DUST Search - Balancing the Large Turrets

Dunce Masterson wrote:

Dalton Smithe wrote:

Dunce Masterson wrote:

in EVE online Bigger turrets destroy smaller ships really fast if they can hit them battle ships for example can and do one shot frigates.

has it is now the Rail turret has higher dps then the blaster turret so to balance large turrets a few things need to happen.

Rail turrets
these do to much alpha damage for their rate of fire either the rate of fire needs to be decreased to 2.5-2.75 or the damage per shot(standard forge gun) Large rail turret proficiency needs to change from turret rotation speed to a small rate of fire increase 2-4% per leve.

Large blasters
these don't do enough damage per shot and need a 20-25% increase to their damage also their accuracy is to good they need to be more the Assault blaster and get less accurate the longer it is fired.

They can one shot frigates, yes, but what about drones? A battle ship with blasters will have a hell of a time knocking out a drone, think of infantry in the same aspect.

I stand by the statement I made, tanks should not be used to counter infantry, they should strictly be anti vehicle. Blasters should do more damage per hit, but only to other vehicles.

Small turrets are supposed to be the anti infantry weapon and its ignorant to think that any military would run around a battlefield gunning down infantry with a 40mm cannon....it's just not practical.

I would love for CCP to implement ammunition cost to the game, then see how many people run around blasting away at infantry, especially when their amunition costs 100-200 isk per round....25-50k per reload anyone?

Actually CCP -PLEASE- do that, implement ammunition cost into the game....that would counter quite a bit of tanks being the Swiss army knives they are now....

To reiterate, I am a tanker and I would fully support this.

