DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Tackling Turrets

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Tackling 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 - 5 post(s)

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 7607	Posted - 2014.05.16 12:59:00 - [1] - Quote Hey guys So on our list of things to look at, vehicle turrets are pretty high on our list. We've got some ideas floating around but we also wanted to hear from you guys as well. We're looking first at the Large Blaster Turrets, especially against infantry, but we're open to thoughts on vehicle turrets in general both against infantry and vehicles (though focusing on the first one more at the moment) Please try to be concise and to the point with your feedback, bullet points are easier to digest. If you've got a thread running already, feel free to link to it in your post, but don't copy paste your entire thread to here. CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2136	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:06:00 - [2] - Quote Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. PSN: ogamega I'm here to bla bla bla...

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 7607	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:11:00 - [3] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This is something I've heard a lot from people in the past, definitely one change that we're looking at trying out. One thing I didn't touch on in the OP (and I'll edit it as well) is how people see the effectiveness of small turrets. Thoughts on those? CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 13362	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:20:00 - [4] - Quote I feel that large missile turrets should have a shotgun style reload, but I don't think that's a server side change. (?) On small turrets: Small missile turrets are the best atm, for both anti-infantry and AV. Especially on assault dropships, where they're basically the only option. Small railguns are mostly in a good place but I'm baffled as to why there's an overheat on them. It would excel in a focused AV role except overheat stops it being able to sustain the damage output long enough to kill vehicles. I'd like to see these as the best small turret for pure AV. Small blasters aren't really very good. They're just kind of... lacking. You can't really use them on an assault dropship, if you're going to use them on an LAV it's more effective (and safer) to get out and use a rifle, and if you're going to use them to gun on an HAV there are better things to do with that player. One thing I don't like about small turrets in general is their use on LAVs. They're overly difficult to hit targets with whilst moving and if you're stationary the gunner can get killed very, very easily. I'd like to see a frontal shield on LAV gunners - that way they're still very vulnerable if you flank them but if you attack them head on they can actually be dangerous. Though again that's not really a server side change... You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 2361	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:25:00 - [5] - Quote What is the design choose for having more of a turret user exposed in a turret than if they were just behind cover? You are better getting out and behind the LAV. Probably not doable anymore but making the turret block more hits would be nice.

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 7608	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:30:00 - [6] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I feel that large missile turrets should have a shotgun style reload, but I don't think that's a server side change. (?) On small turrets: Small missile turrets are the best atm, for both anti-infantry and AV. Especially on assault dropships, where they're basically the only option. Small railguns are mostly in a good place but I'm baffled as to why there's an overheat on them. It would excel in a focused AV role except overheat stops it being able to sustain the damage output long enough to kill vehicles. I'd like to see these as the best small turret for pure AV. Small blasters aren't really very good. They're just kind of... lacking. You can't really use them on an assault dropship, if you're going to use them on an LAV it's more effective (and safer) to get out and use a rifle, and if you're going to use them to gun on an HAV there are better things to do with that player. One thing I don't like about small turrets in general is their use on LAVs. They're overly difficult to hit targets with whilst moving and if you're stationary the gunner can get killed very, very easily. I'd like to see a frontal shield on LAV gunners - that way they're still very vulnerable if you flank them but if you attack them head on they can actually be dangerous. Though again that's not really a server side change... Shotgun style reload for missiles is interesting, might actually be possible serverside. I'll look into it. I think I've heard from some people on the forums that small rails have reduced damage against vehicles (?!), so we'll look at that first. I think the overheat is there more to limit it against infantry, so maybe we need to just give it a boost in damage against vehicles anyway. Small blasters are the one I'm most worried about for the small turrets. Not really sure where to start with them personally, I think someone else had some ideas. Still interested to hear some ideas from people on how to make them better in an anti-infantry role, with at least some ability to tickle vehicles. It would be nice to have them as a viable option for dropships against infantry. CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

Brush Master HavoK Core RISE of LEGION 1231	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:30:00 - [7] - Quote Being a pilot, small missile are the only viable option to kill infantry on the ground and give a dual purpose as AV. Small baster have far too short of range, hard to hit infantry and do too low of damage to be effective. Small railguns seem about right for AV but could see them needing less heat build up or a small damage buff. I have some problems with the large missile turrets and AI in general. There are a couple maps where the AI missiles turrets will lock on my dropship even though I did not fire on them and they will actually spam you the entire game, even firing at your 400m away. The projectiles of large missile turrets have a range larger then the maps we play on and for some reason the AI just keeps spamming you. Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? twitter.com/dustreports
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1725	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:33:00 - [8] - Quote I'm of the opinion that turret type should play a bigger factor for the role as opposed to turret size. For example, blasters, large and small, should be most effective at AI due to their nature of operation, but they must suffer when it comes to engaging another vehicle. The large blaster in 1.6 was just way too good because it was the best turret for killing infantry and the best turret for killing vehicles. There was absolutely no trade off to balance it's AI power. I have a full (went up to the character limit) thread and discussion on the large turrets: Balancing the Large Turrets. It's what I feel the balance between the large turrets should look like. I mentioned somewhere later in the thread that ultimately the "rock paper scissors" will look like: AI (blaster) tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV (missile/railgun) tank > AI tank. This is just a flow chart of effectiveness and the best counter towards something (though infantry and AV vehicles can counter themselves well, it's just that the outcome won't be as clear). This kind of balance will make for interesting gameplay if balanced properly. One team will want to field AI tanks to kill infantry and AV infantry to kill enemy AV tanks while the enemy will want to deploy AV tanks to counter the AI tanks and regular infantry to defend their tanks from enemy AV infantry. So you'll have this back and forth going on while the rest of the teams' infantry do their thing. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 13364	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:38:00 - [9] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Shotgun style reload for missiles is interesting, might actually be possible serverside. I'll look into it. Just going to justify this one a little more - missile reload is painfully long and of all the large turrets it's by far the most crippling to it, leading to the missile turret probably being the worst of them. I imagine your own statistics will show LMLs as being much less common than large blasters or large railguns. Quote: I think I've heard from some people on the forums that small rails have reduced damage against vehicles (?!), so we'll look at that first. I think the overheat is there more to limit it against infantry, so maybe we need to just give it a boost in damage against vehicles anyway. That definitely at least used to be the case, but I thought it'd been fixed. It might be worth testing - if you can't find out I'll check this evening. There was a lot of complaining about it in the past, you likely heard about it then. Perhaps boosting damage against vehicles is a better idea than dropping overheat. I think you're right to say that overheat helps limit against infantry - I've used them to snipe infantry in the past. Quote: Small blasters are the one I'm most worried about for the small turrets. Not really sure where to start with them personally, I think someone else had some ideas. Still interested to hear some ideas from people on how to make them better in an anti-infantry role, with at least some ability to tickle vehicles. It would be nice to have them as a viable option for dropships against infantry. Same. They're definitely the weakest of the batch. It's generally quite difficult to hit infantry reliably with them. Perhaps style them after the HMG? Very high RoF, long clip size, large dispersion - that'd allow you to hit infantry from a vehicle more reliably. They'd be able to tickle vehicles with that kind of firepower, though that should be something to watch, as having an excellent AI and AV turret would be problematic. Range is also a little lacking on them. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 2925	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:45:00 - [10] - Quote Blaster damage against tanks does seem okay to me as well. Too precise against infantry though I agree... when you ADS on a large blaster its like shooting an AR with twice the damage and range... zero recoil and zero dispersion. Large Railgun range need to be bumped back up a little. 350-400m I think after many a discussion with dedicated tankers. I would prefer damage falloff but I know that's not feasible for projectiles. Gallente ADS - range bonus on blasters maybe? Its true that a dropship should not use blasters... way too short of a range for that. Small Blasters in general could probably use a dispersion increase and RoF buff... make them more like vehicle mounted HMGs imo. LAVs in general... Its just not feasible to use that gun with no protection. You are pretty much asking for headshots... brick tanked sentinels are the only ones that are really viable on a LAV turret.

shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2137	Posted - 2014.05.16 13:52:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This is something I've heard a lot from people in the past, definitely one change that we're looking at trying out. One thing I didn't touch on in the OP (and I'll edit it as well) is how people see the effectiveness of small turrets. Thoughts on those? All small turrets have never been precise while the vehicle was moving. Basically this is the major problem of all the little turrets, they don't shoot where you aim. Tracer rounds for blaster turrets would help. Small rails should have pinpoint accuracy, but a lot of times, even if the reticule/dot is red, the shot can't hit the target. PSN: ogamega I'm here to bla bla bla...
