DUST Search - Balancing the Large Turrets

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Balancing the Large Turrets

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1501	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:17:00 - [1] - Quote Blasters Blasters, as I see them, are meant to be anti-infantry (AI). To do this, they must sacrifice AV capabilities. Currently, blasters can deal too much damage to vehicles, even while they are hardened. A blaster tank should not be able to slaughter infantry, then kill a tank that threatens it, and go back to slaughtering infantry. It just negates the purpose of having the turret be AI. Also, I hear that infantry are unhappy at how powerful the turret is against them as well. I don't see what the problem really is, but let's continue. I propose that large blasters see a damage reduction of about 33%. This is to counter the hardener nerf as well as reducing their effectiveness against infantry which so many seem to have a problem with. Before the hardener nerf, I thought that large blasters were very balanced. No blaster tank really threatened my missile Gunnlogi, as my shield could regen through a good portion of the incoming DPS and allow me to sit and absorb damage while reloading and launching a second volley, even a third one before my shield got too low. I found this to be balanced because they were much better at AI than I was, so in exchange for that I was much better at AV than they were. Now, I scramble to get my second volley out before my shield drops to destroy a blaster tank. These are just my experiences, but I'm using them to help paint the picture of the tank vs tank balance. Railguns Railguns are meant to be the sniper rifles for vehicles. High alpha, low DPS, and only good at range. However, this is not so in the current build. Railguns have both high alpha and high DPS while remaining good at any range. For railguns, I have three suggestions. Only one of the last two suggestions should be chosen. The first is something that could be applied with the following suggestion, or it may be unnecessary. This suggestion is to have railguns immobilize the tank while they are spooling up, maintaining a charge, and spooling down, like the breach forge gun. Immobilizing it while firing will make it disadvantaged in CQC where it allows the CQC tank to outmaneuver the rail tank. The second suggestion is to revert railguns to either the compressed or the regular variant from 1.6. I just think that the railgun is too good at everything, so reducing damage, reducing RoF, and increasing the heat cost is the best alternative. Essentially, you get a pre-1.7 railgun. The regular variant has about the same RoF, but significantly less damage, while maintaining a similar, yet slightly higher, heat cost than the 1.7/1.8 railgun. The compressed variant has a much smaller RoF, much greater heat cost, while having only slightly less damage than the 1.7/1.8 railgun. 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 As for lore, it can be said that the charged plasma in the canister shell requires a fraction of a second to reach its highest energy state, after which it begins to decay rapidly. This will then produce said range profile. Missiles Missiles are practically my child in Dust and I find them to be perfectly balanced. I'd hate to see any nerfs happen to them, but I'll do my best to keep any bias aside for their review. I've only used prototype missiles, so I have no idea how they perform at the standard and advanced levels. The XT-201 Missile Launcher can destroy any armor tank or unhardened shield without a damage mod when aimed at the rear of the vehicle. I think that missiles are intended for flanking and ambushing tactics. As such, a missile turret should be able to destroy a vehicle from the rear using only one volley without the help of any damage amplifier. I'm not sure if standard or advanced missiles can do this, and if not, then I believe that only prototype missiles should be able to do this. As for shooting at vehicles from the side or from the front, the line gets blurred. Some get destroyed in one volley, some do not. A damage amplifier will ensure destruction in one volley against any armor vehicle, however. Again, I'm not sure if it's just the prototype missiles that are allowing me to do any of this. My conclusion for missiles is that I have no conclusion. They will have to just get play tested with the changes done to blaster turrets and railguns to see if missiles are too powerful. If they are, then I think that only a small damage reduction is necessary, while increasing the damage bonus done to the rear of the vehicle by missiles. This way, the ambush style of play that missiles are best at isn't affected. Conclusion With these changes, a balance is achievable. Blaster tanks remain to be the most effective at AI while sacrificing most of their AV capabilities. Railguns remain good at range while becoming ineffective at CQC and at extreme range. Missiles remain best at ambush tactics. Both railguns and missiles have 'equal' AV capabilities as well as AI abilities within their optimal ranges. A missile tank will beat any tank that it ambushes. A rail tank will beat any tank it catches in the open at range. A blaster tank will only be able to beat a rail tank in CQC. This is my opinion of perfect large turret balance. A three-tank group will preferably have one of each tank: a rail tank to provide overwatch and ranged AV, a missile tank to provide CQC AV, and a blaster tank to provide AI. TL;DR Sorry, no TL;DR "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 750	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:21:00 - [2] - Quote u must god awful hate losing your tank to blaster turrets. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...
