DUST Search - Big blaster turret, the real problem [Av v tank dylema]

Racro 01 Arifistan wrote:

do people relize that blasters are firing more than 3-4 rounds to kill you.

ona verage to kill any suit the blaster will shott between 10-15 rounds in a few seconds adn out of all of that it takes 3-4 shots to kill an infantry man.

are people gratful when that heavy is mauling your squad/team and a blaster tank rolls in and anhilites him for you?

as for dealing the same damge over a lrge range. no. the blasters damge drops off. at 150m the blaster is applying roughly 50% of its total damge. anywhere below 100m is full damage.

the blaster can deal damge from 310m. (tested against railgun tanks for only a mealsy 20 damge a shot from an ion cannon.)

also the blaster has quite shocking hit detection. and its 100% accurate due to
1.its a large tank turret and is able to fit more technogly that stablizes the plasma rounds compared to an ar/shotgun.
2. the blaster is meant to be an all rounded turret. i.e it is menat to slaughter infantry/vehicles alike.
3. the blaster will overheat quickly when not managed correctly.
4.the blaster cant get inside of buildings or be effective on most maps.
5.it cant hack objctives like infatry can.
6.vunrable to ''lol op'' railguns.
7.if on a madruagr scared of missiles.
8. has glitch that causes it to stop friing

enjoy.
also. i should mention large missiles kill infantry as easly as large blasters. so should they be either av or infantry as well?. oh and so does the large railgun. so do you want 3 forms of av turret or 3 forms of anti-infantry turrets?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2835	Posted - 2014.04.21 00:13:00 - [1] - Quote Atiim wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Personally, I think there needs to be an AV and an AI version of each type of turret. Are you talking about variety? Get out of here! No logic is allowed on the forums. That would explain the mass exodus of tankers on the forums. And even more so the dearth of AVers, but hey, who's counting? OP, I don't think the large blaster should be an AI weapon. It should have its functionality changed to be CQC AV par none, where missiles are about 150-200 (which would entail a tighter cluster and maybe even small tracking ability) and rail a long ranged (say 400m support AV (DEFINITELY not a CQC shotgun). ak.0 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak. I speak for the trees.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2836	Posted - 2014.04.21 00:28:00 - [2] - Quote Atiim wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: And even more so the dearth of AVers, but hey, who's counting? Really? I'm noticing the same amount of AVers on the forums as usual. Perhaps you aren't counting properly? I am noticing a very similar number of tankers :) The only one who's not showing up so much anymore is O'Dell :P Most of the old AVers I saw around are gone these days, with new names to replace them, which is essentially the same case as with tankers. Perhaps your criteria for 'tanker' are looser than mine are for 'AVer'. In general, though, forum usage seems to have dropped from my entirely non-evidence-based, very subjective point of view. ak.0 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak. I speak for the trees.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2841	Posted - 2014.04.21 03:31:00 - [3] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: do people relize that blasters are firing more than 3-4 rounds to kill you. ona verage to kill any suit the blaster will shott between 10-15 rounds in a few seconds adn out of all of that it takes 3-4 shots to kill an infantry man. are people gratful when that heavy is mauling your squad/team and a blaster tank rolls in and anhilites him for you? as for dealing the same damge over a lrge range. no. the blasters damge drops off. at 150m the blaster is applying roughly 50% of its total damge. anywhere below 100m is full damage. the blaster can deal damge from 310m. (tested against railgun tanks for only a mealsy 20 damge a shot from an ion cannon.) also the blaster has quite shocking hit detection. and its 100% accurate due to 1.its a large tank turret and is able to fit more technogly that stablizes the plasma rounds compared to an ar/shotgun. 2. the blaster is meant to be an all rounded turret. i.e it is menat to slaughter infantry/vehicles alike. 3. the blaster will overheat quickly when not managed correctly. 4.the blaster cant get inside of buildings or be effective on most maps. 5.it cant hack objctives like infatry can. 6.vunrable to ''lol op'' railguns. 7.if on a madruagr scared of missiles. 8. has glitch that causes it to stop friing enjoy. also. i should mention large missiles kill infantry as easly as large blasters. so should they be either av or infantry as well?. oh and so does the large railgun. so do you want 3 forms of av turret or 3 forms of anti-infantry turrets? This is like saying 'did you know a forge gun kills infantry as easily as an ACR? So does MD'. It is patently untrue. For some reason CCP decided that the blaster turret should be the premier anti infantry weapon while retaining enormous AV ability relative to basically anything except railguns. Blasters are almost infinitely better at AI than missiles (after all it doesn't take a twelfth of your blaster capacity to hit an MLT suit) and they're far more reliable as AV too, thanks to large damage per magazine and no obscene ten second reload. ak.0 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak. I speak for the trees.