Full support. I love your threads now.

Just a simple idea for the 2 types of rails: the AI one has lower range, a larger clip, higher splash damage/larger radius, and lower direct damage. The AV one would have longer range, higher direct damage, a smaller clip, and a smaller, weaker splash.

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.

Didn't we have variants pre1.7? I liked my missles cycled and my blasters scattered. If I had to use a rail I liked compressed.

this is stupid lol

The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).

Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor.

I don't think there is a problem with turrets atm they seem fine I'm sure the other variants will be back when they are ready. I think it will be proto lvl tanks that take advantage of the other variants of turrets because they will cost more CPU and PG. Currently even with max skill you cant fit all proto turrets and mods on a tank. For example you cant fit Proto small railguns and Proto heavy shield extender hardener and booster. I think that we will see proto tanks with a bit more CPU/PG which will allow they to fit alternative turrets to compensate for modules and turrets you cant fit and obviously if a mlt tank tried to fit one of these turrets they will be at a significant disadvantage.

message from Godin: The idea you had would either be weaker than a Plasma rifle with a longer range, or a severely nerfed version of the one we had now. Also, how you said it, the tech 1 turret would be removed, leaving us with 2 useless turrets. neither would be used. So no, it's not the same thing. NOw, since you asked nicely, I'll tell you what I think of al the t2 turrets should be:

Stabilized- slightly higher damage, slightly lower ROF (or vice versa), moderately longer optimal/effective range

scattered: moderately lower damage,moderately higher ROF, slightly-moderately lower optimal/effective range

compressed: moderately higher damage, moderately lower ROF, same range as tech 1

message from Godin: You wouldn't know balance if it hit you square on the head, and the "example proves that. How it affects it you ask? simple: lower ROF makes it harder to continuously hit a target unles it's big, and therefore will be able to dodge them easily. higher damage means more alpha, s o therefore, will be able to hit larger targets such as HAV's or otherwise and scare them off or kill them easily. range for blasters on a moving target is horrible unless that person moves in a straight line (in which case that person is a idiot and should die). You won't kill a smart person at range with a blaster (proof is me, as I never do, even at CQ, I hardly ever die to blasters). You could even ad in things like heat costs and tracking speeds, I just wasn't thinking about those. So yes, all of these would have roles, opposed to before, as before, the scattered was the best, simply because it was better than all the rest apart from one thing (stabilized having a slightly longer range, which was barely noticeable due to scattered's ROF and damage, and compressed having more damage, but same thing). None of the turrets would top each other, all would have their purposes. If it's anywhere near your idea, then one would be as strong as a rifle (only way more inaccurate), and one would be outclassed by other turrets and AV. That's not the way at all.

Considering that it's much easier to aim a turret at someone, and the fact that most kills against infantry from blasters are tanked heavily and/or not even moving, the comparison is not really there.

AV needs to hit tanks hard. Enough to scare me when I am rolling around.....

HAV need to have a clearly defined role. Since most HAV constantly say how they are only interested in fighting other HAV there should be no issue changing focus to Anti Vehicle Roles which imo would expand the capacity for other vehicle types to operate on the map....while making the tanks impact on the battle potent but managable to infantry.

message from Godin: Well, If it's anywhere near your ideas, either rifles will outclass it, or the other turrets will. And it won't be a close race, it will be sad. It doesn't need to be extreme to be different; look at the suits (if you think they aren't different, they are; it's just that everybody fits them exactly the same due to a low amount of modules to use and imbalance of some things). That's what I was trying to say, and what you don't get.

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.

message from Godin: That would be fine tbh. But the second one would be at around 350-400 meters, and the first one would be somewhere in the lower 200 meter range, and the tech 1 should be in the higher 200 meter range. Neither should have damages that are too high, as it would kill other HAV's without them having a chance to fight back, and too low so they could easily escape (to put it in perspective, now as too high, especially with a damage mod),

message from Godin: no, it is not the smae idea as you had. Both blasters are useless. 200-250 meters, and 350-400 meters are neither useless, although those damage values are. Short range should have old compressed stats, and long range should have old regulated stats.

Your proposed AV rail turret would make me biomass my character, delete dust and go back to playing DCUO. Rails already are obscene and as long as they can cower in the redline, have no counter. They do not need to be buffed when they can already 1/2 shot every vehicle if they have either damage mods or proto turrets, and the ones with both are on easy streat.

I do like the other ideas, and the AI rail though.

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