WarMachine88 Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 13	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:48:00 - [3] - Quote Blasters are fine, u reduce damage then loses its ability to fight other tanks. SO this guy wants a blaster tank to have no defense against any other tank. Missiles need a damage nerf no turret should instantly kill a tank and Rails need a reduce RoF. And on top of this Rails need to switch to Lvl 5 and Missles to Lvl 3.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1501	Posted - 2014.04.04 23:27:00 - [4] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: u must god awful hate losing your tank to blaster turrets. 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. WarMachine88 wrote: Blasters are fine, u reduce damage then loses its ability to fight other tanks. SO this guy wants a blaster tank to have no defense against any other tank. Missiles need a damage nerf no turret should instantly kill a tank and Rails need a reduce RoF. And on top of this Rails need to switch to Lvl 5 and Missles to Lvl 3. 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 "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 751	Posted - 2014.04.05 14:33:00 - [5] - Quote sadly... the rail turret is king of killing forge gunners... and your are dead wrong about the blaster turret being"good at everything". in most aspects from my use of it. it makes a better suppression weapon than anything else.its mainly mediocre at killing crap in game whilst using it to kill other vehicles i always have to be on the move. an when attached too an armor vehicles the only thing i have is to use my straight lion speed in an attempt to break enemies line of fire whilst i can keep my turret line of fire on him due to better tracking of the turret. and this is very very very difficult to pull off at times.so im fine with the damn turret killing a vehicles. as with the other turrets.for now... mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 745	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:52:00 - [6] - Quote Agreed with you to a certain extent on most of your points there. Though I have a few different thoughts and ideas to add. Going to start with railguns. Railguns When we consider railguns and balance, what factors are taken into account? First, what are we balancing. Tank vs Tank interactions: How one tank interacts with another tank. By shooting each other of course. But what are we looking for within those interactions. I personally look for longer, more engaging combat. The time to kill between tanks is far too short. And I feel the railgun is the main culprit in this. Range and Damage But when we look at the railgun, I think the biggest balancing factors to look at first are Range and Damage. If it has a huge range, and huge alpha, I see that as unbalanced. Though I do understand that you can balance this out by taking other factors into account, spool up time, RoF, even ammo capacity. And as you mentioned, the damage number on the railgun is far too high atm. It simply alpha's everything in it's sights in comparison to the other turret types. So first things first, Slash railgun damage by a third Reduce damage mods from 30% to 15% Range IS a defense But here's my idea on balancing this particular turret, considering what range means for a tank. Long range(500M +) = Support weapon Short range(300M -) = Assault weapon So let's consider the turret before the range nerf. 600M could hit nearly the whole field from extreme range. With a high alpha too boot. Is it just me, or does it seem inherently wrong to 2 or 3 shot a tank from 600M in 3 or 4 seconds. For the sake of balance, I say that a long range weapon, like the railgun, work as a support weapon when the range is 600M. Why, because 600M is an AWESOME defense that people never consider! A long range tank, with a low alpha could sit in the safety of the mountains, raining support fire for other tankers on the field. They would be more like the bee, stinging their opponents over and over, forcing them to reconsider their course and actions. Range IS your best defense. The problem I see, not enough importance is placed on range when balance is considered. Range is an incredible defense. And by severely cutting damage on a long range weapon, you emphasise the use of that range. IE, don't try brawlin with it. I know people would cry foul, "but it's just like a sniper rifle". Wrong, Tanks are not sniper rifles. I could go on all day about the difference between a tank, and infantry suit. Something else to consider, Tanks are not finished. I know you know this Harpyja, so I'm going to mention railgun variants. High alpha Long range: People want a High alpha on a railgun, sure. But if you want that 600M range, it still needs to be considered a support weapon. I imagine it could hit with a lot of power on that first shot, but would need to cooldown between each shot. Or what I mean, have such a low RoF, that the time between shots means the tank they are shooting at has plenty of time to move and evade. Not to mention the importance placed on landing shots in succession. Again, place an emphasis on using the range! Low alpha Long range: This one would fire shots off very fast, with a high heat threshold, say like 15 shots. At the same time though, it would do very low damage, say like 250 a shot. It like I mentioned above, it would be more like a bee sting, but get enough of those bees together and it can kill. Meaning landing shots in succession are key to killing with it, placing an emphasis on having a little skill when using one (or anything for that matter!) Anyways, I'm down for some discussion on this. I have idea's on blaster and missiles too, but I got a lot here already. No need to overload. Good read fella! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 745	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:57:00 - [7] - Quote Harpyja wrote: CLONE117 wrote: u must god awful hate losing your tank to blaster turrets. 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. WarMachine88 wrote: Blasters are fine, u reduce damage then loses its ability to fight other tanks. SO this guy wants a blaster tank to have no defense against any other tank. Missiles need a damage nerf no turret should instantly kill a tank and Rails need a reduce RoF. And on top of this Rails need to switch to Lvl 5 and Missles to Lvl 3. 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 Balance To be good in one area, you must sacrifice in another. A blaster sacrifices nothing for it's potent AI abilities considering the changes. They don't always get this though Harpy. They like running OP death machines from hell! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1529	Posted - 2014.04.07 01:42:00 - [8] - Quote Bump "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2635	Posted - 2014.04.07 04:53:00 - [9] - Quote WarMachine88 wrote: Blasters are fine, u reduce damage then loses its ability to fight other tanks. SO this guy wants a blaster tank to have no defense against any other tank. Missiles need a damage nerf no turret should instantly kill a tank and Rails need a reduce RoF. And on top of this Rails need to switch to Lvl 5 and Missles to Lvl 3. I nuke tanks all day long. Tier vs tier, blasters have an excellent chance of winning combat due to their rapid tracking speed, and they're far superior to the other turrets for AI. ak.0 4 LYFE je ne regrette rien
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1328	Posted - 2014.04.07 05:30:00 - [10] - Quote My opinions: Blasters: I agree blasters should be geared more toward AI than AV, but I wouldn't make them totally defenseless. I don't think a MLT Sica with a hardener should be completely immune to an Ion Cannon. Also, blasters are too good at AI at ranges >75m; I'd like a harsher drop off for those ranges and more dispersion. Blasters are meant to be the most CQB of all the weapon types. I could see auto-cannons being the lower damage, longer range AI alternative with faster tracking, more ammo, or other things to make it stand apart from the blaster, but we'll see. Rails: There are a few things I think need to be changed to fix rails: damage mods need to be 15-20% and base damage should be reduced as well, fitting costs need to be up up upped on them, and the redline needs removed and replaced before I'd be willing to accept longer rail range. I'm not sure how I feel about the immobilization idea, but I think if my ideas were implemented, it wouldn't be necessary. Missiles: The only problem with missiles is shield tanks. Unless you're packing XTs, a damage mod or two, and are right up on it, a shield rail tank with a hardener will eat you for breakfast. I really think there should be a EM variant (damage profile +20 shield/ -20% armor), considering you spending literally 60x more SP for a one trick-pony that a rail can either match or honestly out preform. Adding a shotgun-style reload (loading one missile at a time while being able to interrupt the loading by firing) would be nice as well. Me in my ADS: 1,2

Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1532	Posted - 2014.04.07 05:42:00 - [11] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: My opinions: Blasters: I agree blasters should be geared more toward AI than AV, but I wouldn't make them totally defenseless. I don't think a MLT Sica with a hardener should be completely immune to an Ion Cannon. Also, blasters are too good at AI at ranges >75m; I'd like a harsher drop off for those ranges and more dispersion. Blasters are meant to be the most CQB of all the weapon types. I could see auto-cannons being the lower damage, longer range AI alternative with faster tracking, more ammo, or other things to make it stand apart from the blaster, but we'll see. Rails: There are a few things I think need to be changed to fix rails: damage mods need to be 15-20% and base damage should be reduced as well, fitting costs need to be up up upped on them, and the redline needs removed and replaced before I'd be willing to accept longer rail range. I'm not sure how I feel about the immobilization idea, but I think if my ideas were implemented, it wouldn't be necessary. Missiles: The only problem with missiles is shield tanks. Unless you're packing XTs, a damage mod or two, and are right up on it, a shield rail tank with a hardener will eat you for breakfast. I really think there should be a EM variant (damage profile +20 shield/ -20% armor), considering you spending literally 60x more SP for a one trick-pony that a rail can either match or honestly out preform. Adding a shotgun-style reload (loading one missile at a time while being able to interrupt the loading by firing) would be nice as well. I agree with all of your points. I think that a range profile similar to that of the laser rifle will emphasize the ranged aspect of the railgun and reduce its CQC effectiveness. Also, immobilization would be unecessary and missile tanks will stand a chance of winning against hardened railgun shield tanks. I'm still all for ammo types that we can load in and out between engagements. As for their range and redline issue, my numbers on damage fall off were just examples. Damage drop off could happen faster beyond a shorter range than was given in the example, that way even if you could still sit in the redline, your damage wouldn't be lethal but merely a weak suppressant (a few shots won't do much but you wouldn't just sit there and let them pound a full clip into you) "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
