DUST Search - Turret Proposal

All Channels

General Discussions

Turret Proposal

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4259	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:38:00 - [1] - Quote You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician Vote me for CPM1!
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2108	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:42:00 - [2] - Quote Because it makes 0 sense for something larger to hurt less? That's like me shooting a wall wih a 9mm, and then with a rocket, then doing the same against a person. Also makes 0 sense for a rifle to do anything to plating that thick. So no for both. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Yoma Carrim Kinsho Swords Caldari State 479	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:42:00 - [3] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Ironically today my Gunnlogi took a jihad LAV to the rear and survived with 0 shield and 0 armor...... Only to die to the one Infi around with a Milita Assault Rifle. I spent the next few minuets rolling on the floor. Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1697	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:43:00 - [4] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Then what will be the purpose of having vehicles in the first place? There has to be something to start the ball rolling, such as an AI (blaster) tank. Then you get the AV (railgun/missile) tanks that will be the hard counters to AI tanks. AV infantry is the hard counter to AV tanks. Infantry is the hard counter to AV infantry. Then we're back to AI tanks countering infantry. AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank The counter to the tank counter is infantry, while the counter to the infantry counter is a tank. Mirrored balance. One team uses blaster tanks and AV infantry, the other team uses AV tanks and regular infantry. Then you get the AV tanks chasing the AI tanks that are chasing infantry that are chasing the AV infantry that are chasing the AV tanks... "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9981	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:50:00 - [5] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? Nope, why not just simply remove AI turrets from tanks and replace them with AV turrets. Infantry can escape and attack tanks, tanks can shoot back but are primarily designed to be AV units, and can mount turrets to have Infantry protect them from other infantry. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1697	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:52:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? Nope, why not just simply remove AI turrets from tanks and replace them with AV turrets. Infantry can escape and attack tanks, tanks can shoot back but are primarily designed to be AV units, and can mount turrets to have Infantry protect them from other infantry. That means we should remove blaster turrets and give up any hopes for pulse lasers and autocannons? No. If done properly, we can have both AI and AV turrets. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4260	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:54:00 - [7] - Quote Real quick, apologies, need to specify I was on about Large Turrets, editting post now. Harpyja wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Then what will be the purpose of having vehicles in the first place? There has to be something to start the ball rolling, such as an AI (blaster) tank. Then you get the AV (railgun/missile) tanks that will be the hard counters to AI tanks. AV infantry is the hard counter to AV tanks. Infantry is the hard counter to AV infantry. Then we're back to AI tanks countering infantry. AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank The counter to the tank counter is infantry, while the counter to the infantry counter is a tank. Mirrored balance. One team uses blaster tanks and AV infantry, the other team uses AV tanks and regular infantry. Then you get the AV tanks chasing the AI tanks that are chasing infantry that are chasing the AV infantry that are chasing the AV tanks... So turrets wouldn't be nerfed to **, with Large Turrets still able to kill but not doing 3 shot kills with a Blaster for example, and small turrets would still be effective at slaying Infantry, meaning all vehicles would be relevant for slaying, LAVs may actually be more common place for gunning things down, Dropships would still fly about bombing the ** out of things and HAVs would actually be more useful with gunners. So now you have 3 vehicles all relatively equal when it comes to Infantry slaying, while the HAV would be more useful to kill other Vehicles. I believe Smalls should be Infantry focused, Mediums should be a mix and Large should focus on Vehicles. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician Vote me for CPM1!
Vitharr Foebane Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 1089	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:55:00 - [8] - Quote Harpyja wrote: True Adamance wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? Nope, why not just simply remove AI turrets from tanks and replace them with AV turrets. Infantry can escape and attack tanks, tanks can shoot back but are primarily designed to be AV units, and can mount turrets to have Infantry protect them from other infantry. That means we should remove blaster turrets and give up any hopes for pulse lasers and autocannons? No. If done properly, we can have both AI and AV turrets. Properly being the keyword here... AKA we're f*cked >.< Amarr: Sentinel V Scout V Assault IV Commando IV Logistics III I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 673	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:57:00 - [9] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Hilarious has done a lot to balance this game up to this point , some CPM you would make . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4260	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:58:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? Nope, why not just simply remove AI turrets from tanks and replace them with AV turrets. Infantry can escape and attack tanks, tanks can shoot back but are primarily designed to be AV units, and can mount turrets to have Infantry protect them from other infantry. Makes total sense, such a large round misses the majority of the merc, obviously. And honestly, I like Blasters being able to compete as AV, they work, and should be allowed to work, this change would keep them working as AV but makes them not as wonderful against Infantry anymore. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician Vote me for CPM1!

Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2714	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:58:00 - [11] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!! Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4261	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:59:00 - [12] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Hilarious has done a lot to balance this game up to this point , some CPM you would make . I am best candidate for CPM, goml. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician Vote me for CPM1!
Yoma Carrim Kinsho Swords Caldari State 481	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:00:00 - [13] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!! So large missile turrets all over again. Cool Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2715	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:03:00 - [14] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Then what will be the purpose of having vehicles in the first place? There has to be something to start the ball rolling, such as an AI (blaster) tank. Then you get the AV (railgun/missile) tanks that will be the hard counters to AI tanks. AV infantry is the hard counter to AV tanks. Infantry is the hard counter to AV infantry. Then we're back to AI tanks countering infantry. AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank The counter to the tank counter is infantry, while the counter to the infantry counter is a tank. Mirrored balance. One team uses blaster tanks and AV infantry, the other team uses AV tanks and regular infantry. Then you get the AV tanks chasing the AI tanks that are chasing infantry that are chasing the AV infantry that are chasing the AV tanks... Not quite AV infantry should be able to counter AI infantry, it will have a harder job, since it can fight back but you get my drift. Infantry < (AI Tank < AV Tank) < (AV Infantry < AI Infantry) < . . . . and so on. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9981	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:04:00 - [15] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: True Adamance wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? Nope, why not just simply remove AI turrets from tanks and replace them with AV turrets. Infantry can escape and attack tanks, tanks can shoot back but are primarily designed to be AV units, and can mount turrets to have Infantry protect them from other infantry. Makes total sense, such a large round misses the majority of the merc, obviously. And honestly, I like Blasters being able to compete as AV, they work, and should be allowed to work, this change would keep them working as AV but makes them not as wonderful against Infantry anymore. Dude I don't think a mass accellerated Rail Slug can miss anything it hits..... you wouldn't have much of a torso so to speak of if you were hit by one....... I understand your reasoning is akin to missile explosive radius and ship size..... that would make sense to me......but if you are clipped by a Railgun round......... but why would you suggest removing AI capacity on turrets that are already difficult to AI on..... surely the easiest to implement would simply to make all Large Turrets AV turrets, slow tracking, high damage, slow RoF, etc. I mean hitting someone with a railgun is not all that easy when they are at top speed sprinting across the map.... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 673	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:04:00 - [16] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Large Turrets still able to kill but not doing 3 shot kills with a Blaster for example . I think that my sentinel gets three shot by a scout with a shotgun on a daily , so can I propose that shotguns get a damage and range nerf ??? I can't understand the logic in believing that a turret can kill a vehicle , something that can produce more damage than infantry for the most part .. with LAV's even but it has a hard time killing troops ..??... turrets do not insta-kill infantry , it takes at least five to six shots from a neutron blaster too .. because for the most part , people just don't stand still when your shooting or trying to shoot them with a large turret ... they move . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2715	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:05:00 - [17] - Quote Yoma Carrim wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!! So large missile turrets all over again. Cool Well look at large missile turrets now, 'capable' of AI' yet still fantastic at AV Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1697	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:06:00 - [18] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!! That won't ever happen. And if any changes are in fact brought into effect, I doubt that they will be even close to what people expected. For example, adding dispersion. Man, let me tell you how much infantry have managed to escape to safety because my aim was just slightly off target while tracking them. If I had dispersion, I would've had a lot more rounds connect, resulting in more kills. Dispersion would make hitting infantry easier as I wouldn't need pinpoint precision. I think that instead of trying to make blasters weaker against infantry (because that's just too hard to do), just emphasize them as an AI turret and bring their AV capabilities as low as possible. This proper trade-off will make them focused on AI but at the same time highly susceptible to other vehicles. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Yoma Carrim Kinsho Swords Caldari State 481	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:12:00 - [19] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!! So large missile turrets all over again. Cool Well look at large missile turrets now, 'capable' of AI' yet still fantastic at AV True you do not want to take a large missile round to the chest as an infi even if you are hard to hit. Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 673	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:12:00 - [20] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I think that instead of trying to make blasters weaker against infantry (because that's just too hard to do), just emphasize them as an AI turret and bring their AV capabilities as low as possible. This proper trade-off will make them focused on AI but at the same time highly susceptible to other vehicles. When you begin to do things like this then you have to do the same for all large turrets because the same can be said about Missiles and Rail Guns . Their equally effective with the missiles being lesser but given their splash radius damage , they are still effective and then you begin to throw everything off again . Your falling into the same trap over and over . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .

Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1698	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:12:00 - [21] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Harpyja wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Then what will be the purpose of having vehicles in the first place? There has to be something to start the ball rolling, such as an AI (blaster) tank. Then you get the AV (railgun/missile) tanks that will be the hard counters to AI tanks. AV infantry is the hard counter to AV tanks. Infantry is the hard counter to AV infantry. Then we're back to AI tanks countering infantry. AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank The counter to the tank counter is infantry, while the counter to the infantry counter is a tank. Mirrored balance. One team uses blaster tanks and AV infantry, the other team uses AV tanks and regular infantry. Then you get the AV tanks chasing the AI tanks that are chasing infantry that are chasing the AV infantry that are chasing the AV tanks... Not quite AV infantry should be able to counter AI infantry, it will have a harder job, since it can fight back but you get my drift. Infantry < (AI Tank < AV Tank) < (AV Infantry < AI Infantry) < . . . . and so on. Well I mean, you surely wouldn't use AV infantry as a hard counter to AI infantry. AV infantry should be a hard counter to AV vehicles with slightly less effectiveness against AI tanks. Then any effectiveness against AI infantry will come down to personal skill with their secondary weapon and/or forge gun. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1698	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:16:00 - [22] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Harpyja wrote: I think that instead of trying to make blasters weaker against infantry (because that's just too hard to do), just emphasize them as an AI turret and bring their AV capabilities as low as possible. This proper trade-off will make them focused on AI but at the same time highly susceptible to other vehicles. When you begin to do things like this then you have to do the same for all large turrets because the same can be said about Missiles and Rail Guns . There equally effective with the missiles being lesser but given their splash radius , they are still effective and then you begin to throw everything off again . Your falling into the same trap over and over . Well the point is and should be that if you want infantry killing power, you should go with the blaster turret but you should understand that you should expect to lose if an AV tank rolls around the corner. If you don't want to lose to another vehicle, then you should go with missiles/railguns, but also understanding that you are forced to retreat under (infantry) AV fire, or risk losing your vehicle as you attempt to shoot back at the AV. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 853	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:25:00 - [23] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Edit Edit: I really need to start putting something in these threads I make with the level of seriousness I am posting with... maybe levels? 1-10? 3 My idea was to create variants of both, an AV and AI type. This is keeping in mind that tanks are lacking in variety. The AV does reduced damage to infantry, while the AI does reduced damage to vehicles. Better yet, do this with ammo types. I know it doesn't exactly address the imbalances for AV. But this has more to do with the swarm launcher, as it's the most popular, being the easiest to get into. But here's a thought, if a tank wants to play with infantry (IE kill them) then they need to step down to their level to achieve balance. I imagine tanks with AI turrets getting popped much easier by AV infantry, where the AV turret is much more resilient to infantry AV, but at the same time very ineffective at killing infantry. Edit: Do this via PG/CPU maybe? In the end though, **** it. Lets let infantry be able to damage tanks with any weapon again. A whole team shooting AR at a tank, dropping it, WOULD be funny. As long as it's not me Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 71	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:26:00 - [24] - Quote A suggestion was to make blaster turrets have a cone effect like the HMG, which solves the problem with being overpowered against infantry, is sufficient against vehicles, and also is limited to short range (you won't be getting sniped from 300 meters away). I do not take credit for this idea.