DUST Search - Large Railguns - How to Balance Them

lAssassinl Zer0 wrote:

Harpyja wrote:

Identifiable imbalances of the large railgun:
- DPS is too high
- Overheat mechanic is negligible
- Damage and ROF is too high (which make DPS too high)
- Too effective at CQC

Proposed balance solution:
Revert stats to those of the compressed railguns in 1.6, in addition to adding a new mechanic.

This is just my opinion, but large railguns needed no other buff going into 1.7 other than the render fix. Large railguns had no problem destroying vehicles prior to 1.7, and they would've been balanced going into 1.7 if their attributes remained unchanged. Again, all they needed was the render fix so that they can actually engage at long range, which is quite the buff in my opinion.

The new mechanic I propose is aimed at reducing the large railgun's effectiveness in CQC. The factor at play here is mobility. A rail tank has just as much mobility as any other tank, so all that it has to do is drive in a straight line which prevents the other tank from out maneuvering them, while being able to apply its full DPS since the other tank is entirely trackable.

When a railgun is spooling up, down, or holding a charge for continuous fire, the tank becomes immobilized, just like the breach forge gun, while still allowing turret rotation. This in no way would affect long range sniping, because the tank is already stationary. On the other hand, this will give CQC tanks a higher chance of successfully engaging a rail tank at CQC since the rail tank can no longer be mobile and fire back at the same time.

Feedback would be appreciated, especially any Dev response

Rail guns are supposed to be the AV turret, their DPS is not too high, at the contrary, every AV weapons should be scale on it.
Active Damagers are the problem, 30% is way too high.

Yes for immobilization while shooting. But don't forget a blaster Turret is NOT supposed to won against a Rail turret.
Blaster wipe out infantry but is weak agianst vehicules.
Rail wipe out vehicules but is weak agianst infantry.

To avoid Redline Railguns all the game, shooting from distance should be harder, maybe add some gravity could rule the problem.

