. Just because.
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 7	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:18:00 - [45] - Quote Vicious Minotaur wrote: Large Blaster Turrets are a major problem in vehicle vs infantry combat. How many infantry complain about Large rails? Virtually none. I do And as for blaster turret, they are good as they are (I like the idea of dispersal however). Light infantry AV weapons on the other side are far from what they should be, beetween the without range SMILE-launcher and the plasma canon, they are simply inefficiant. Only remotes explosives, forge gun, tanks and ADS remain as vehicule destroyers. Now, if we do turret comparison we have : - Blaster are almost balanced, they can kill infantry or lock them in buildings with regular short burst ; and are still capable to fight against other tanks (short range only). Reduce the firepower and Madrugars would be more doomed against Sicas than they already are. - Missile turret are balanced as they are the best AV turret at short range and aren't very capable to kill infantry. Add the SP needed because no militia turret exist + the specific reload. And you find the most balanced turret available. - Rail turret are good against both vehicules and infantry and don't have any range restriction like the two others. Conclusion Rail is OP, light AV need a buff, raise the price of militia tanks, and you will see less of them.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 436	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:18:00 - [46] - Quote At first this seems silly to me. But thinking about it more, a buff to small blaster turrets and removal of large would be a pretty great way to balance tanks. Missiles and rails are decent AI, but it would require either seat hopping or TEAMWORK to be really a destructive force. Tankers will find a way to make it sound terrble but if you can't hit me with your missiles or rail or be bothered to work as a team or at the very least seat hop, you are a scrub
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 602	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:49:00 - [47] - Quote i wonder how fast tanks would die if they had no resistance to light weapons?...probably 2-3 secs at the very most. have i ever been slaughtered by a blaster turret? no... have i killed a small group of ppl with the blaster turret before? yes.. but most of them were clueless blueberries standing still. have i overheated my blaster on a group of players. yes.. because it took me 20-50 just to kill a single moving target. i may have gotten hits on most of them but its not great a succesfully slaughtering a large group of players. its a stupid exaggeration from what ive seen in game. u stand still looking at the tank ull die. run for cover. u live. its that easy to survive against them. its no longer possible to endlessly chase a tank with a swarm launcher around the entire map so stop trying and use some tactics. honestly the rail rifle feels more powerful than the large blaster turret. the only reason its killing ppl is because they cant shoot it to death with an assault rifle.
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1716	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:59:00 - [48] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: 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? Yours Truly, Reginald Fizzer94 Delafontaine III, Esquire
1st Lieutenant Tiberius 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 955	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:01:00 - [49] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: CLONE117 wrote: 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? Don't, give em a chance to see his own errors The Sinwarden
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6222	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:02:00 - [50] - Quote The Large Blaster doesn't make sense as a tank turret, remove it from the game! Replace it with a Heavy Plasma Cannon! "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4044	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:06:00 - [51] - 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 that way. *PEANUT BUTTER COOKIE MASTER COOKIE* So when are we gonna get those Matari Vehicles? Please don't be SoonGäó
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4044	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:18:00 - [52] - Quote 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. *PEANUT BUTTER COOKIE MASTER COOKIE* So when are we gonna get those Matari Vehicles? Please don't be SoonGäó
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6225	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:24:00 - [53] - Quote Atiim 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 that way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dust 514<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< GTFO you two. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
8213 BIG BAD W0LVES 1501	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:25:00 - [54] - Quote 1st Lieutenant Tiberius wrote: Glitch116 wrote: Sole Fenychs wrote: 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. 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!!! 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 :/ He's not lying, he really is... Fish in a bucket!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4044	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:26:00 - [55] - Quote True Adamance wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dust 514<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< GTFO you two. But I hate CoD and WoT. Where am I supposed to go? :( *PEANUT BUTTER COOKIE MASTER COOKIE* So when are we gonna get those Matari Vehicles? Please don't be SoonGäó
Xender17 Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 1002	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:34:00 - [56] - Quote Maybe everyones looking at this wrong... There are modes to this game vehicle, infantry, av... That if we have a fourth and its vav? Vehicle Anti-Vehicle? Wouldn't this change a lot of opinions in some way? CCP Saberwing "Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction"
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6225	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:34:00 - [57] - Quote Atiim wrote: 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. HAV- Heavy Anti Vehicle Units Large Turrets- High Alpha, Low RoF, AoE, Low Magazine, Longer Reloads Gallente- Heavy Plasma Projector Caldari- Railgun Minmatar- 220mm Artillery Cannon Amarr- Heavy Beam Laser MAV- Infantry Support, Logitical Roles/Infantry Reps, Anti Infantry/ Medium Turrets Medium Turrets- Medium Damage Per Second, Medium RoF, Small to moderate AoE, Moderate Reload and Magazine size Gallente- 65Gj Blaster Turret Caldari- 65Gj Railgun Minmatar- 120mm Assault Cannon Amarr- Medium Pulse Laser LAV- MObile Transport and Rapid Attack Vehicles Light Turrets- Fastest RoF, lowest Alpha, Highest DPS, High Magazine size and quick reload speeds, small to no AoE Current Light Turrets You agree with that Atiim? "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4164	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:44:00 - [58] - 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. You could just make Large Blasters like EVE Neutron cannons. They may be the 2nd highest firing rate weapon in EVE but they still don't fire anywhere close to as fast as blasters do in DUST. Make the Large Blasters relate more like blasters in EVE and you'll have balance among the land. Which means a bigger damage buff for HAV Blaster turrets, but much slower tracking for all Large Turrets in relateable terms of course. P.S. While we're on the topic of turrets Small blaster turrets are ****. P.S.S MAV might be awesome to see a blaster turret on. It'd be like the 3.5 mm burst rounds we have today on modern LAVs. P.S.S.S I think blasters need their small splash radius back.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4046	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:47:00 - [59] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You agree with that Atiim? I agree. But my main concern is having Giant Laser Rifles melting everyone. *PEANUT BUTTER COOKIE MASTER COOKIE* So when are we gonna get those Matari Vehicles? Please don't be SoonGäó
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4164	Posted - 2014.01.27 20:48:00 - [60] - Quote 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!
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.
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]

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.