ResistanceGTA D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1199	Posted - 2014.05.16 14:08:00 - [12] - Quote Thank you Arkena, I've always thought the Large Missile's should have a shotgun reload ability, heck, that's what they are in the turret world. Could we actually look into making yellow ai turrets not so WP valuable? Sure, if they're red, make them +100, but non-functioning turrets shouldn't be worth as much as an objective hack. I know you're asking about Vehicle Turrets, but, I think most people have already said what is needed. Large Blasters need dispersion, Small Blasters need a purpose, and Small Rails need to have their damage profile looked at. And, if we do look at ai turrets, the Missile variety seem to never give up attacking me no matter how far I fly, and their missiles follow me everywhere (usually someone has hopped onto them when its shooting me from 400+ meters). They need a range change. I think I'm over Dust now...
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2551	Posted - 2014.05.16 14:49:00 - [13] - Quote Large turrets should never be an effective way to kill infantry. Also, please make NPC turret installations more fearsome and tankier. They all get killed off in the first 60 seconds of the match. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 533	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:17:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This is something I've heard a lot from people in the past, definitely one change that we're looking at trying out. One thing I didn't touch on in the OP (and I'll edit it as well) is how people see the effectiveness of small turrets. Thoughts on those? Small missile - fine Small Blaster - people say 1.6 was good, absolute bollocks, they know nothing. Its it 1.4 blasters you need to return. (now they have hit detection issues, poor splash) do not introduce scattering. Small railgun - good right now but hit detection is awful just like the blaster. Veteran Pilot "Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart."

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 7615	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:20:00 - [15] - Quote Evolution-7 wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This is something I've heard a lot from people in the past, definitely one change that we're looking at trying out. One thing I didn't touch on in the OP (and I'll edit it as well) is how people see the effectiveness of small turrets. Thoughts on those? Small missile - fine Small Blaster - people say 1.6 was good, absolute bollocks, they know nothing. Its it 1.4 blasters you need to return. (now they have hit detection issues, poor splash) do not introduce scattering. Small railgun - good right now but hit detection is awful just like the blaster. He was referring to Large Blasters, not small. Haven't heard anyone say we should go for 1.6 small blasters. CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 533	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:22:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Evolution-7 wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This is something I've heard a lot from people in the past, definitely one change that we're looking at trying out. One thing I didn't touch on in the OP (and I'll edit it as well) is how people see the effectiveness of small turrets. Thoughts on those? Small missile - fine Small Blaster - people say 1.6 was good, absolute bollocks, they know nothing. Its it 1.4 blasters you need to return. (now they have hit detection issues, poor splash) do not introduce scattering. Small railgun - good right now but hit detection is awful just like the blaster. He was referring to Large Blasters, not small. Haven't heard anyone say we should go for 1.6 small blasters. Thank you for the response and by this, I hope you read that small blasters where fine pre 1.4, they are good now (not as good as 1.3 small blasters) but they have real awful hit detection issues. Veteran Pilot "Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart."

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 7615	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:26:00 - [17] - Quote Evolution-7 wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: Evolution-7 wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This is something I've heard a lot from people in the past, definitely one change that we're looking at trying out. One thing I didn't touch on in the OP (and I'll edit it as well) is how people see the effectiveness of small turrets. Thoughts on those? Small missile - fine Small Blaster - people say 1.6 was good, absolute bollocks, they know nothing. Its it 1.4 blasters you need to return. (now they have hit detection issues, poor splash) do not introduce scattering. Small railgun - good right now but hit detection is awful just like the blaster. He was referring to Large Blasters, not small. Haven't heard anyone say we should go for 1.6 small blasters. Thank you for the response and by this, I hope you read that small blasters where fine pre 1.4, they are good now (not as good as 1.3 small blasters) but they have real awful hit detection issues. Pretty much. A couple of people have also responded that the range is a bit low. Have you ever tried it out on your ADS, and if yes, do you think a bit of extra range would actually make it viable? Or is it just a losing battle as you can't shoot and scoot with a blaster. CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 533	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:34:00 - [18] - Quote Range improvements, yes please, another 30 meters would be awesome. On a side note, I have talked about this before, can the module visuals be changed server side as when my vehicles hardeners are activated, it is very obtrusive to my gunners line of fire and sight. Veteran Pilot "Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart."
ANON Cerberus Tiny Toons 702	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:35:00 - [19] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This so much. I feel the level of damage while high, isn't the issue. The damage at range is too great.
Emo Skellington The Neutral Zone 62	Posted - 2014.05.16 15:54:00 - [20] - Quote Large Railgun- Militia needs to be nerfed but keep basic where it is (to OP compared to counterparts bcuz of damage mods) Large Blaster- Militia needs to be nerfed a tiny bit but keep basic where it is also Large Missiles- Fine Small Blaster- Firing while moving needs improvment (still little UP for infantry) Possibly give Blaster a HMG type of fire but still keep it somewhat tight grouping Small Railgun- Firing while moving needs improvment (Fine on power but needs to remove overheat) Small Missile- Firing while moving needs improvment (good for both AV and infantry, keep it) Please bring back tier level tanks and ADS Just nerf the militias and bring an ADV tank and ADS in and vehicle people will love it. PS: You may also want to bring the prices of ADS down, boost the base tank price, but bring DOWN the Tank Turret prices. Supporter of Legion Supporter of Valkyrie Supporter/Fan of Eve

ratained Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:16:00 - [21] - Quote Small missle turrets on drop ships are op. Ive had pythons come into the redline and be able to pop my full proto madrugar in 10 seconds or less. The ads with missiles needs to be nerfed.
Emo Skellington The Neutral Zone 62	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:20:00 - [22] - Quote ratained wrote: Small missle turrets on drop ships are op. Ive had pythons come into the redline and be able to pop my full proto madrugar in 10 seconds or less. The ads with missiles needs to be nerfed. No the proto small missiles need to be nerfed. ADV-idk Basic/militia- no nerf needed Supporter of Legion Supporter of Valkyrie Supporter/Fan of Eve
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 82	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:22:00 - [23] - Quote A suggestion has been made to give large blaster turrets HMG dispersion and functionality. If you want, I could list the thread(s?) regarding them. I believe the suggestion was proposed by Cat Merc and someone else. This allows infantry to be more survivable while still retaining damage, as not 100% will hit.
ratained Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:27:00 - [24] - Quote Large rails also need a about 25% range buff. Right now their is no feasible way for a madrugar to kill a large missile tank regardless of what fit/turret is used.
lithkul devant Legions of Infinite Dominion Zero-Day 217	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:36:00 - [25] - Quote I will raise my objections currently against what has been said about the small rail turrets. It does not need a straight outright buff, it needs a trade off and to become more specialized, since it is similar to the small missile turret. The small rail turret does need a longer amount of shots it can fire in a row, but it also needs a longer cd bar to go along with that. Otherwise the small rail turret will become far to effective against infantry and vehicles, it already is quite powerful and can one hit kill many of the infantry, maybe a slight splash damage range buff at the cost of splash damage might be in order? The small blaster turret, this thing for LAV's is useless as it can not hit anything while going even at any speed at all. For tanks it can be useful if you can fit no other turret into your tank at the time, otherwise it is completely underwhelming in damage and in range and the accuracy isn't the best either. The small missile turret....it's cool as is, I have no real problems with it. For the large turrets now. Large Rail turret, it's close to in a very good place, it does not need the range back that it once had, but perhaphs another 50m in order to be able to fight tanks and ADS better. Large Blaster turret, I use it, but I understand how cheap this thing is, it needs to be more CQC then it currently is, especially since it can mow down infantry from over 150m currently with ease. Though to be honest it does not need to be messed with to much, just some so it isn't used to completely negate all AV measures of swarms and forge guns. Large Missile turret, Something needs to be done about this, but I'm not sure what, it just feels overpowered at times.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 704	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:44:00 - [26] - Quote It is not about vehicle turrets but installation turrets should have much higher HP, neutral ones should give no WP and AI should be nerfed or eliminated. Because, that's why.
lithkul devant Legions of Infinite Dominion Zero-Day 218	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:49:00 - [27] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: It is not about vehicle turrets but installation turrets should have much higher HP, neutral ones should give no WP and AI should be nerfed or eliminated. I can agree with you that the installation turrets need higher hp, they aren't moving they are stationary, I can agree with you that neutral ones should give no wp for a kill or reduced wp. However, AI should not be reduced or nerfed, it does need tweeking, such as it shouldn't constantly shoot an objective point for no reason. To get rid of the AI on the turret would make them useless assets to only be captured by the enemy or occassionally used and have no true defensive or offensive purpose.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15050	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:50:00 - [28] - Quote I feel all the current missile turrets be renamed to rockets; they're dumbfire munitions with no smart abilities such as passive or active locking. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Caldari Assault // Unlocked
Raedon Vo-Graza Armored Dragon Corp 17	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:53:00 - [29] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: It is not about vehicle turrets but installation turrets should have much higher HP, neutral ones should give no WP and AI should be nerfed or eliminated. i also believe that the ones that are at base should be invulnerable, but placed in more strategic locations for defense of the base only, instead of overlooking the map, until maps get bigger(which they probably won't) turrets are one of the last defenses against redlining.
