That is not a polished idea, and certainly not something I was suggesting for the game. Those are examples of what I meant with my concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good.

And my idea with the variants, coincides with your idea perfectly, why the hate?

You are seeing the small picture, Tanks were stripped of all variants, aside from the standard tier of STD, ADV, PRO basics. They are bringing variants back, and I'm making suggestions on how you could go about doing that.

The example above that you provided is effective against infantry, but no doubt tricky to kill with nonetheless. It shifts the emphasis to being less about outright killing the enemy and more about suppressing. At the same time, you give it a better chance against vehicles.

So it's not great against vehicles, but not bad, and it's not great against infantry, but not bad either. See, a good example of exactly what I said! My execution was perfect, as your points are exactly on par with my thinking, "You can't be great at everything!".

Now what about a variant that is great at AV, but VERY poor against infantry?

In your examples, how does lowering the ROF affect the rest of the system. Same with damage and range. What about things like heat cost, and clip size. How do they affect the overall balance? Changing one number, could mean all other number need to change to maintain balance.

And to me those turrets are stale, they do nothing to define what role you play on the battlefield. One of those is going to be the best at killing infantry and tanks, so the others will be forgotten. No I remember those turrets clearly fella, and it was always the same, Scattered. Those turrets were not balanced with the overall goal tanks are shooting for.

Tanks need roles like dropsuits have roles. These roles are defined by what you drive, and how you fit it. One of the biggest factors being turrets, but my idea is to eliminate the idea that a turret class performs only a specific way among variants.

What I propose is that variants define actual battlefield roles. You can still have your all around blaster, but we add in a blaster geared for AV and one geared for AI.

The idea that less emphasis is placed on what you drive or what turret you use and more on how you are fit. The idea that railguns are ONLY for AV and Blasters are ONLY for infantry is what makes this game so stale, and engagements sooo predictable.

@^ blasters smoke tanks.

Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.

Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.

E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.

This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships.

[
I think we can agree that our ideas are pretty much the same. It's how we go about getting there that differs. I simply do not think the changes you proposed are extreme enough one way or another. Let's say we have 5 variables to consider. Increasing 2 slightly means 2 others need to be decreased slightly. What I'm saying, rather than trying to keep all the variants close, we dramatically increase 2 variables, and dramatically decreases 2 others to match.

I just don't see your changes being enough to truly make a noticeable impact on defining roles.

"tanked heavily", see that is the problem, I think if you want to go the AI route, maybe you need to sacrifice that durability to achieve it. Currently, you are immune to infantry (nearly) with the best counter being a tank to yourself. There is no harmony between tanks and infantry.

Let's stop with the blasters and look at the rails shall we.

What do you think on variants for them.

My thoughts, a high alpha, with a short range, small clip, low ROF, high heat cost. Another with a MUCH lower damage, but 600M range, High ROF, Large clip, Lower heat cost per shot.

How would you go about it?

I cant find anything wrong with blaster turrets and tanks are not really that hard to kill. A few skilled Assualt FG on your team could make a very big difference the problem is most nearly all infantry are using rail rifles.

That is the exact same idea I applied to blasters.

Notice the first one you place at 200 meters, the second at 350 to 400. 200 is half of 400, so in comparison to the other turret, you made what I call, an extreme change. You cut the range in half, a big change, but increased the damage by a large amount.

The other, range was dramatically increased in comparison to the first, but damage should be decreased dramatically.

Let's look at some reasonable numbers

Short range rail - 1200 damage

Long range rail - 500 damage

Though the idea here is that the range determines the fit. So the tank using a long range turret will focus his fit less on mitigating damage and more on dishing it. Meaning he will no doubt be using damage mods, as he will need to worry less about direct engagement. So damage needs to compensate for the changes damage mods make.

With the short range rail, while you can go for damage mods, you also need to engage the other types within their effective range. Meaning doing so makes you VERY vulnerable. So a smart way to fit would lean towards improving your mitigation, and using your alpha to your advantage. Still, tracking would be a limiting factor in actually CQC. You could even drop a speed mod with a damage mod, glass cannon, and drop people in just a few shots, backing off if things get hairy.

So many possibilities!

I'm also not mentioning how hardeners would play a part in those damage numbers. O

This is the idea I had with blasters, exact same concept I tried to convey.

blasters do a fair amount f damage to tanks it depends on your fit if you can fit small blasters and still have good modules you can do without damage mods because the extra turrets on your tank would substitute for the damage of a damage mod. Furthermore a damage mod eventually has to cool down. I have abandoned Hardeners and damage mods on my tanks and I do fairly well against other tankers.

Agreed, but range isn't the issues when it comes to blasters killing infantry. Other factors need to be changed, as range is a null issue against infantry. But in the case of a AV blaster, range could be a determining factor when figuring it's effectiveness against vehicles, or at least change the way you use them against vehicles.

Define EWAR.
I don't know anything about how it's like in EVE. In DUST it's scanning/profile dampening/cloaking.
If it's something like turret locking, you are disqualified from FPS balance discussions.

Anyway, you are a ****. Your opinion boils down to "don't change anything, except for mimicking EVE".


His idea is great and, quite frankly, common sense. Give tanks turrets that can be operated solo and are good at a specific role. Want to kill tanks? Well, now your rate of fire and dispersion makes it impossible to hit infantry.
Want to kill infantry? You got it. But all the other tanks will laugh at your peashooter.
The current condition is a blaster that can fight other tanks like a rabid dog, while also murdering all the infantry around it.
That is not supposed to happen in an FPS where infantry needs to sacrifice AI capability in order to kill a tank.
A lone AV guy should be enough to take down an AV tank, while a squad of AV guys should need to be necessary to kill an AI tank.
Meanwhile, an AV tank needs two additional operators to take down infantry, while an AI tank needs two extra gunners to take down vehicles. In your concept, only the former happens and I have no clue what the hell you intend for LAVs to counter vehicles. Because, clearly, turrets are balanced around their size and rotation speed instead of their role and all big turrets are AV and can't hit infantry, so all small turrets must have a very hard time killing vehicles. Otherwise you are using a hypocritical balance system that is completely nonsensical and follows no pattern.

You don't seem to realize the issue with your example. Do you know what happens if tanks are ONLY vehicle killers? Are you really too dense to realize that?
And don't give me a "small turrets as infantry killers". You know how small turrets are operated? You always need another person to actually use them. Even on an LAV, because stationary gunners are hilariously exposed. The assault dropship is the only exception.
And don't tell me about teamwork with blueberries. If I call in a tank, I do it to fullfill a specific function to offset the current brand of stupidity that my team showcased - Like hunting other tanks or supressing infantry. I do not want to depend on a random blueberry to have decent aiming skills for my hard countering to work.
And no, I'm not a tanker. I choose whatever fitting is currently the most desired, because the blueberries are too ******** to do anything but frontline fighters and snipers.

P.S.
What the hell is up with this forum that there's constantly people with weird ticks running around?

And yes, I mad.

I can't comprehend how the hell a human being can fail so much at reading comprehension.
I've seen chatbots that show more skill at understanding than you do.

I give up. You clearly aren't interested in an actual discussion.
Anyone who tries to even to talk to you after this deserves the frustration.

Your seem to be physically unable to understand what an example is.

college. a collage is a bunch of pictures taped together.

Massage from godin