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2717	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:28:00 - [25] - Quote Yoma Carrim wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!! So large missile turrets all over again. Cool Well look at large missile turrets now, 'capable' of AI' yet still fantastic at AV True you do not want to take a large missile round to the chest as an infi even if you are hard to hit. Precisely if someone starts lobbing of missiles at you, you still GTFO of dodge. I think the first step would be to give blasters a more ambiguous HUD reticule, like an inverse version of the forge gun. Makes Aiming much harder. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9981	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:28:00 - [26] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe. Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Edit Edit: I really need to start putting something in these threads I make with the level of seriousness I am posting with... maybe levels? 1-10? 3 My idea was to create variants of both, an AV and AI type. This is keeping in mind that tanks are lacking in variety. The AV does reduced damage to infantry, while the AI does reduced damage to vehicles. Better yet, do this with ammo types. I know it doesn't exactly address the imbalances for AV. But this has more to do with the swarm launcher, as it's the most popular, being the easiest to get into. But here's a thought, if a tank wants to play with infantry (IE kill them) then they need to step down to their level to achieve balance. I imagine tanks with AI turrets getting popped much easier by AV infantry, where the AV turret is much more resilient to infantry AV, but at the same time very ineffective at killing infantry. Edit: Do this via PG/CPU maybe? In the end though, **** it. Let's let infantry be able to damage tanks with any weapon again. A whole team shooting AR at a tank, dropping it, WOULD be funny. As long as it's not me BUT THAT DOESNT MAKE SENSE! How can a turret determine how flimsy or durable a tank is? Also how many tanks actually have a primary main cannon that fires AI shells? "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Spademan The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 1449	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:39:00 - [27] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? . I never did understand the power levels. I mean, realisticly speaking, shouldn't 80GJ be powerful enough to go back in time and kill the dinosaurs? I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special. Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
Yoma Carrim Kinsho Swords Caldari State 484	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:43:00 - [28] - Quote True Adamance wrote: how many tanks actually have a primary main cannon that fires AI shells? Well there is the Canister Shell that turns the 120mm Cannon of most MBTs into a very large shotgun. Good for AI, Light skinned vehicles, and low flying Helicopters. Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
Scheneighnay McBob T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan 4978	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:49:00 - [29] - Quote This round may be the size of your head, but it won't hurt you much. /timetravel Best thread of all time
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES Canis Eliminatus Operatives 1458	Posted - 2014.04.30 23:26:00 - [30] - Quote Before you get my tanks nerfed, you should at least consider making AV more viable. The biggest reason tanks slaughter infantry is they can park and shoot. Killing infantry would be much harder if I didn't have the ability to shrug off the light AV and pick off the heavy. I really believe returning the FG charge time would give balance out some of the imbalance. I've only used swarms a bit so I won't try to solve that riddle. If ground guys could actually create areas that are off limits to tanks perhaps they will go fight each other while we handle the ground game. Militia tanks would be way more circumstantial and real bad ass tankers could make forays into the danger zones. There would be carnage for a couple of weeks while everyone got used to it. I think everyone thinks of themselves first and then balance. Its sad. I want good fights with smart tankers. Not insta popping scrubs and mowing down entire teams. Crush them



Pages: 1 2 :: [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.