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 82	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:57:00 - [30] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: It is not about vehicle turrets but installation turrets should have much higher HP, neutral ones should give no WP and AI should be nerfed or eliminated. As much as I hate installation turrets, I would be fine with an increase in health (50% at most) as long as the AI was removed. Honestly, I think that AI has no place in PvP gamemodes. In PvE, that is perfectly fine, even though we won't be getting that in Dust unfortunately... Installations should behave just as vehicle turrets do. All turrets should require reloading, but still have infinite ammunition (or just a lot of it).

Starfire Revo DUST University Ivy League 247	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:05:00 - [31] - Quote Small rails are in a good place stats-wise, but their hit detection is really weird (even when stationary). The ADS camera makes it hard to see where your shots are landing as well. When you're having trouble hitting someone, it's actually hard to tell how you should adjust your aim because of the turret blocking your view. Never had an issue with it's damage or heat mechanic that wasn't my own fault for not paying attention. Damage mods can make up the difference and let you take out dropships or even tanks if you have support. I make videos of EVE and Dust http://www.youtube.com/mrgimbleb I write about EVE and Dust http://mrgimbleb.blogspot.com
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens Final Resolution. 1857	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:12:00 - [32] - Quote I disagree with Shotgun style reload for missiles. The reasoning behind people wanting it is generally "because it goes up one shot at a time during reload" but do does a Railgun. Missile turrets are capable of instantly factor eliminating a Hardened + Plate Madrugar. I think that letting them reload half their clip in half the time to be able to do it again in the rare scenarios the target survives is a bad idea. Missiles are already the hardest counter to Madrugar builds so I believe expanding on that hard counter is a poor idea. While not to do with turrets themselves, Damage Mods for vehicles are far, far too powerful. 30% was based on 40/60 hardeners. Hardeners were nerfed by 37.5% and 33% while Damage Mods were not. For my Madrugar, my Hardener is worth less than a Damage Mod. This is a problem as it means that glass cannons are too powerful. Small Blasters are terrible. They have about as much range as a shotgun and seem to have hit detection issues. For my gunner, I have removed them in favor of a Railgun. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
JP Acuna Pendejitos Zero-Day 155	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:28:00 - [33] - Quote Small turrets: 1.-BLASTERS: Dropships: blasters are useless on dropships of any kind. As a gunner you are unable to hit infantry, same as a pilot in ADS. On vehicles the damage is too low and the shields regenerate constantly without delay, so it's not viable at all. LAV: works sometimes but: range is too short ---> Vulnerable gunner. 2.-RAILGUNS: Dropships: Somewhat useful as AV. But overheat plus reload times make it too hard to destroy vehicles considering their speed and rep/regen times. No use for anti-infantrty. LAV: Excellent for flanking infantry. The range is great, you can 1-2 hit kill almost every suit from a fairly safe distance. Also works as a support AV against other vehicles. 3.-MISSILES: Dropships: The most viable turret. Effective on both Infantry and Vehicles (equipment as well). Makes the Python the better bonused dropship. LAV: Rarely effective, only on stationary targets or from a stationary high position against a group of concentrated infantry. Not too good.
Grimmiers 546	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:30:00 - [34] - Quote I think to really fix and balance small turrets there needs to be a fix for the shots completely missing the target while the vehicle is in motion. Also it's so bad now that if you're using a missile turret on a dropship you can actually shoot yourself in the turret. Small Blasters: The small blaster just isn't fun to use because it can only be effective if the vehicle isn't moving, the splash was taken away making them unusable on dropships, and trying to destroy a vehicle with it is pretty much impossible. If a vehicle has any shields it will be invincible to a small blaster and if it's in armor the blaster will overheat/run out of ammo well before you get anywhere near killing something. The range for the blaster is much better than it was, but should be increased further. Add splash Increase efficiency rating against vehicles Increase optimal to around 80 and the effective to around 120 Increase base tracking speed to make it easier to hit targets while moving I'll also like to point out that there should be a minmatar turret that fills that spray and pray role. Small Railguns This should be the go to weapon for av, but is much better at killing infantry. It's basically a full auto charge sniper only not accurate and with less range. This is the only turret that should require a full complete stop to kill infantry. For vehicles the efficiency rating never made sense. It being a rail tech weapon and only doing around 60% damage to armor was pretty laughable. Fix the damage profile to make it better at av If you reduce the overheating you should also reduce the clipsize b]Small Missiles[/b] Small missiles are the most useful of the three. It might be too easy to kill infantry with small missiles on an assault dropship. I think the splash damage should be closer to the large missiles because the splash alone 1~2 shots most players with ease. The direct hit damage and the damage profile makes it very good at destroying vehicles. The only thing that really makes it balanced is the travel time and clip size. Lower splash damage Increase clip size That being said I can't wait to see changes to the blaster because I loved using it in the past.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1726	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:35:00 - [35] - Quote Temias Mercurial wrote: A suggestion has been made to give large blaster turrets HMG dispersion and functionality. If you want, I could list the thread(s?) regarding them. I believe the suggestion was proposed by Cat Merc and someone else. This allows infantry to be more survivable while still retaining damage, as not 100% will hit. I'm rather skeptical of adding dispersion to the large blaster. I feel like it will not do anything, or it won't have the effects you think it will. Tracking moving targets would be much easier to hit with dispersion than with the current precision, since I'd only have to aim somewhere in the range of a little in front and behind of a running infantryman to hit, whereas with precision I'd have to have my aim directly on him moving at the same angular speed as he is. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
843 Epidemic BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 1243	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:51:00 - [36] - Quote Small rails - absolutely fine from a tank/LAV point of view. I've gone 32-1 with an ADV small rail on the back of an LAV, and I play like this often. They suffer from hit detection problems occasionally but the damage to infantry is great, and the overheat is not a problem. Without being too rude if anyone finds overheat a problem it's probably their aiming. However, they could do with an increase damage to vehicles. Small Missiles - fine Small blasters - Seems to be a hit-detection problem from what I've experienced and others have said, I think that needs to be addressed. Also it wouldn't harm them to have a small blast radius, too. Brb, sister needs the TV
Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 536	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:51:00 - [37] - Quote Also, leave ADS cost where it is, increase tank prices slightly, if you decrease ADS price, just like what happened to militia DS overtime, they will be used to ram. Currently, the most effective anti-ADS is a 27k Gorgon. And if you do not heed my words. I am just saying I told ya first. Veteran Pilot "Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart."
JP Acuna Pendejitos Zero-Day 155	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:56:00 - [38] - Quote I like the idea of adding splash damage to small blasters. Buff the damage and range also and they might work from DSs.
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 870	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:58:00 - [39] - Quote The biggest issue for infantry vs tank is the large blaster turret on a tank. The rotation speed on it needs to be drastically reduced. I personally like the idea of decreasing the rate of fire on them and increasing the damage to compensate. So that tankers have to be a bit more accurate not just spam R1 and watch all infantry die. You should also increase AV grenade capacity back to 3 if you also plan on increasing how much damage they do or to say 5 if you plan on keeping the damage as horrible as it is. CCP continues to make the wrong choices, one choice at a time. aka Legion.