Oh and...You think a Rail turret destroy vehicules too fast (No damager) ? In fact it' the way it would supposed to work for every AV weapons.
Again don't forget the actual Tanks are Militia / STD.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1263	Posted - 2014.03.13 13:37:00 - [1] - Quote Identifiable imbalances of the large railgun: - DPS is too high - Overheat mechanic is negligible - Damage and ROF is too high (which make DPS too high) - Too effective at CQC Proposed balance solution: Revert stats to those of the compressed railguns in 1.6, in addition to adding a new mechanic. This is just my opinion, but large railguns needed no other buff going into 1.7 other than the render fix. Large railguns had no problem destroying vehicles prior to 1.7, and they would've been balanced going into 1.7 if their attributes remained unchanged. Again, all they needed was the render fix so that they can actually engage at long range, which is quite the buff in my opinion. The new mechanic I propose is aimed at reducing the large railgun's effectiveness in CQC. The factor at play here is mobility. A rail tank has just as much mobility as any other tank, so all that it has to do is drive in a straight line which prevents the other tank from out maneuvering them, while being able to apply its full DPS since the other tank is entirely trackable. When a railgun is spooling up, down, or holding a charge for continuous fire, the tank becomes immobilized, just like the breach forge gun, while still allowing turret rotation. This in no way would affect long range sniping, because the tank is already stationary. On the other hand, this will give CQC tanks a higher chance of successfully engaging a rail tank at CQC since the rail tank can no longer be mobile and fire back at the same time. Feedback would be appreciated, especially any Dev response "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Hoover Damn H.A.R.V.E.S.T. Legacy Rising 66	Posted - 2014.03.13 14:42:00 - [2] - Quote I'm glad you didn't suggest anything as silly as a maximum range that'd be meaningful on a Dust scale socket. I think it'd be enough to give it a longer spool time. That'd make it much harder to use up close. Also, lower the rate of fire significantly. So +spool, -rof, oh, and make it hitscan because it's silly for it not to be.
TheD1CK Dead Man's Game 971	Posted - 2014.03.13 17:17:00 - [3] - Quote I do like the idea of a speed/movement penalty while shooting +1 'D1CK by name' 'D1CK by nature'
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1264	Posted - 2014.03.13 17:46:00 - [4] - Quote Hoover Damn wrote: I'm glad you didn't suggest anything as silly as a maximum range that'd be meaningful on a Dust scale socket. I think it'd be enough to give it a longer spool time. That'd make it much harder to use up close. Also, lower the rate of fire significantly. So +spool, -rof, oh, and make it hitscan because it's silly for it not to be. If you're referring to redline rails, that's a whole different problem and not as easy to fix nor can you fix it by just tweaking the turret. Also, if the map is too small, then it's more of a map design issue than it is from the turret. And seeing as our maps are getting bigger, the rail needs to keep its range. The smaller maps should then either get some major redesign or taken out of rotation entirely. Just simply reducing its RoF won't be enough to make it weak in CQC. The disadvantage of the railgun is supposed to be slow tracking speed, but if the hull is just as mobile as an enemy tank, then there's no point to the slow rotation of the turret. Immobilizing the hull like the breach forge gun will only make this weakness much more apparent. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 833	Posted - 2014.03.13 18:24:00 - [5] - Quote Fix large turret proficiency, which currently doesn't apply, and I'll consider it. Best PVE idea I've seen.
Charlotte O'Dell Sooper Speshul Ponee Fors 2130	Posted - 2014.03.13 19:08:00 - [6] - Quote Making it spool for every shot would go a long way... Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 669	Posted - 2014.03.13 20:58:00 - [7] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Identifiable imbalances of the large railgun: - DPS is too high - Overheat mechanic is negligible - Damage and ROF is too high (which make DPS too high) - Too effective at CQC Proposed balance solution: Revert stats to those of the compressed railguns in 1.6, in addition to adding a new mechanic. This is just my opinion, but large railguns needed no other buff going into 1.7 other than the render fix. Large railguns had no problem destroying vehicles prior to 1.7, and they would've been balanced going into 1.7 if their attributes remained unchanged. Again, all they needed was the render fix so that they can actually engage at long range, which is quite the buff in my opinion. The new mechanic I propose is aimed at reducing the large railgun's effectiveness in CQC. The factor at play here is mobility. A rail tank has just as much mobility as any other tank, so all that it has to do is drive in a straight line which prevents the other tank from out maneuvering them, while being able to apply its full DPS since the other tank is entirely trackable. When a railgun is spooling up, down, or holding a charge for continuous fire, the tank becomes immobilized, just like the breach forge gun, while still allowing turret rotation. This in no way would affect long range sniping, because the tank is already stationary. On the other hand, this will give CQC tanks a higher chance of successfully engaging a rail tank at CQC since the rail tank can no longer be mobile and fire back at the same time. Feedback would be appreciated, especially any Dev response I'm hopin they add some variety, and that the current rail numbers serve as a base for variants to be added later. Currently I see the railgun as a placeholder, not so much something that needs to be "Fixed". The fix will come in the form of other variants I hope, and not this stale and stagnate selection we have now. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Temias Mercurial ANGEL FLEET 4	Posted - 2014.03.14 01:14:00 - [8] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Making it spool for every shot would go a long way... That's exactly how it should be done, as it doesn't make sense for it to be automatic in terms of balance. High damage rail weapons have to charge individually for every round, like the forge gun and sniper rifle. Why this doesn't apply to the railgun baffles me... it can fix so many problems. It reduces it's ability against dropships and tanks. Honestly, I think railguns are OP against tanks. How many people do you see pulling out missile turrets? Next to none...
Izlare Lenix FREE AGENTS LP 206	Posted - 2014.03.14 01:20:00 - [9] - Quote 300m maximum range. Problem solved. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. The only way to ensure freedom is by having the means to defend it.
Charlotte O'Dell Sooper Speshul Ponee Fors 2133	Posted - 2014.03.14 03:03:00 - [10] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: 300m maximum range. Problem solved. doesn't solve its ability to kill tanks. terribad idea Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!

Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 40	Posted - 2014.03.14 03:14:00 - [11] - Quote 300m range to rail turrets and sniper rifles would solve allot of problems with the game. I could give you 10 reason why the Dust team cant get the Amarr tank style right but they are all out of care.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1272	Posted - 2014.03.14 04:02:00 - [12] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: 300m range to rail turrets and sniper rifles would solve allot of problems with the game. No, it won't. Just because map design was bad doesn't mean that the rail needs a range nerf. Plus maps should only be getting bigger in the future. And like Char said, it doesn't solve the problem of rails being OP against vehicles. Rails are meant to be RANGED. Decreasing their range would only encourage more CQC than sitting on a mountain, and they are supposed to be heavily disadvantaged at CQC, which they are from it currently. Map design is a whole different issue. Here I'm talking about balance between turrets, and rails are far from balanced. Blasters need some minor tweaks (further reduced AV effectiveness if you ask me), and missiles are perfectly balanced, though I'm fine with blasters because I've yet to die to a lone blaster tank (once it actually took three blaster tanks to bring me down). "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 41	Posted - 2014.03.14 06:36:00 - [13] - Quote sniper rifles do need a limited range tho 500m ish give or take?. and your right the map design is pretty horrible and the redline areas have a tactical advantage over the battle field witch should not be the case at all, there should be no safe spot to snipe in any form. the terrain should obscure the red zone from camping (spawn and snipe). I could give you 10 reason why the Dust team cant get the Amarr tank style right but they are all out of care.
ladwar Death by Disassociation 2001	Posted - 2014.03.14 08:32:00 - [14] - Quote ballistics..... its better than any nerf. yet i have a feeling people don't want to change rail from anti-vehicle(including air and ground) to anti-ground armor and learn how to counter drop.... point and click is too "HARD" for some people. Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth doing reviews in free time, want 1?
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1275	Posted - 2014.03.14 13:28:00 - [15] - Quote ladwar wrote: ballistics..... its better than any nerf. yet i have a feeling people don't want to change rail from anti-vehicle(including air and ground) to anti-ground armor and learn how to counter drop.... point and click is too "HARD" for some people. By itself it won't solve the problem of its high DPS and high effectiveness in CQC. I only see ballistics making sniping require more skill. However, given that lore states that the projectile goes at speeds of about 7000m/s, and assuming Earth-like gravity, it means that at max range the projectile should only drop 0.04 meters, and that's rounded up. So I'm afraid that ballistics won't do anything, especially since it takes less than a tenth of a second to reach max range. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Isa Lucifer Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17	Posted - 2014.03.14 20:35:00 - [16] - Quote I approve the 2 ideas being talked in this post; 1. Every munition fired should have to be charged before being shot. 2. Rail tanks should have to stop all movement EXCEPT the turret while charging. Maybe a cool animation from the tank, like some mini legs that hold the tank in place Example; http://gearguyd.com/new-lego-technic-construction-vehicles-trucks/ Not that big but small and quickly deployable. Amarr Victor
ladwar Death by Disassociation 2002	Posted - 2014.03.15 14:36:00 - [17] - Quote Harpyja wrote: ladwar wrote: ballistics..... its better than any nerf. yet i have a feeling people don't want to change rail from anti-vehicle(including air and ground) to anti-ground armor and learn how to counter drop.... point and click is too "HARD" for some people. By itself it won't solve the problem of its high DPS and high effectiveness in CQC. I only see ballistics making sniping require more skill. However, given that lore states that the projectile goes at speeds of about 7000m/s, and assuming Earth-like gravity, it means that at max range the projectile should only drop 0.04 meters, and that's rounded up. So I'm afraid that ballistics won't do anything, especially since it takes less than a tenth of a second to reach max range. you know they just throw 7000m/s in there because thats how it works in EVE with zero gravity. even the travel time shows its MUCH lower then that, just add drop and make it slower. i say 1800 m/s and say f it. Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth doing reviews in free time, want 1?
lAssassinl Zer0 Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 7	Posted - 2014.03.15 15:22:00 - [18] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Identifiable imbalances of the large railgun: - DPS is too high - Overheat mechanic is negligible - Damage and ROF is too high (which make DPS too high) - Too effective at CQC Proposed balance solution: Revert stats to those of the compressed railguns in 1.6, in addition to adding a new mechanic. This is just my opinion, but large railguns needed no other buff going into 1.7 other than the render fix. Large railguns had no problem destroying vehicles prior to 1.7, and they would've been balanced going into 1.7 if their attributes remained unchanged. Again, all they needed was the render fix so that they can actually engage at long range, which is quite the buff in my opinion. The new mechanic I propose is aimed at reducing the large railgun's effectiveness in CQC. The factor at play here is mobility. A rail tank has just as much mobility as any other tank, so all that it has to do is drive in a straight line which prevents the other tank from out maneuvering them, while being able to apply its full DPS since the other tank is entirely trackable. When a railgun is spooling up, down, or holding a charge for continuous fire, the tank becomes immobilized, just like the breach forge