I just hate anything that's good at everything. Blaster turret wants to be good at AI? Then it should be the worst for AV. Simple as that. Trade-offs.


So, you want a tank that's not only best at killing infantry, but can also handle itself against other tanks? Dude, it's all about trade-offs. Blaster tank gains advantage at killing infantry, it should then lose any advantages against other tanks. Also, did I not mention that a blaster tank should be able to defeat a rail tank in CQC?

I think you're also forgetting that missiles must reload right after killing a tank, in addition to having the longest reload time of the turrets. It's just the same as the scrambler rifle: massive DPS against one person, low DPS against multiple targets. Plus, actually using your intelligence to ambush should be rewarded instead of bum-rushing with a railgun.

Missiles should stay at level 5; apparently they require too much intelligence for people to use properly and the skill levels will accurately reflect the required intelligence level

Not to be a ****, but get better at tanking. I can takeout railgun tanks with my blaster tank easily, if they bring out **** tanks. On the other hand, I rarely loose my sicas unless they use ion cannon and surprise me.

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.

My only concern about dropping the power with an increase on range is that it will become less effective at it's intended role. For example, let's say we still had the 600m range railgun, but at proto level it only did 900 damage per shot to balance out its range. But now it can't kill anything because it has too little power balancing out its range, and bumping up its power will make it unbalanced.

You can then have variants that lower the falloff rate in exchange for less damage per shot or increasing the falloff rate in exchange for greater damage per shot.

That's just how I view the railguns, where their purpose is at being an effective ranged weapon.

Just nerf the dam damage mods already. They should have been nerfed when the Hardeners were nerfed.

Who am I? I'm tween. Yes, because I like kiling madrugars with Sica's. That being said, I have both gunnlogi's and madrugars fitted with plasma cannons, when needed. Why slag me off, when you're in DDD. When I end up having a squad of DDD on my team in domination, it usually Means I already lost that match unless you got another corp or individuals like me to carry you.

I'm far from the best tankers left on this game, but I'm fairly decent and I'm pretty sure I'm a better tanker than you.

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.