Raedon Vo-Graza Armored Dragon Corp 18	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:58:00 - [40] - Quote Evolution-7 wrote: Also, leave ADS cost where it is, increase tank prices slightly, if you decrease ADS price, just like what happened to militia DS overtime, they will be used to ram. Currently, the most effective anti-ADS is a 27k Gorgon. And if you do not heed my words. I am just saying I told ya first. i think that mlt tanks need their ehp cut in half, and the std's to be buffed by 10%. make a gap between them so that people don't spam the little militia craps all around. make a reason to go standard

Driftward Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 958	Posted - 2014.05.16 18:47:00 - [41] - Quote If the small blaster turrets are going to get an increased dispersion, then you need to also include an increase RoF as well as larger clip size. DPS then increases slightly due to RoF but is offset by a decrease in accuracy with increased dispersion. Increasing dispersion alone would only exacerbate the issue by decreasing DPS even more (less accuracy with the same number of "bullets")
lithkul devant Legions of Infinite Dominion Zero-Day 218	Posted - 2014.05.16 18:48:00 - [42] - Quote Raedon Vo-Graza wrote: Evolution-7 wrote: Also, leave ADS cost where it is, increase tank prices slightly, if you decrease ADS price, just like what happened to militia DS overtime, they will be used to ram. Currently, the most effective anti-ADS is a 27k Gorgon. And if you do not heed my words. I am just saying I told ya first. i think that mlt tanks need their ehp cut in half, and the std's to be buffed by 10%. make a gap between them so that people don't spam the little militia craps all around. make a reason to go standard No, 60% is way to high of an ehp gap just for being different by one step, I could support a 10-20% gap and see how that does, but a 60% no way (actually it might even be higher then 60% depending on how you do the math) The main difference between tanks should be amount of modules possible and cpu/pg from the basic stat end. Only very few of the mlt dropsuits for an example have any hp dispersion between them and proto level, the same with vehicles. Your suggestion would cause mlt tanks to be 1-3 shotted by forge guns and rail tanks, since the proposed hp would roughly be 1800-2500 with no modules added, and even after modules added would be very low. You would be having tanks with less shields then some sentinels have.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2140	Posted - 2014.05.16 18:51:00 - [43] - Quote Another thing about missilistic turrets in general, they should have a limited range and in that range 100% effectiveness, then explode. PSN: ogamega I'm here to bla bla bla...
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 220	Posted - 2014.05.16 19:31:00 - [44] - Quote Awww, here I came thinking this was a thread about tackling turrets (like tackling frigate in EVE) Hang on a second... That might not be a bad idea Back to the point. I am not really a vehicle person so I don't think I can contribute much, but what I would like is the following: (Primarily from being on the wrong side of said turrets) - Large Blaster Turret: Less effective against infantry (main HAV turrets should primary be anti vehicle) - Small Blaster Turret: Very effective against infantry, but fairly short range. What this will do is to force HAVs to bring extra seats to effectively deal with infantry, thus requiring more people to play the tank role, and less on the ground. If they want a kick ass HAV, the team have to sacrifice a few players to get it.
CMDR Girr Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2	Posted - 2014.05.16 19:58:00 - [45] - Quote CMDR Reporting. Been using vehicles for a while now, so I've been on the receiving end and I deal it out quite a bit. I'm just going to chime in, some of this is the same as others, but here we go. Large Rail: The range is decent, the reloads are realistic. Damage is very good. Splash is almost non-existent. Only time you can hit infantry for the most part is a sniper and you have a clean bead. Not sure if it needs splash at all. I get the role, so for the most part I'm happy with rail tanks. Maybe add some better fall off. In EVE if i'm using rails, I should not be able to hit anything up close. The round should fail or be weak. Missile: Only effective if you have dmg mods / prototype for the most part. Really the only time I can't get away from a missile tank is when they are skilled into it, and i'm rolling milita fitting. Main issues is that you have to spread your DMG out over the entire barrage and they miss pretty easily. And if you miss one shot, you can't even kill a militia tank. Also have had issues hitting any infantry with the missile splash. The largest issue is WHY IS THIS A LVL 5 SKILL. Blaster: Blasters are pretty great for blasting infantry and I find them to be pretty strong vs tanks as well. I like the idea of adding a little drift on the shots, this would not impact anti-vehicle much, but would cut down on the sheer precision of the gun at closer range which i find to be a little OP. Also the OPT range might be a little high. Maybe increase the turn speed on the blaster. Reasons for my opinions. Close range Rail V Blaster, should always be blaster. At range, a rail should obliterate a blaster. Notice I don't mention how missiles play into this, because no body really runs them. Small HAV/LAV Rail: Almost useless on a moving vehicle is standing still. Can be good if you have skills and sneak up on a sica or another LAV though. Missile: Good solution, range, some splash. Blaster: Not used often. Under powered, not enough spread. Might as well jump out of the LAV and use a gun. Need to be stable to use. Dropship Rail: Situational, great if you are on an open map with HAVs. Since there is little splash, you have to stand very still to hit infantry. Maybe up the splash a tad. Missile: The only real option for Dropships, gives you range, dmg and some splash. Also great on LAVs for the same reason. Blaster: Useless, never used. Under powered, not enough spread, range for a DS Commander Girr. Doom, etc, etc.
matsumoto yuichi san SVER True Blood Dirt Nap Squad. 42	Posted - 2014.05.16 20:03:00 - [46] - Quote well looking at how BF4 feels a lot more reasonable on this front 1. turrets turn slower so i can out track you as infantry if i try 2. turrets fire a lot slower so you missing matters / when they burst they have more downtime between bursts 3. turrets are not omnicient (NO 3rd person camera) 4. there are far more effective dumb fire AV options 5. vehicles have much slower acceleration and speed is overall much slower (except aircraft) so infantry has more ability to finish the engagement without the vehicle simply running 6. damaging a vehicle means more as repairing it means having an ally do so, or disengaging from combat
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 430	Posted - 2014.05.16 20:30:00 - [47] - Quote The most important thing: It might sound sensible to make large turrets weaker against infantry, (In fact, I quite like it in terms of fluff) but that essentially removes the point of tanks in the game. Both tanks in general (Why build a vehicle, that can't interact with the target layer of the game, i.e. the infantry combat, unless you man it with two people who will lose the ability to do anything else?), as well as AV tanks (Why invest into something that all tanks can counter by default, due to all main turrets being automatically AV-enabled? Let's just go infantry AV!) would have trouble finding any purpose. So I'm in favor of using turret type to determine targets - Blaster against infantry, Railguns against vehicles and Missiles somewhere in between. Missiles should be better than Railguns against infantry because of splash damage/multiple projectiles. And they should be better than Blasters against tanks due to their higher damage output and range. I like the idea of shotgun-style reload for missiles. It basically makes them the to-go weapon for when you aren't sure what will happen - You don't need to plan your reloads and you can do adequate damage against all types of enemies. Blaster and Railguns, meanwhile, should be specializations. Blaster tank against Missiles? Bad. Blaster tank against Railgun? Run away. AV infantry against Railgun tank? I hope you are in open space and have skill in crushing infantry or an overdrive module. However, this is just theory. If we give small missiles shotgun reload with no other change, we'll run into the issue that ADS are currently very lethal against infantry. A changed reload system would make them ridiculously powerful, as they'd basically have unlimited clips with slightly higher re-fire delay. So I'll let people with more knowledge than me go into specifics.