tween tween UrAnus Air Service 1	Posted - 2014.04.07 13:28:00 - [12] - Quote 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.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 761	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:13:00 - [13] - Quote tween tween wrote: 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. Who are you? And any validity you had to begin with is lost now. You drive sica's You are one of those NUBS that knows nothing about tanking! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM 1153	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:30:00 - [14] - Quote Large blasters should be reworked into an AV weapon. Slower ROF, higher damage, dispersion to make hitting infantry difficult. First though, we need more vehicles to shoot at. there really isn't a threat beyond blaster tanks for vehicles to kill. That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1537	Posted - 2014.04.07 21:15:00 - [15] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Large blasters should be reworked into an AV weapon. Slower ROF, higher damage, dispersion to make hitting infantry difficult. First though, we need more vehicles to shoot at. there really isn't a threat beyond blaster tanks for vehicles to kill. 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. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 753	Posted - 2014.04.07 22:09:00 - [16] - Quote your bickering about what it should be... its already mediocre at both. (though its more a suppression weapon than anything else.)and right out the door its highly out dpsed by rails and potentially the missile turret. adding any sort of dispersion would most likely increase effectiveness of the blaster turret against moving infantry. and it seems every1 here has forgotten that rail guns are still pretty good against infantry too. i can ohk just about every type of infantry there is pretty easily with a large rail turret. at long range at close range doesnt really matter. the most i can hope to achieve with a blaster is to make my enemy run in fear or hide behind a wall due to how many bullets i can fire simultaneously . and since other turrets have the edge in power with a sacrifice to tracking speed and rof. essentially the blaster is the opposite almost. having low dmg per hit and decent rof. with better turret tracking to make up for its weaknesses. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1967	Posted - 2014.04.07 22:24:00 - [17] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Large blasters should be reworked into an AV weapon. Slower ROF, higher damage, dispersion to make hitting infantry difficult. First though, we need more vehicles to shoot at. there really isn't a threat beyond blaster tanks for vehicles to kill. 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. Actually, a lower ROF will make consecutive harder (because you know, if the person is not a idiot, he/she can strafe through your shots, just like now, but even better). And if that's enough, a tracking nerf can help. EDIT: You think missiles are balanced. Your opinion of blasters are invalid. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1537	Posted - 2014.04.08 03:29:00 - [18] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Large blasters should be reworked into an AV weapon. Slower ROF, higher damage, dispersion to make hitting infantry difficult. First though, we need more vehicles to shoot at. there really isn't a threat beyond blaster tanks for vehicles to kill. 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. Actually, a lower ROF will make consecutive harder (because you know, if the person is not a idiot, he/she can strafe through your shots, just like now, but even better). And if that's enough, a tracking nerf can help. EDIT: You think missiles are balanced. Your opinion of blasters are invalid. Your opinion is invalid because you want blasters to be the be-all end-all large turret like it was in 1.6. Missiles are very much balanced. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Azri Sarum BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 305	Posted - 2014.04.08 08:44:00 - [19] - Quote I have to disagree with the notion of the large blaster being worked into a more anti-infantry role. Thats what the small turrets on your tank are for.... The large blaster should have its anti-infantry capabilities nerfed into the ground. You want anti-infantry capability, then fit the weapons already designed for that role. EVE - Victor Maximus DUST - Azri Sarum
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1165	Posted - 2014.04.08 10:54:00 - [20] - Quote 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. And so it goes.

Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1541	Posted - 2014.04.08 13:37:00 - [21] - Quote Azri Sarum wrote: I have to disagree with the notion of the large blaster being worked into a more anti-infantry role. Thats what the small turrets on your tank are for.... The large blaster should have its anti-infantry capabilities nerfed into the ground. You want anti-infantry capability, then fit the weapons already designed for that role. 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. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2889	Posted - 2014.04.08 16:41:00 - [22] - Quote Just nerf the dam damage mods already. They should have been nerfed when the Hardeners were nerfed. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2889	Posted - 2014.04.08 17:21:00 - [23] - Quote 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2889	Posted - 2014.04.08 17:27:00 - [24] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Blasters 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 The Laser Turret is coming. Have patience. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1541	Posted - 2014.04.08 17:35:00 - [25] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Harpyja wrote: 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 The Laser Turret is coming. Have patience. 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+ "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 770	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:36:00 - [26] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. For the power, I agree. 300M is one of the few (only) tank changes I agree with, and even suggested that very thing not long ago. I always brawled with the railgun, brawling being anything within 300M. Addressing Harps, I still don't think damage falloff is a good way to go about it when the railgun is concerned. I'm all for a variety of different types of railguns, and the way you describe it makes me think of only the one type. We NEED variations like we had before, and I imagine that is what CCP has in mind for the future (I hope). I believe that addressing the main issue, range and power, is the way to go about it. High range, low power. As we begin lowering the range, we increase the power to reflect it's place on the battlefield. In this way a long range railgun could still try to CQC, but is actually hampered by the damage in comparison to a lower range railgun. I think this leaves a lot of possibility's open, whereas damage falloff limits our options for the future, not to mention it makes a lot less work on the coders adding a new dynamic to railguns and developers trying to balance around it. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1541	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:46:00 - [27] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: 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. For the power, I agree. 300M is one of the few (only) tank changes I agree with, and even suggested that very thing not long ago. I always brawled with the railgun, brawling being anything within 300M. Addressing Harps, I still don't think damage falloff is a good way to go about it when the railgun is concerned. I'm all for a variety of different types of railguns, and the way you describe it makes me think of only the one type. We NEED variations like we had before, and I imagine that is what CCP has in mind for the future (I hope). I believe that addressing the main issue, range and power, is the way to go about it. High range, low power. As we begin lowering the range, we increase the power to reflect it's place on the battlefield. In this way a long range railgun could still try to CQC, but is actually hampered by the damage in comparison to a lower range railgun. I think this leaves a lot of possibility's open, whereas damage falloff limits our options for the future, not to mention it makes a lot less work on the coders adding a new dynamic to railguns and developers trying to balance around it. 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. The railgun needs that power at range to do its job. But it shouldn't have that power at just about any range. 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. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 771	Posted - 2014.04.08 23:16:00 - [28] - Quote Harpyja wrote: 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. I find this very much "In the box" thinking. No offense fella, but I don't like to beat around the bush. It's ALWAYS about the kill to so many people here. If I didn't know any better, I would say this is another COD game, and not the team focused game that it is. Why is it always so necessary to kill? (Now it's less necessary as you gather WP from simply damaging them). Let's recall pre 1.7. It feels like it was so long ago and I hardly remember a lot of the gear and fits. It was a different world back then, one where it sucked to be the tanker. Tankers were the kid in the corner with the dunce hat on, while all the other kids laughed and played. And they would always poke at you, "shut up tanker, AV is fine, you just suck". Thanks, that helps a lot. (not to mention the AV that actually blame tankers for the whole predicament in the first place, last I checked NOBODY was expecting THIS.) Anyways, back then the compressed was the best at killing tanks. Well, that's what everyone said at least. Best being they