gun, while still allowing turret rotation. This in no way would affect long range sniping, because the tank is already stationary. On the other hand, this will give CQC tanks a higher chance of successfully engaging a rail tank at CQC since the rail tank can no longer be mobile and fire back at the same time. Feedback would be appreciated, especially any Dev response Rail guns are supposed to be the AV turret, their DPS is not too high, at the contrary, every AV weapons should be scale on it. Active Damagers are the problem, 30% is way too high. Yes for immobilization while shooting. But don't forget a blaster Turret is NOT supposed to won against a Rail turret. Blaster wipe out infantry but is weak agianst vehicules. Rail wipe out vehicules but is weak agianst infantry. To avoid Redline Railguns all the game, shooting from distance should be harder, maybe add some gravity could rule the problem. Oh and...You think a Rail turret destroy vehicules too fast (No damager) ? In fact it' the way it would supposed to work for every AV weapons. Again don't forget the actual Tanks are Militia / STD.
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1460	Posted - 2014.03.15 15:40:00 - [19] - Quote ladwar wrote: Harpyja wrote: ladwar wrote: ballistics..... its better than any nerf. yet i have a feeling people don't want to change rail from anti-vehicle(including air and ground) to anti-ground armor and learn how to counter drop.... point and click is too "HARD" for some people. By itself it won't solve the problem of its high DPS and high effectiveness in CQC. I only see ballistics making sniping require more skill. However, given that lore states that the projectile goes at speeds of about 7000m/s, and assuming Earth-like gravity, it means that at max range the projectile should only drop 0.04 meters, and that's rounded up. So I'm afraid that ballistics won't do anything, especially since it takes less than a tenth of a second to reach max range. you know they just throw 7000m/s in there because thats how it works in EVE with zero gravity. even the travel time shows its MUCH lower then that, just add drop and make it slower. i say 1800 m/s and say f it. To be blunt, the railguns we use can't be railguns at the speed they fly. The whole purpose of a railgun is to do damage by chucking a chunk of unremarkable refuse at extreme speeds. That said, it wouldn't be the best, balance wise, to make the Forge Gun and Large Railgun Turret hitscan. I've come to accept that, but it doesn't mean it is right lorewise. It is, however, important for balance. Mini lorehound rant over. As for drop, maybe on the Sniper Rifle. MAYBE. Like Harpyja said, it will in no way effect the CQC problem, and if anything will just encourage those who can't counter it to fight at closer range. I like the original idea, making the tank 'deploy' so it won't flip itself from the recoil sounds both practical and sensible. Shields as Weapons Zelda Dynasty Warriors is a real thing.
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1460	Posted - 2014.03.15 15:48:00 - [20] - Quote lAssassinl Zer0 wrote: Harpyja wrote: Identifiable imbalances of the large railgun: - DPS is too high - Overheat mechanic is negligible - Damage and ROF is too high (which make DPS too high) - Too effective at CQC Proposed balance solution: Revert stats to those of the compressed railguns in 1.6, in addition to adding a new mechanic. This is just my opinion, but large railguns needed no other buff going into 1.7 other than the render fix. Large railguns had no problem destroying vehicles prior to 1.7, and they would've been balanced going into 1.7 if their attributes remained unchanged. Again, all they needed was the render fix so that they can actually engage at long range, which is quite the buff in my opinion. The new mechanic I propose is aimed at reducing the large railgun's effectiveness in CQC. The factor at play here is mobility. A rail tank has just as much mobility as any other tank, so all that it has to do is drive in a straight line which prevents the other tank from out maneuvering them, while being able to apply its full DPS since the other tank is entirely trackable. When a railgun is spooling up, down, or holding a charge for continuous fire, the tank becomes immobilized, just like the breach forge gun, while still allowing turret rotation. This in no way would affect long range sniping, because the tank is already stationary. On the other hand, this will give CQC tanks a higher chance of successfully engaging a rail tank at CQC since the rail tank can no longer be mobile and fire back at the same time. Feedback would be appreciated, especially any Dev response Rail guns are supposed to be the AV turret, their DPS is not too high, at the contrary, every AV weapons should be scale on it. Active Damagers are the problem, 30% is way too high. Yes for immobilization while shooting. But don't forget a blaster Turret is NOT supposed to won against a Rail turret. Blaster wipe out infantry but is weak agianst vehicules. Rail wipe out vehicules but is weak agianst infantry. To avoid Redline Railguns all the game, shooting from distance should be harder, maybe add some gravity could rule the problem. Oh and...You think a Rail turret destroy vehicules too fast (No damager) ? In fact it' the way it would supposed to work for every AV weapons. Again don't forget the actual Tanks are Militia / STD. The Railgun fires far too quickly, and is far too powerful per shot at higher levels. They can twoshot a set turret even without the mods, and can swat down dropships with their clip size and potshots alone. It's not even that hard to kill soft targets with a direct hit, especially spooling Heavies, because of the rather short refire time. It just has too much DPS, when the Railgun is supposed to be king of Alpha and crap at DPS. Railguns are NOT supposed to be the end-all-be-all for AV. They are supposed to be powerful weapons at longer ranges. A Blaster will devour a Railgun if it closes the distance, just as a Railgun will devour a Blaster at its own optimal range. Shields as Weapons Zelda Dynasty Warriors is a real thing.



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page