ANON Cerberus Tiny Toons 708	Posted - 2014.05.16 20:36:00 - [48] - Quote Evolution-7 wrote: Also, leave ADS cost where it is, increase tank prices slightly, if you decrease ADS price, just like what happened to militia DS overtime, they will be used to ram. Currently, the most effective anti-ADS is a 27k Gorgon. And if you do not heed my words. I am just saying I told ya first. I have been saying this for a while. +1
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10798	Posted - 2014.05.16 21:20:00 - [49] - Quote Vehicle large blaster turrets are fundamentally a problem. A large turret designed for anti-infantry (large blasters) is inherently a problem because it goes far beyond the fire power of infantry weapons, yet is designed to kill infantry. Only small turrets should be designed as anti-infantry since they are within the general effectiveness of infantry weapons. Large blasters should have higher DPS, but lower range than railguns, and also have a low ROF weapon to keep them from too easily farming kills from infantry; make large blasters more like plasma cannons. Seriously, if you can't do this for Dust, do it for Legion; Legion is a fresh start. The large blaster issue is essentially different from the vehicle vs AV balance; no matter how balanced vehicle vs AV is, it should not be possible for a large blaster to be as effective against infantry as it currently is. This is because there will be cases in which no infantry will have skilled into AV (like if everyone is a new player), and that will make them extremely susceptible to kill-farming by a large blaster tank; even in other shooter where no one on the team has AV, its never as bad because other games never have the main tank turret be so good at anti-infantry. An easy alternative would be to nerf ROF of large blasters, buff damage, and nerf accuracy. While it would be satisfactory, I don't like this solution however because i feel like the large blasters should be completely redesigned for a different role (a shorter range, higher DPS, anti-shield railgun equivalent) so it will gain a new role to make up for the removal of its anti-infantry role. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 956	Posted - 2014.05.16 22:50:00 - [50] - Quote Hey fellas(CCP), very good choice with Rattati. He is certainly one of my most liked devs, as he often demostrates a very strong understanding of the actual gameplay. It's one thing to look at things on paper; a totally different thing to actually put them to practice. But I've been itchin all day to get in front of this keyboard, as I live and breathe tanks. Vehicles in general, but tanks certainly are my baby. I've made a thread pertaining to this very subject, and have discussed with Harpyj this very thing in his own thread. Excuse me if I get a bit long winded. To start with, I understand the need for narrowing the discussion down to specific topics. But when we talk tanks, or anything for that matter, the solutions aren't always rooted solely with something like say turrets. For example, I can say that blasters are too strong, and from there deduce that they need a change because they are doing so well against infantry. But that isn't the only problem when it comes to AV and Tank interactions. If the blaster was just as effective against infantry but very easily pushed back or eliminated, we would not have a problem at this moment. So let's use a bit of caution, and take other factors into account, when we go about talking turrets, or any balancing theories for that matter. Large Blasters At first glance, I know it's rather obvious that they are just too good at killing infantry. I've seen numerous people posting about the strength and "accuracy" of these things, and concluding that the problem must lay there. I've even seen a few that declare they are far too effective against tanks! But my first question would be, WHY do these things make them so effective? When I think of a turret, I don't just imagine the turret, but the tank the turret fits to. The whole picture. So let me walk ya through a fitting scenario. Madrudger Blaster In all honesty, is that all you see when a blaster is shooting you, the turret? Yes, the turret is causing you much grief, but I feel it's more the fact that what that turret is mounted to is damn near invincible to infantry. So for instance, a madrudger is typically ALWAYS fit with a rep. A well fit one at least. Pop three on that sucker and what do you get? A lot of pissed off AV that's what. See, a madrudger has a very easy time taking AV damage, and mitigating it to 0. Add to that a very decent range with the blaster. So I can very easily sit back at a distance, using cover to break swarms (Obstructions or elevation) when needed to heal, and basically maintain a near constant presence on the field. The devs know this I know, but I think it's important to bring this up when we consider balancing the turret types. Else you nerf something else into oblivion, because you overlooked other factors that tie into balancing a particular item. (not just aimed at CCP but EVERYONE, as I've seen everyone do it, myself included) ]Any changes to a turret type MUST consider how this affects the tanks themselves - What I'm saying here, is if we consider just balancing the blaster turret, we will likely end up overdoing it (or under) as we didn't consider what would be using said turret. Will adding dispersion, or lowering the damage output, really fix the problem? While you can make it much harder to actually kill infantry with a blaster, this won't have a major affect, as often times we can take all the time we want. And in all honesty, it is very hard to kill infantry now with a blaster. Though the trick is to burst out your shots, which mitigates the kick and allows for pinpoint accuracy. As that first shot basically goes where it is aimed. A ROF nerf wouldn't change their killing power. RANGE So, now I consider what I think is the best idea going forward for blaster turrets. Reducing effective range considerably What if the blaster had a 75M optimal range and damage falloff to 125M? While we do need to address some other glaring issues, like armor reps, damage mods, ect; I think this could be a very positive change. This would in effect, force a tank to engage at distance infantry are much more familiar with. But let's think about it for a minute. -Forgegun range 300M -Swarm range 175M This shifts the advantage, as a swarm or forge gunner have a very large window to engage one before it presents a threat. Meaning a blaster tank will have FAR less time to engage an enemy that is actively trying to counter him. It gives AV the advantage, as they do work at a disadvantage to infantry, they need considering how tough a tank actually is. Not to mention the time a tank will need to actually get out of a hot zone. While fast, at such a short engagement range, their impact will be limited if AV actually presents itself, as they will still be able to target a tank in safety from said tank. (Buildings anyone?) Focused on just blaster here, but I have MUCH to say on tanks as a whole. Let me know what ya think fellas, love me some constructive criticism. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10798	Posted - 2014.05.16 23:35:00 - [51] - Quote Small blasters need more dispersion, its really hard to hi targets with small blasters because the dispersion is so low, and it requires too much precision. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 770	Posted - 2014.05.17 00:32:00 - [52] - Quote Large blasters: Way too good at AI and AV. They need to be one or the other Think about cutting it's range. The 100 meters is ridiculous. Large Rais: Very good at killing vehicles as they should be. Very good at being unreliable. Often times "phantom shots' occur where you're unable to fire your turret. This is the biggest reason I loose tank fights Could use an extra 100m range Large missiles: Very good. Would suggest the shotgun reload if possible. Small blasters: Very meh. Rails are better in every way They need more range and higher damage against vehicles Small rails: Very good. I believe they are fine as is. Small missiles: Very good. A little OP on an ADS. The splash damage buff given in 1.7 was a little too much IMO Quick note: Can you guys look into fixing the phantom shots (Rails and small rails) and the bug that prevents you from firing after activating modules? The only way you can start firing again is if you get out and back in. TDBS "Does Krin want his gun back?" - sub random nub
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 671	Posted - 2014.05.17 08:01:00 - [53] - Quote Okay so I'm gonna be bringing in my experience as both LAV Driver/Gunner and someone who frequents an Assault Dropship, the focus will primarily be on Small Turret side as a result. In another post I'll try to respond to some things brought up in the thread. Small Turrets as a whole : All small turrets need to be effective against enemy vehicles in some fashion. This includes the Small Blaster turret as there's no way to really balance the dual infantry and vehicle killing prowess of the Small Railgun and Small Missile turrets (short of giving wildly different efficiency ratings for vehicle v. infantry) without also allowing the Small Blaster to deal a decent amount of damage against vehicles as well. Small Railgun Turret I want to highlight from the outset that these turrets are glitched. Currently they have a very annoying issue in which they can sometimes fail to hit their target or the turret itself becomes "desynched" compared to the actions of the gunner. I've had instances where I've fired multiple shots into a person only to do no damage and then, as my driver runs out, the heat indicator rises and the ammo count lowers as if I'm still shooting. This can cause random overheats and cases in which my driver will report my shooting randomly with no targets around. The same issue occurs when I'm driving and I notice erratic actions of my gunner despite him reporting to me that he's not shooting anything. Glitches aside though,on the ground this turret is EXTREMELY effective on the anti-infantry front. It's a rapid fire, high damage tactical sniper that destroys pretty much anyone that thinks to go up against it. If you plan to tweak its damage against vehicles (I think it's something around 70-80% efficiency currently) then do so with the knowledge that you're making the thing very effective against both infantry and vehicles equally (like the Small Missile turret so not a huge deal). In either case I would not touch its base damage amounts, just its efficiency. DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT THESE TURRETS ARENT INFANTRY KILLING MONSTROSITIES ON THE GROUND. These are THE turrets to fit on any LAV or Tank. Its infantry killing prowess is only really seen on ground vehicles though as Dropships (especially of the assault variation) can't very effectively use these turrets due to the pin point accuracy required. It sort of devalues the Incubus as a Dropship one should spec into because its only really effective against other vehicles. In the long term I'd consider releasing a Small Railgun (or Blaster as the problem is there as well) turret variation with smaller direct damage but a large splash radius in order to be more effectively used in the air and against infantry. Small Blaster Turret : Has little to no point on the battlefield. A turret completely outclassed both in the air and on the ground by the Small Missile and Small Railgun turrets respectively. Even if one specced into the Ion Cannon + Prof. level required to be able to be effectively used at its effective range one would still almost always be better off using a Railgun instead because they do MORE damage at LONGER ranges. It's almost the exact mirror of the situation of the original Rail Rifle's/Current Combat Rifle release compared to the Assault Rifle. It's a situation I've brought up multiple times among my LAV crew, a Small Blaster Turret LAV driver has to get much closer and expose their gunner to more inherent danger in order to do LESS damage than the Small Railgun turret would have done from afar. So from the outset - Buff its damage. It's the one turret that sincerely needs it. Beyond that though you still have a problem with the turret itself being only truly useful against one type of enemy on the battlefield. It's too specialized next to the Railgun and Missile turrets that can easily take on both Vehicle and Infantry equally. The Small Blaster turret can't be coordinated with other players to take out a tank, it can't be used to drive off a Dropship and so long as shield regen can't be turned off based on damage dealt over time the damage that a Small Blaster can put out will never be enough to take out any vehicle that has an existing, unbroken (as in the regen hasn't been stopped) shield buffer. So in the short term what would also need to be done is for its efficiency against vehicles to be increased as well, perhaps even to the point where its doing 100% against both infantry and vehicle like the Small Missile and the proposed change to the Small Railgun, but in the long term we need to look at potentially messing with vehicle shield regen not being able to be stopped based on damage dealt over time and with multiple projectiles vs. a single powerful hit. Small Missile Turret Not super effective on the ground due to their increased difficulty of making use of splash damage on a horizontal plain / difficulty in getting direct hits against opponents but pretty much the end all be all turret for anything related to Dropship turret selection. If the above buffs are considered I would only advocate for a Small Missile variation with a high projectile speed and perhaps reduced splash as something that would make it more viably used on Ground vehicles against infantry.