want something that kills incredibly quick, faster than all other turrets. To me that means wanting something OP and skilless. Me, I don't play for the kills. I play for the big WIN banner at the end of the match. This doesn't always require killing to accomplish. I used the Pro Standard ones (or whatever it was called), specifically the gomorra(I'm terrible at spelling if you notice). Aur was the way to go with turrets back then. These had considerably less damage, but better spool time, and a much lower heat cost per shot. This meant it could fire off more shots in a given length of time than the compressed before overheating. Man did I love this railgun. A active heatsink was always a must whenever I fit railguns. But I also used a few fits that used low slot heatsinks in place of damage mods. Meaning I could fire off 11+ shots before overheating. No, I couldn't outright kill another tank like you could with a compressed. But I certainly gave them pause, and back then, accuracy was a big thing with railguns. And I got REAL gud at that **. When you gotta land 10+ shots in succession with a railgun, accuracy matters. But often times, killing them wasn't always necessary. I saw my railgun as a suppression tool. I subdue and suppress my enemy, giving him pause in all his actions, dictating his every move with each shot I made. The first few they always thought, ok cool I can tank this dude out, then they notice. I didn't stop firing when they expected me to. It just keeps going, and goin and goin. Not to say I didn't kill tanks with it, because I killed plenty. I just took a different approach to using. And I always kept in mind, sometimes simply pushing a tank back, away from the main engagement, was totally fine. Why, because I'm 600M away untouchable by them unless they pull out a rail themselves. In which case, is still cool because I'm keeping at least that one player from slaughtering thousands of blue dots (might be exaggerating a little). All about that team play, I play for the win. Yeah sometimes I might be the only one actually attempting to win sometimes and we still lose despite my efforts. But I like a challenge. If I wanted easy mode, I'd switch over to Skyrim, or Pokemon for that matter. Harpyja wrote:** 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. Totally agree "The railgun needs that power at range to do its job. But it shouldn't have that power at just about any range." I just don't see damage fall off as a "fix" to railguns. I view it as a balancing factor, another variable that would need to be balanced in relation to the variables present already. We have the variables there to do it, is what I'm saying. But as a balancing factor, I'm not saying it's something that shouldn't be added in. As it would add some new dynamics and depth to turret and variety. But not exactly a fix, but something that would need to be itself balanced. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 773	Posted - 2014.04.09 00:50:00 - [29] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Just nerf the dam damage mods already. They should have been nerfed when the Hardeners were nerfed. True dat Tanks - Balancing Turrets
tween tween UrAnus Air Service 1	Posted - 2014.04.09 10:44:00 - [30] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: tween tween wrote: 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. Who are you? And any validity you had to begin with is lost now. You drive sica's You are one of those NUBS that knows nothing about tanking! 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.

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 774	Posted - 2014.04.09 13:09:00 - [31] - Quote tween tween wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: tween tween wrote: 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. Who are you? And any validity you had to begin with is lost now. You drive sica's You are one of those NUBS that knows nothing about tanking! 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. 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? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2896	Posted - 2014.04.09 13:32:00 - [32] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Harpyja wrote: 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 The Laser Turret is coming. Have patience. 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+ Rail Gun Turrets in EVE have a slow tracking speed, as they do in DUST, which makes it much harder to apply damage at close range. A Rail Gun Turret in EVE will do full damage at close range when they are able to hit their target, such as if their target is not moving. In EVE, pilots try to maintain some traversal movement to make themselves harder to hit. I have noticed in DUST that many Tank Operators like to remain perfectly still when shooting. This does make them much easier to hit. 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Maximos Forcus G.R.A.V.E INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 18	Posted - 2014.04.11 18:24:00 - [33] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. I think it is more to do with RoF. The 1.4s charge time is to low. If it's be changed to 2s or 2.5s or so (and maybe a skill to lower it with 20 or 25% to still above to where it is now) is would also balance out more with the blaster. And it makes more "real life" sense. Large weapon with high damage takes long(er) to charge.