Ok ill agree to that if the large rail turret rounds cost 100,000 ISK each


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.10 19:19:00 - [1] - Quote Here is how I understood rails/blasters(according to the eve universe). Rails have extreme ranges but relatively low damage, because they are meant to be for sniping and keeping their targets well out of range. The idea that a rail can out DPS a blaster is a joke, the blaster should be able to wipe the floor with a rail tank in close combat. A sniping BS in eve can throw rounds over 130km away and do around 400+ damage per volley depending on skills. Blasters have super short ranges, but can deal out around 1200+ damage per volley. Blasters are short range high damage and should not be anti infantry. They should have next to no accuracy past 100 meters. If the blaster tank gets in close to a rail tank, he should be able to melt the rail down pretty quickly, and on the other side, the rail tank should be able to slug out decent damage to a tank at range but be harder to track up close. To be honest, the only weapons on a tank that should be anti infantry are the small turrets, the large turrets should be reserved for anti vehicle warfare. Tanks are a situational weapon and not meant to be kings of the battlefield. This whole using tank as a Swiss army knife weapon needs to be nipped in the bud, players consistently use tanks to pad their KDR, they run around with their blasters and infantry do not stand a chance against them. AV is a joke(I run tanks, and I can get away from anyone with a swarm or forge 9 out of 10 times) If they want to re-balance turrets, then reduce the damage large turrets do to infantry. They could do this by factoring in the signature profile to damage. Infantry by effect would see a reduction in death by vehicle(unless they were run over). Additionally, they could add ammo types(like in eve) and then your range/damage would be dictated by what you were firing. I don't see too many missile tankers out there(probably because they nerfed them to oblivion) so I can't speak to if they are overpowered or not.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.11 18:33:00 - [2] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: in EVE online Bigger turrets destroy smaller ships really fast if they can hit them battle ships for example can and do one shot frigates. has it is now the Rail turret has higher dps then the blaster turret so to balance large turrets a few things need to happen. Rail turrets these do to much alpha damage for their rate of fire either the rate of fire needs to be decreased to 2.5-2.75 or the damage per shot(standard forge gun) Large rail turret proficiency needs to change from turret rotation speed to a small rate of fire increase 2-4% per leve. Large blasters these don't do enough damage per shot and need a 20-25% increase to their damage also their accuracy is to good they need to be more the Assault blaster and get less accurate the longer it is fired. They can one shot frigates, yes, but what about drones? A battle ship with blasters will have a hell of a time knocking out a drone, think of infantry in the same aspect. I stand by the statement I made, tanks should not be used to counter infantry, they should strictly be anti vehicle. Blasters should do more damage per hit, but only to other vehicles. Small turrets are supposed to be the anti infantry weapon and its ignorant to think that any military would run around a battlefield gunning down infantry with a 40mm cannon....it's just not practical. I would love for CCP to implement ammunition cost to the game, then see how many people run around blasting away at infantry, especially when their amunition costs 100-200 isk per round....25-50k per reload anyone? Actually CCP -PLEASE- do that, implement ammunition cost into the game....that would counter quite a bit of tanks being the Swiss army knives they are now.... To reiterate, I am a tanker and I would fully support this.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 02:26:00 - [3] - Quote Quote: The reason why I put blaster turrets as AI turrets is simply due to the fact that they have the easiest time hitting and killing infantry of all the turrets (with a few exceptions, such as small missiles, but they require the high-ground to be effective, good luck getting any direct hits on level ground). You just can't give all large turrets equal capabilities for AV because the blaster will be inherently better against infantry. Thus, the blaster should give up AV potential in exchange for it being inherently better at AI. Giving role based on turret size is not the way to balance. I still strongly believe that turret type should define the role while turret size only affects the effectiveness and fitting ability. You also just cannot compare EVE's automated turret tracking to Dust's player operated turret tracking. EVE takes out all of the skill that there is to aiming, so it only simulates aiming abilities with variables such as target size. I'd even make the argument that EVE's automated turrets are dumber than Dust's player operated turrets. In reality, if you have a battleship sized turret, you only have to shoot it once to instapop a frigate (in EVE). Trying to keep up with the target is not the way to aim; instead you should predict flight path, aim ahead of the target, and fire at the right time. A true computer system will do that, but then that wouldn't be fun (and there'd be no point to flying anything smaller than a battleship) if it only took a few volleys to pop a frigate even if it's orbiting you at 1000m/s at 2km. So again, going about balancing by turret size is the wrong path. Infantry weapons are definitely not balanced by size. If they were, then HMGs would only be able to kill heavies, light weapons would only be able to kill medium frames, and sidearms -> light frames. That's your opinion, but I disagree. And I never said anything about giving all turrets equal capability, rails are long range, lower DPS. Blasters are short range, high DPS. Missiles fill the middle ground, but do more damage to armor than shields. I also talk about reducing the damage to infantry was a way to counter the "twitch" factor inherent in FPS games, just doing an overall nerf to something isn't going to fix anything, it never does. You can't just hit something with a hammer and expect it to work, sometimes you need a scalpel to cut out the piece that isn't working, adjust it, and put it back. As far as your remark about infantry weapons not being balanced, your wrong on the "HMG's would only kill heavies". They are built specifically for anti infantry rolls, and the forge gun is built to take out vehicles(although they also use it to kill infantry, but that's another thing)
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 03:43:00 - [4] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: Dalton Smithe wrote: Dunce Masterson wrote: in EVE online Bigger turrets destroy smaller ships really fast if they can hit them battle ships for example can and do one shot frigates. has it is now the Rail turret has higher dps then the blaster turret so to balance large turrets a few things need to happen. Rail turrets these do to much alpha damage for their rate of fire either the rate of fire needs to be decreased to 2.5-2.75 or the damage per shot(standard forge gun) Large rail turret proficiency needs to change from turret rotation speed to a small rate of fire increase 2-4% per leve. Large blasters these don't do enough damage per shot and need a 20-25% increase to their damage also their accuracy is to good they need to be more the Assault blaster and get less accurate the longer it is fired. They can one shot frigates, yes, but what about drones? A battle ship with blasters will have a hell of a time knocking out a drone, think of infantry in the same aspect. I stand by the statement I made, tanks should not be used to counter infantry, they should strictly be anti vehicle. Blasters should do more damage per hit, but only to other vehicles. Small turrets are supposed to be the anti infantry weapon and its ignorant to think that any military would run around a battlefield gunning down infantry with a 40mm cannon....it's just not practical. I would love for CCP to implement ammunition cost to the game, then see how many people run around blasting away at infantry, especially when their amunition costs 100-200 isk per round....25-50k per reload anyone? Actually CCP -PLEASE- do that, implement ammunition cost into the game....that would counter quite a bit of tanks being the Swiss army knives they are now.... To reiterate, I am a tanker and I would fully support this. Ok ill agree to that if the large rail turret rounds cost 100,000 ISK each I would go as far as 2000 isk per round for rails.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 11:35:00 - [5] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: since the blaster turret is a single barrel weapon it should have kick and dispersion like the Assault blaster without any skills reducing it so short controlled burst would be necessary to engage infantry while blaster tanks can just spray on tanks. having ammunition cost ISK is not something we want in the game unless we are paying for different types but not per shot. Until the blaster has better DPS then the rail the rail is still OP. The rail is overpowered in certain situations, I'll agree to that, but it has to be that way(for now) to counter certain fits in the game. Everything in Eve costs money, the same should hold true in dust, we are in the same universe. The thing is, most people who play console shooters aren't used to having to buy things every time they want to run with it. More often than not I hear the argument that Dust isn't Eve, and they are right, but here is the thing, we all live on earth, and if you drive a car, you need to put gas in that car, regardless of where you live, you have to BUY gas. Someone in England is going to pay more per gallon than someone in United States(yes I know they buy per liter in England). They still have to pay for gas regardless of where they live. They should increase the rail gun range to pre nerf stats, lower the damage(decreasing it further for infantry) and rails would become the snipers they were supposed to be. Blasters should have their damage increased(while making it do significantly less against infantry) Either that or implement ammunition cost, whichever would be easier. Watch how it works(or doesn't) and go from there.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 14:53:00 - [6] - Quote When is the last time you heard about an Abrams rolling across the battlefield targeting the lowly rifleman? You wouldn't see a Battleship using it's 16 inch guns on a patrol boat. Bottom line: Size does dictate the role of a weapon as any war will teach you. The problem is the players who have found a way to exploit something and use it to their advantage. ADS were designed to be aerial gunships, the whole reason was to give the pilots a way to fight, and ground targets are the most prevalent in Dust, so they are gunships. As for my opinion, it is that of a merc that has played as both infantry and tanker, so I do see the big picture. You seem to think that by nerfing the damage to infantry it will somehow break the game, it won't. If they continue to keep tanks in their current state then they need to give infantry a way to destroy them(with some effort). They should improve AV, or even give them a better weapon, such as a single fire, high damage missile. Either way, you have your opinion and I have mine and it appears that neither one of us is going to change the others mind, so lets just agree to disagree.