Hakyou Brutor G0DS AM0NG MEN 629	Posted - 2014.05.17 13:34:00 - [54] - Quote I usually make TL;DR posts but this time I'll make it short and sweet: Add variation to turrets. i.e. Scattered Ion Cannon, XT-1 Accelerated Missile Launcher, Compressed Particle Cannon. This isn't really a turret, but it highly affects it, damage amplifiers. Change Railgun & Missile to 15% damage increase and Blaster to 25% or 20%. Small turrets need better hit detection in ADS', as of now only missiles have good hit detection for infantry. Give railgun turrets 75% of the damage they do now, but 450 meter range. Make blasters do 70% of damage to infantry, and 100% to other vehicles. Large Missiles- useless against infantry, add more splash radius. That is just some of my thoughts. GÇ£War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.GÇ¥ GÇò George Orwell
God Hates Lags The Last of DusT. 1134	Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 - [55] - Quote This may be a bit off from what you're thinking, but I can't stress enough how broken turret installations are right now. Their auto aim blows through infantry like they're nothing, but tanks eat them for breakfast. - Turret Installations need to be a dynamic, more permanent part of the battlefield, rather than just free war points for tanks. - Turret Installations need a sizable HP increase, up to that of a CRU or Supply Depot. - Turret installation auto aim on infantry should be reduced in effectiveness as should turret ability to aim down. - Turrets should be easier to hack than to destroy, making them a key strategic component on the battlefield that tanks fear and infantry can capture. This is critical to preventing vehicle dominance while also making them viable. Tankers need infantry to keep turrets off them. Infantry need tanks for area control and pushing up. This given and take needs to be essential to how turret installations operate. I don't know if this is hotfixable. If not keep it in mind for legion. Because right now turret installations are useless to anyone other than the tanks destroying them or infantry unlucky enough to get killed by overzealous auto aim. Turret installations should be a crucial party of the battlefield landscape. Not just an add on that gets destroyed in the first thirty seconds. "Look what I destroyed in two days" Kane Spero
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 746	Posted - 2014.05.17 22:44:00 - [56] - Quote Weekly Statistics DUNA2002 - 2,637 kills, 9 deaths Milkman1 - 1,271 kills, 62 deaths Shadow of War88 - 462 kills, 6 deaths (Wonder which turret these guys use?) Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
DUST Fiend Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 14360	Posted - 2014.05.17 23:06:00 - [57] - Quote Stop pilot skills from stacking on small ADS turrets, or make it so gunners only add 50% of their skill (max 75% RoF bonus, instead of the current 100%), and please keep looking at the Dropship side gun glitch that pulls the aim from the operator when pointing towards the front of the ship.
anaboop NECROM0NGERS Caps and Mercs 81	Posted - 2014.05.18 07:31:00 - [58] - Quote Large rails should have increased cpu or pg usage, especially on militia and or a separate damage mod that increases it by less then 30% Fully sick Anaboop trading card
Cardio Therapy Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 19	Posted - 2014.05.18 09:58:00 - [59] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I feel that large missile turrets should have a shotgun style reload, but I don't think that's a server side change. (?) On small turrets: Small missile turrets are the best atm, for both anti-infantry and AV. Especially on assault dropships, where they're basically the only option. Small railguns are mostly in a good place but I'm baffled as to why there's an overheat on them. It would excel in a focused AV role except overheat stops it being able to sustain the damage output long enough to kill vehicles. I'd like to see these as the best small turret for pure AV. Small blasters aren't really very good. They're just kind of... lacking. You can't really use them on an assault dropship, if you're going to use them on an LAV it's more effective (and safer) to get out and use a rifle, and if you're going to use them to gun on an HAV there are better things to do with that player. One thing I don't like about small turrets in general is their use on LAVs. They're overly difficult to hit targets with whilst moving and if you're stationary the gunner can get killed very, very easily. I'd like to see a frontal shield on LAV gunners - that way they're still very vulnerable if you flank them but if you attack them head on they can actually be dangerous. Though again that's not really a server side change... Shotgun style reload for missiles is interesting, might actually be possible serverside. I'll look into it. I think I've heard from some people on the forums that small rails have reduced damage against vehicles (?!), so we'll look at that first. I think the overheat is there more to limit it against infantry, so maybe we need to just give it a boost in damage against vehicles anyway. Small blasters are the one I'm most worried about for the small turrets. Not really sure where to start with them personally, I think someone else had some ideas. Still interested to hear some ideas from people on how to make them better in an anti-infantry role, with at least some ability to tickle vehicles. It would be nice to have them as a viable option for dropships against infantry. make the small blaster turrets shoot like HMG but double the range. it will be very usefull agains infantry.
