The nature of the blaster turret will always make it the easiest turret to use for AI. You might think that changing its attributes to make it "harder" to use against infantry (lower RoF but higher damage) will only make it unbalanced, as it'll still wreck infantry the easiest while being a threat to other vehicles.

You just can't be most effective against AI while retaining AV potential. So that's why blasters should instead be reworked for AI, by reducing their damage by a fair amount. Now it'll be rather ineffective at AV while its nature still makes it the best turret against infantry.

Then we can get a more refined picture of: AI (blaster) tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank.

The third suggestion is to give railguns a range profile similar to the laser rifle. They should only deal 100% damage at say, between 200 and 350m. Damage should then drop to 50% at 100m and 450m, then down to 30% at 50m and 500m. This allows them to have their range back at the price of damage falloff. It also allows them to keep all of their attributes without nerfing any of them, that way they can still do their job at range while making them ineffective at CQC and extreme ranges. I personally prefer this suggestion over the second one, as it doesn't reduce ranged effectiveness

I like the 300m Rail Turret range. It is still sufficient to give an advantage over Blasters, but it gets the Rail Tanks out of the Red line. I have been having a lot of fun with mine, now that I am getting the hang of it. Trying to sneak up on and out maneuver enemy tanks is a lot more fun than sniping from the Red Line.

Read one of my above replies on the large blaster. It will always be the easiest to use against infantry, that's why it should have the worst AV abilities.

Also, it's the turret type that defines its role, not its size. Size only determines effectiveness and fitting ability. The SMG, combat rifle, and HMG are all projectile weapons. They are all bonused against armor, so they kill armor dropsuits more easily. What you're trying to say is like saying that the HMG should not be able to hit and kill light and medium suits and it should only be able to kill heavy dropsuits.

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.

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.

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.