tween tween UrAnus Air Service 1	Posted - 2014.04.12 14:34:00 - [34] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: tween tween wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: tween tween wrote: 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. Who are you? And any validity you had to begin with is lost now. You drive sica's You are one of those NUBS that knows nothing about tanking! 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. 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? You got me there, Ofcourse I meant particle cannon. Thank you for finding the last line funny and not denying it. Skillful and skillful, I said I was fairly decent. Yes, I prolly more than able to 2 shot people with a particle cannon, but I can get 2 shot myself, so in the end, it will even out. Thank you, I will enjoy it, while it last - which will be for a long time.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1574	Posted - 2014.04.12 15:25:00 - [35] - Quote sigh There's absolutely no skill to tanking anymore if it comes down to who has more damage mods and a higher tier railgun and gets the first shot like in a twitch shooter. I started Dust because it was not a twitch shooter and fittings, skills, and tactics mattered, way back in closed beta. I'm sad to see that this game is only becoming more of a twitch shooter. It should not come down to having damage mods, a railgun, and shooting first to win. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1588	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:11:00 - [36] - Quote Bump of justice. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1615	Posted - 2014.04.19 13:23:00 - [37] - Quote Bump "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2027	Posted - 2014.04.19 16:24:00 - [38] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Azri Sarum wrote: I have to disagree with the notion of the large blaster being worked into a more anti-infantry role. Thats what the small turrets on your tank are for.... The large blaster should have its anti-infantry capabilities nerfed into the ground. You want anti-infantry capability, then fit the weapons already designed for that role. 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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1616	Posted - 2014.04.19 20:56:00 - [39] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Harpyja wrote: Azri Sarum wrote: I have to disagree with the notion of the large blaster being worked into a more anti-infantry role. Thats what the small turrets on your tank are for.... The large blaster should have its anti-infantry capabilities nerfed into the ground. You want anti-infantry capability, then fit the weapons already designed for that role. 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? They too should be more about AI than AV. For now, while we don't have them, the blaster will be the easiest to use for AI. Once we have autocannons and pulse lasers, they all should be more for AI than AV. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1625	Posted - 2014.04.22 03:05:00 - [40] - Quote No one else has anything to comment on this? "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32

Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death Final Resolution. 3175	Posted - 2014.05.01 00:46:00 - [41] - Quote I honestly don't think any of the large turrets should have significant AI capabilities; I'm of the opinion that the blaster should have its damage scaled way up, significant dispersion added (I mean like a lot; not AR dispersion, and not HMG dispersion, but closer to the latter) and its RoF cut in such a way as to keep DPS stable. IMO AI should be the province of small turrets. Blasters would still be superior AI, true, but landing the second shot would be frustrating. And if that doesn't work, nerf damage to infantry. Otherwise this cycle of tanks chasing infantry with no other purpose just continues. KalOfTheRathi wrote: 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. Then I also want reload times cut by two-thirds, because reloading in combat = dying. And if you got one-volley'd by a missile tank you can pretty safely say you just got outplayed. NEEDZ MOAR FULL RESPEC (y'happy, Dildo?) ak.0 // 4 LYFE
Kaeru Nayiri Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 12	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:53:00 - [42] - Quote This is just my opinion: No large turret should be able to be good at killing infantry. The 3 large turrets should just have different damage profiles for killing other vehicles. Blaster +10/-10 Railgun -10/+10 Missile -20/+20 Laser(one day?) +20/-20 Infantry should only have to worry about SMALL TURRETS. Offering up an example from EVE online, (I realize this game is not EVE and I wouldn't ever suggest that it should be) small ships take less damage from the really huge explosions because of surface contact. That's just an example, it's not really any type of suggestion.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.10 19:19:00 - [43] - 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.
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 100	Posted - 2014.05.11 14:17:00 - [44] - Quote 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. I don't even know why I bother.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.11 18:33:00 - [45] - 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.
Harpyja molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1721	Posted - 2014.05.12 00:25:00 - [46] - Quote 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. 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. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 02:26:00 - [47] - 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)
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 100	Posted - 2014.05.12 02:56:00 - [48] - Quote 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 don't even know why I bother.