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1519	Posted - 2014.05.18 11:30:00 - [60] - Quote Large Blaster Turret Perfection:: Semi-auto Fire High Damage Rounds Moderate ROF (around the speed of the breach SCP) Moderate Heat Build-up 25-35 Round Clip Allow charged shots (like with the Ion pistol) The blaster turret would, imho, be best as a semi-auto turret that fires high damage rounds. You would have to place shots in order to kill infantry as opposed to spamming rounds into doorways and spawn points for free kills, and the turret should overheat after 15 consecutive shots (making heat management a big deal). Allow charged shots (I'm thinking 300-400% damage increase, but debateable) so you can deal massive damage with a single round when needed, rewarding good aim with a guaranteed kill when in the proper range of your target, but punishing bad aim with a huge heat build up after the shot is fired (not instant overheat, but around 3/4 overheat build-up). This would, in my view, make the large blaster turret perfect. It would reward skilled pilots regardless of SP level and make the large blaster a tool that finally requires some skill. ~ 2 year AV vet PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 MAG Vet ~ Raven R.I.P.~ Dust, R.I.P.~ MAG

Magnus Amadeuss Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 1063	Posted - 2014.05.18 16:55:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Hey guys So on our list of things to look at, vehicle turrets are pretty high on our list. We've got some ideas floating around but we also wanted to hear from you guys as well. We're looking first at the Large Blaster Turrets, especially against infantry, but we're open to thoughts on vehicle turrets in general both against infantry and vehicles (though focusing on the first one more at the moment). Another thing I'm interested to hear from you guys is your thoughts on the effectiveness of small turrets. Please try to be concise and to the point with your feedback, bullet points are easier to digest. If you've got a thread running already, feel free to link to it in your post, but don't copy paste your entire thread to here. It always irked me that large turrets maintained the 100% effectiveness against infantry. This means that basically these supper large turrets have the same damage precision as small turrets and handheald weapons, and that just seems very wrong. For instance, the large blaster fires out balls of plasma that must be quite larger than the small turrets and plasma rifles, but yet this large ball of plasma still entirely hits the much smaller infantry. I think that while small turrets should definitely maintain 100% effectiveness against infantry, larger turrets should have reduced effectiveness. This is similar in mechanics to how large turrets work in eve, as the larger signature profiles of the weapons make hitting smaller targets much more difficult. Of course no such mechanic exist in Dust 514, but a reduced effectiveness would aptly correlate with it. This would also increase the usefulness of small turrets on tanks, as these small turrets are more focused on managing smaller targets. As far as small turret balance goes, it is pretty obvious that small missiles are just to powerful from the skies. This is due largely to their splash damage. I think if you were to reduce this the small missile turrets would be more balanced. Fixing swarms
ratained Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.05.19 03:15:00 - [62] - Quote Small turrets cant be effectively fit on tanks due to their high cpu/pg usage. How about we stop nerfing madrugars and gonlogies. I mean our hardeners are already trash in competitive games such as pc. Ads rules the field with their over power missile turrets that can kill tanks in the red lines in 10sec or less. Increase hardener effectiveness. Reduce small missle damage. Nerf the milita tanks so they arnt as prevalent. And give the madrugar about 50 more cpu so that one of the high slots can actually be used without forcing cpu extenders into the low slots.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 296	Posted - 2014.05.19 03:29:00 - [63] - Quote ANON Cerberus wrote: shaman oga wrote: Blaster damage is fine, precision and range are way too high. 1.6 dispersion and range were fine, imo. This so much. I feel the level of damage while high, isn't the issue. The damage at range is too great. Edit - - Small Missiles - Good. - Small Rails - Situational at best. - Small Blasters - very Under Powered. Suggestions: - Small Missiles - Good (Leave as they are) - Small Rails - More damage, less overheat - Small Blasters - More range, possible HMG style spread so you can actually hit things while moving? (Think less firing rounds in a straight line and more spread shot like a HMG if possible?) As a side note, Shooting from moving vehicles with any small turret is very hard as the projectiles seem to not shoot where they are aimed and are 'carried' by the movement of the vehicle. has anyone seen the ridiculousness of small rail vs infantry? a gunnlogi with two of them is a stone wall vs infantry. you can two shot heavies. ive cleared out a whole team in under 10 seconds because my gunners popped everybody in sight. you cant run and you cant come out from cover. its the only turret that when i hear the rounds flying i RUN inside and stay there til the guy shooting leaves.
Ground Zero420 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1	Posted - 2014.05.19 10:37:00 - [64] - Quote nerf firing distance of blaster tanks. No reason why they should be able to kill a swarm guy from a distance they can't even be locked-on at. Spartan mk420
MINA Longstrike 770	Posted - 2014.05.20 01:40:00 - [65] - Quote I'm mostly a dropship user, my skills aren't really super-invested in dropships as I wanted to branch out and do a little bit more but here are my thoughts on on the various turrets. Large blaster : Its RoF is probably a bit too high, and its range and precision are definitely too much. I'd cut the ROF by about 33-50% and increase the damage comparably - so it has the same DPS but its far less 'spray and pray' against infantry. Large missile : Its damage is very, very burst oriented - you either instantly kill the vehicle you're fighting, or you lose the fight. I'd prefer to move it a bit closer to the old missiles by lowering the rate of fire (.25 instead of .15) allowing it to reload missiles passively (at about .45 secs after the missile is fired), this essentially makes it an unending torrent of missiles, I'd also lower the damage a bit on it because of this. The aoe is also way too small to even bother trying to using it against infantry. Large rail : This thing is honestly just ***ing overpowered, with how it scales with damage modules and its terrifyingly impressive range (STILL!) a proto turret with 2 or 3 damage mods hits for something between 2700 damage and 3600 damage per shot, its rate of fire is really just way, way too high and it carries a boatload of ammo in every magazine. It can either keep the damage or lose rate of fire, or it can lose damage (a large chunk, about 400 per shot) and keep the RoF. Small missiles : Currently this weapon overperforms a bit when fitted to dropships, allowing it to splash infantry to death, it has really good direct hit damage, great splash damage and aoe range, it fires reasonably fast and it makes a very, very good generalist weapon as it doesn't require extended amounts of time on target to get kills versus infantry. Against other vehicles however it has some (small) quality of life problems - Dropship and tank HP is too high / regenerates too fast to get a kill unless you've got python 5, damage mods and passengers with turrets. I would slightly* buff direct hit damage, reduce splash damage a bit (splash range is fine) and either give it a larger magazine capacity or cause ammo modules to increase magazine capacity. Should probably have the slowest turning speed of the turrets in exchange for seemingly being above average everywhere else. Small rails : Most people agree that this weapon is best when fitted to an LAV for use as a bit of a sniping tool, as when traveling at high speeds it always seems to miss for some reason. It does reduced damage to vehicles currently, the differences in damage between tiers are a little bit too big, and the overheat mechanic really prevents it from performing in what seems to be its actual role of AV. Overheating really, really needs to go on this weapon - it is really holding it back, it needs its damage profile looked into as it should be ripping apart vehicles... the 200m range is probably fine, its lack of splash damage makes it more or less functionally useless against infantry when fitted to a dropship, if you have time to line up your shots though like in a stationary LAV it's essentially having a vehicle mounted thales sniper. Needs slight improvements to turret rotation speed. Small blasters : Low damage, Low range, Laser like precision, Low ammo, Bad damage profiles, Cannot even stop vehicle shield recharge, awful targeting reticule. I want to like this weapon, but in its current state it's just awful on dropships or on LAV's. To function properly, its reticule and dispersion should be more like the HMG's, its damage needs to go up a little bit, it could really use splash damage (something like 1.5m for half dmg), it should have much better base rotation speed and its ammo in magazine / ammo carried needs to be significantly improved (it drains too quickly and carries far too little). Overheat again holds this weapon back. When fitted to a dropship this thing should be a GAU-8, when fitted to a LAV it should be the best damn anti infantry turret in the game. Potential bugs: The turret rotation speed skill doesn't seem to be applying to any turrets. Small gripe: The incubus' singular high slot really holds it back from being able to 'hunt' other dropships as almost all of them carry an afterburner and in order to do any actual damage the incubus requires a damage module on its railgun. Ammo expansion modules should maybe have a subgroup that increases the amount of ammunition stored in the magazine. I think that just about covers it. A lot of it is just spitballing ideas, but I think that some of the large weapons need adjustments (or nerfs), small missiles need some slight tweaking and small hybrid turrets need buffing. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1341	Posted - 2014.05.20 08:32:00 - [66] - Quote Large blaster turrets should deal reduced damage to Vehicles; maybe a 20% penalty. Nothing that could make it so it can't fight back but enough to stimulate them being used as an anti-infantry specific weapon. Rails and missiles have a hard time killing infantry and are excellent at killing tanks but the Large Blaster Turret is an incredible asset as Anti-infantry and Anti-vehicle. Tankers should have to choose which area they want to be more proficient in. In this manner you balance the turret role towards what it's meant to do without nerfing it's damage potential towards that role. It's a turret who's main role is Anti-infantry and second role is Anti-vehicle. Right now it good at both; it would be good to have them have to choose as other turret type users have to choose what they want to be good at killing. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1341	Posted - 2014.05.20 08:35:00 - [67] - Quote DAMAGE MODS In the same way that I can only fit one afterburner or one fuel Injector, damage mods provide too much if a benefit to permit 2 or more to be equipped. I believe it's either limit to only one damage mod or slash the bonus by Half to compensate for unbalanced use. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Tesfa Alem ACME SPECIAL FORCES RISE of LEGION 126	Posted - 2014.05.20 08:36:00 - [68] - Quote I think the Large blasters are not OP vs infantry. I fail to see the deifference in going 15-0 in a blaster tank is OP yet 40-2 in a proto suit isn't. The only times where i see them disporportionally really tear infantry to shreds is in ambush, where the one side has a little cover on a really small map with broken smart deploy and a limited ability to call in vehicles to counter the marauding Blaster tanks. Infantry are put in a bad place before the match has started. It wasn't that blaster turrets were effective v. infantry , that causes people to spam them, its because Soma's became so cheap to run. Now i see a current trend towards Railgun Madrugars, bringing out a blaster is much more risky in Domination and Skirmish. Nerfing large turret accuracy may help a bit, but over all you must look at the use of Large blasters in general. Damage ought to stay the same, its harder fighting rail tanks that can 3 shot you than most people think. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1342	Posted - 2014.05.20 10:40:00 - [69] - Quote READ THIS THREAD PLEASE Here is a link to a thread I made about fixing small blaster turrets. This method avoids having to tamper with damage, fix hit detection issues or modify current aiming mechanism. In short the Fix is to remove overheat. Before agreeing or disagreeing, please read the the thread which contains the reasoning behind this simple change. CCP Logibro wrote: Hey guys Another thing I'm interested to hear from you guys is your thoughts on the effectiveness of small turrets. Please try to be concise and to the point with your feedback, bullet points are easier to digest. If you've got a thread running already, feel free to link to it in your post, but don't copy paste your entire thread to here. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 544	Posted - 2014.05.20 16:04:00 - [70] - Quote Also, aside from my blaster comment, there is a issue with small missiles as well. Before 1.8 you could have all gunners shoot directly forwards without taking damage from the missile is it were to hit the side of the ship. Video evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4opd_L8EoO0 Now, after 1.8 your gunners take damage when firing forward if the small missile hits the ship. Video evidence: http://youtu.be/zEPJX3k_WG0?t=1m44s Happens to both gunners http://youtu.be/zEPJX3k_WG0?t=5m1s Right gunner is taken down, if you go frame by frame you can see the missile exploding as the shot is fired then you can see the health of the gunner going down. I had reported this earlier at the start of 1.8 but it all got swallowed up under the cloak and scout AND heavy QQ. Fix this ASAP CCP, it is completely intolerable to limit my gameplay because of a silly issue. Legion on PS4 "Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart"

Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 105	Posted - 2014.05.21 03:42:00 - [71] - Quote first release the other turrets and vehicles on turrets the rate of fire on the rail is to fast for the amount of alpha is does. I don't even know why I bother.
