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 railgun is just too good at CQC for being a ranged weapon. It needs damage falloff when it gets too close. You don't see rail and arty battleships in EVE engaging other ships at 10km. They engage at 100km+

I do agree that a Rail Tank should not be able to two shot another tank, short of a double shot to the engine block of a Glass cannon fit tank with now hardeners. But this is more an issue of Damage Mods being too strong. They should have been nerfed when Hardeners were nerfed.

Combat is not fun if you donGÇÖt have any time to react.

HAHA, at that last line. That IS funny.

All I got's for you fella, enjoy it while it lasts. ANYONE can be a "GUD" tanker when all you gotta do is 2 or 3 shot something. You really consider that skillful?

And plasma cannons, you sure you tank?

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.

What about the Autocannon, or the pulse lasers?

Missile tanks should not be able to fire over half the clip at a time. Or the clip size should be reduced by half. Getting taking out in one volley is definitely over powered and the only tank that can do that consistently is the missile tanks.

The only time a tank gets taken out by a rail tank is if they won't move. There simply isn't enough time to move out of a missile tanks volley. They empty the entire clip before the tank can respond. And they need to be balanced.

Not mentioning that the missile firing solution is as buggy as the others. After a reload they can empty a clip, but a partial clip will release anything from 1 to four missiles. Who thinks that isn't a bug, and no Devs we don't need you waving your hands.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

Its a FPS no FPS charges you for ammo.

no the rail turret range is fine where it is.

what im suggesting for large blasters is for them to be inaccurate on small targets if the small targets get hit it should really hurt and have higher dps then rail turrets.

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.

Still denied, as you haven't adjusted your OP.