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 03:43:00 - [49] - 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.
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 100	Posted - 2014.05.12 04:57:00 - [50] - Quote 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. I don't even know why I bother.

Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 11:35:00 - [51] - 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.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 924	Posted - 2014.05.12 12:28:00 - [52] - Quote Dalton Smithe wrote: 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. Just how overpowered do you think the rail is (or isn't)? Tanking isn't expensive already? It is. Yes dust isn't EVE. Things work differently with gravity, atmosphere, ect. As opposed to the vacuum of space. And you make it seem like rails are deadly against infantry, so damage must be reduced against them. Umm, how does any of this make sense? --20mil + into tanking, with nearly a year of experience.-- Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Harpyja molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1722	Posted - 2014.05.12 13:06:00 - [53] - Quote Dalton Smithe wrote: 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) Reducing damage done to infantry by turrets just doesn't make sense. If anything, vehicles should get a damage reduction based on size, but that's already evident in the fact that they have more HP than infantry, so everything should and must receive the same damage value, regardless if it's infantry or a vehicle. You can't argue that an infantryman in real life will have some sort of resistance against a lot of weapons, can you? So making large turrets deal less to infantry makes no sense. Second, the blaster will always be the most reliable of the current turrets to use against infantry. This means that you cannot give it a competitive DPS against other vehicles. Unless you make one shot deal like 10 damage to infantry, but then see my above statement. Tanks are meant to be inherently strong against infantry. You do not **** with the main cannon of an MBT in real life. It'd just be silly to make large turrets capable of destroying vehicles but only tickling infantry. And finally, what would be the point of having tanks in the first place if they don't have this natural strength against infantry? To kill ADS, that were never meant to be aerial gunships? Sorry, I just don't feel you don't get the whole picture. Your opinion is that of an infantryman who only sees his side of the picture and thinks that any AI nerfs would balance the situation. Also, I never said that infantry weapons were imbalanced. I was using an example to show how stupid it'd be to balance weapons on size, and not on type. Because yes, you got different types of weapons in each size class that have different roles (like the HMG vs forge gun, or the rifle vs swarm). Bottom line: weapon types within size classes define roles, not the size classes. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Dalton Smithe OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 86	Posted - 2014.05.12 14:53:00 - [54] - 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.
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 101	Posted - 2014.05.12 19:10:00 - [55] - Quote Dalton Smithe wrote: 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. 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. I don't even know why I bother.
Harpyja molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1722	Posted - 2014.05.12 19:50:00 - [56] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: Dalton Smithe wrote: 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. 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. I'm not of the opinion that spread, or even kick, on the blaster turret will make it harder to use against infantry. Sure, you might be unable to snipe infantry from a distance, but I've also missed a lot of infantry kills due to the precision of the blaster where dispersion would've made hitting them easier. I think that the blaster can keep its AI capability if it has a clear downside, and I think such a downside would be making it the weakest AV turret, not by a margin, but by a good amount. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 1722	Posted - 2014.05.12 20:04:00 - [57] - Quote Dalton Smithe wrote: 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. Re-reading my post, I may have sounded a bit harsh, I apologize for that. Your points are valid. Though, there's nothing stopping an Abrams from targetting infantrymen when there isn't anything bigger for it to do, such as engaging hostile armor. Also, a battleship won't use its 16 inch guns on a patrol boat because it'd be too costly and labor intensive to fire and reload new rounds when there's a cheaper alternative that can get the job done as well. What I was aiming at was that although it might be impractical, the job can still get done (though it'd be overkill and thus too costly if you figure in the costs associated with say, firing your main armament instead of using smaller arms that can still do the job). And yes, you have your opinions and I got mine. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1827	Posted - 2014.06.05 14:01:00 - [58] - Quote Bump from the dead "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2532	Posted - 2014.06.05 17:38:00 - [59] - Quote Still denied, as you haven't adjusted your OP. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1827	Posted - 2014.06.05 19:15:00 - [60] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Still denied, as you haven't adjusted your OP. Adjusted for.... "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.