DUST Search - Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Roger Cordill wrote:

I assume you misread my statement. They, the infantry are tanked heavily. Frigates at the most for PVP (the good ones anyways) have at most only a DCU. The rest is fitted to be really fast. Otherwise, bigger hulls will eat them up easily. Also, they are always moving, so the bigger hulls can't hit them (or they just use EWAR and not let them even get the chance to fire). That's why it's hard to hit a frigate with a battleship. If it was still, you could easily do it. And I have, and on several occasions. So, how to make it like EVE? Well first, if infantry wants to move in a vehicle rich enviroment, like the frigates, they need to be able to dodge and weave, and we have that now. But what if you can't do that? EWAR. We need EWAR, and then at that p[oint, my idea to balance blasters (imo, it shouldn't even happen; rails and missiles needs more looking at than blasters atm due to being ridiculously OP in vehicle fights while being able to smash infantry at range) and this, as well as other things such as hardener strength adjustments, and we'll be heading towards balance.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2014.01.28 21:31:00 - [1] - Quote I don't quite understand what your approach is. Are you proposing to have variants for all turrets, with different roles or are you proposing to remove AI capability from all large turrets, while changing small turrets into AV? At the beginning it sounded like the former, but later parts of your post sound more like the latter.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 119	Posted - 2014.01.28 22:04:00 - [2] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: I think the answer is both. I'm not finished yet, there is still a lot of subject matter to cover. But yes, both, all turrets need variants that help define the given role. Among those variants, you will have some good for AV others good for infantry. Each will have it's own positives and negatives. Large turrets for the most part, will focus solely on being AV and Infantry support. I think of it this way, if infantry AV are to expose themselves, being somewhat defenseless to normal infantry, then a tank that would want to do the same, needs to limit his capabilities against tanks in favor of better infantry support. Balance Small turrets should be the opposite, focused on AI but with variants that are more suited to AV. Sorry man, I know there is a LOT of information in there, I'll clear these things up once I reach my conclusion. So, to make an example, would you be in favor of a large blaster with AI specialization that is bad against infantry? And the small railgun generally being AV? And then you add a large blaster that is intended for CQC against other tanks, while a small railgun variant will have more splash to kill infantry? Because that's the idea that I'm in favor of. As you said, AV infantry sacrifices strength against other infantry, so an AI tank should absolutely exist but require support to kill other tanks. In another thread, I proposed that secondary turrets could transform a tank into an allrounder. The idea here is that your main turret can be run solo and is only intended for one role, while your gunner positions can fill the other role. Manning turrets means occupying two additional team members, though, which weakens your team - Just like non-specialized infantry should need a team to take down a tank (e.g. flaylocks or AV grenades). Personally, I especially like the idea of tank-killing LAVs that simply move so fast that the main turret can't track them.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 127	Posted - 2014.01.29 10:38:00 - [3] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: I assume you misread my statement. They, the infantry are tanked heavily. Frigates at the most for PVP (the good ones anyways) have at most only a DCU. The rest is fitted to be really fast. Otherwise, bigger hulls will eat them up easily. Also, they are always moving, so the bigger hulls can't hit them (or they just use EWAR and not let them even get the chance to fire). That's why it's hard to hit a frigate with a battleship. If it was still, you could easily do it. And I have, and on several occasions. So, how to make it like EVE? Well first, if infantry wants to move in a vehicle rich enviroment, like the frigates, they need to be able to dodge and weave, and we have that now. But what if you can't do that? EWAR. We need EWAR, and then at that p[oint, my idea to balance blasters (imo, it shouldn't even happen; rails and missiles needs more looking at than blasters atm due to being ridiculously OP in vehicle fights while being able to smash infantry at range) and this, as well as other things such as hardener strength adjustments, and we'll be heading towards balance. 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.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 129	Posted - 2014.01.29 21:26:00 - [4] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: Making a turret do way less DPS than the original (which sucks as a AV turret), nerfing the accuracy of it then calling that the AV turret, and making another turret that is weaker then the infantry version, in every way possible, then saying done is quite stupid. 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.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 130	Posted - 2014.01.29 21:47:00 - [5] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: message from Godin: Damage - 45 RoF - similar to what it is now Range - 100M to 150M Whoa, 45 damage, that's it. Yeah man, it's a specialized turret, meant to kill infantry. But not just KILL, suppress. It's the same concept that pushing a tank back, is just as good as killing it. Pushing an infantryman back, is just as good as killing him. Our vehicle blaster looks more like this Damage - 150 ROF - Slow Range - 250M Add in some serious kick, and horrible hit detection against infantry. If I'm so bad at reading, then what's this, and why have I been able to read and write in french and English at what considered to be collage level since the 2nd grade? Whatever. Your seem to be physically unable to understand what an example is.