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?

Atm, I think there IS a problem with turrets, namely blaster. Coupled with the sheer resilience in this new build, tanks are slaughtering infantry by the thousands! Currently, the only true counter to a tank is another tank.

If infantry are to be relegated to a support role against tanks, then tanks should be relegated to a support role against infantry. That's the idea and it starts with turrets. Specifically how turrets will define the roles tanks will play.

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.

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: Unless the pilot is using a damage modded rail, or missile period, in which case, no they don't.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

message from Godin:



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.

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

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

message from Godin: lol, even after 21 years, almost 22, I still make that mistake.

Massage from godin