Artemis Kaiba Shadow Broker Wet Squad 47	Posted - 2014.05.21 03:57:00 - [72] - Quote About 20GJ Blasters, i think there are many ways to tweak them. Right now, aiming issues and low damage output make them unpopular. The first idea may be to increase RoF. This would add more flexibility about their use. Another idea would be to add some aim assist mechanic, even though many players may not lie it. My last idea : the precision could be reduced in order to get those blasters a feeling more like a HMG.
The-Errorist 690	Posted - 2014.05.21 04:28:00 - [73] - Quote {Part 1/3 Turret roles and traits} Small turrets don't really have much of a role and the idea that a blaster is AI, a railgun is AA, and a missile is in between is oversimplified and blurs too much the roles of what a large and small turret should be. Here's what I think the roles and qualities the two turret classes should be: [Large turrets] Best for taking out large targets Worst for taking out small targets Slowest RoF Smallest splash radius Slowest tracking speed [Small turrets] Best for taking out small targets Worst for taking out large targets Highest RoF Highest splash radius Highest tracking speed With this plan, large blaster wouldn't be the most effective turret to kill infantry; then role slaying infantry and small vehicles like LAVs, would be reserved for small turrets. Here are the types, styles, and traits the turret types should follow. Blasters: Brawler Best turret in fast paced close range engagements Highest tracking speed Highest tracking speed Highest damage per minute Lowest heat cost per shot Lowest accuracy 2nd in dispersion Lowest splash radius & damage Missiles: Hit and run Best turret at medium-to-long range Slowest projectile speed 2nd in tracking speed 2nd Highest tracking speed Highest dispersion 2nd in accuracy Highest splash radius & damage High RoF Smallest magazine size 2nd in tracking speed High burst damage No damage drop-off Railguns: Sniper Best turret at long range engagements Low damage drop-off (currently has none) Highest alpha damage High burst damage Highest heat cost per shot Highest accuracy No dispersion 2nd in splash radius & damage Lowest tracking speed Slowest reload speed Lowest damage per minute {Part 2/3 Rebalancing turrets} [All turrets] Damage difference between tiers The damage gap between tiers is too big and its only consistent for large hybrid turrets. Anyway here are the stats: Large railguns: increase by 217.5 dmg between tiers and that's a 15% of Sta. Large missiles: increase by 83 dmg (20% increase) from Sta->Adv and increase by 41.5 at Pro which is 10% of Sta. Small missiles: increase by 70 dmg (20% increase) from Sta->Adv and increase by 35 at Pro which is 10% of Sta. Large blasters: increase by 15.75 dmg between tiers and that's a 15% of Sta. Small blasters: increase by 7.6 dmg (20% increase) from STA->Adv and increase by 3.8 at Pro which is 10% of Sta. In comparison, Infantry weapons increase by a flat 5% (except for a few weapons including the swarm launcher) and the difference between prototype and standard is 10%. The damage difference between tiers for turrets however, is very large and it's only consistent with large rails & blasters. The damage difference between standard and prototype is a huge 30% which 3x of a percent increase compared to what prototype infantry weapons get. I think it would be best if the damage boost between tiers was a flat 10% damage increase from standard which would give us a 20% difference between prototype and standard, fix the general problem of there being too much of a power gap between standard and prototype, and fix the unwanted diminishing returns effect when upgrading turrets. MAG vet, Dust closed beta vet, and an alt of Velvet Overkill (infantry) & Agent Overkill (vehicle).
The-Errorist 690	Posted - 2014.05.21 04:29:00 - [74] - Quote {Part 2/3 Rebalancing turrets} Continued To achieve the things I outlined above, these general things would need to be done and concerns I and some others feel: [Small turrets] A major problem with small turrets is that they have never been accurate while the vehicle was moving and a lot of times they don't shoot anywhere near where you aim. This is very noticeable for small turrets which should have pinpoint accuracy, but a lot of times, even if the reticule/dot is red, the shot can't hit the target; this even happens when stationary and especially on uneven ground. Another problem small turrets have is that they're too slow; they need to have a noticeably faster rotation speed compared to large turrets for them to be on any use on moving vehicles. Against installations and other vehicles, small turrets have a damage penalty and for small blasters, it huge; that penalty needs to be reduced and it should not discriminate against rails, missiles, and blasters. The penalties against vehicles & installations should like the following: Small turrets Full damage penalty against infantry -10% against installations, LAVs and dropships -20% against HAVs For more information on how much damage small turrets deal visit these threads: Pre: 1.8 thread (locked) Post 1.8 thread (also locked) [Missiles] They are the most balanced turret in game. Having shotgun like reload for missiles would be awesome, but they would need to be rebalanced (dmg, RoF & reload speed) so that they wont become OP; if that can't be done, don't add it. [Railguns] Damage profile All railgun turrets have, in-game, have a damage profile of +10% damage to shields and a -10% damage to armor which is backwards; the damage profile has been wrong since beta. Its weird that large railguns (I haven't tested small ones that much) don't have a damage falloff and do full damage at their maximum range. They would also need at most a 100m range buff too if this was done since they would be doing far less damage at higher ranges (also because it feels like the range is a tad too short already). [Range] The hotfix over nerfed the excessive range which railguns had and didn't address an equally if not worse set of problem: for starters, railguns don't have a damage drop-off and do full damage at their maximum range which doesn't make any sense. Railguns need around 100 or 150m of their range back and they need to have fall-off damage so their role as a long range sniper turret isn't messed up. [Reload speed] Another problem all railguns share is that they have the same reload speed as blasters which makes their damage per minute too high in comparison to blasters which are supposed to have the best dpm. For the best alpha damage turret, to have the 2nd best burst damage per second, in addition to the best damage per minute, just screams overpowered. Large railguns They need a combination a small RoF reduction with a reload speed increase (and small rails too) and maybe a heat cost per shot increase. Their damage per minute is way too high (~32k while a large blaster has ~23k), the interval between shots is to high, and as I said above, they have the same reload time as blasters (6s), which is way too many pros for a sniper rifle like turret. [Blasters] Damage per minute is fine, but their accuracy, and precision are too high; with a little less, they wouldn't need pinpoint railgun aim to effectively damage targets the way the should. This would make large blasters less effective at longer ranges and at the same time make small blasters easier to work with. Large Blasters Their RoF is too high; a RoF reduction, and a direct damage increase (like the old compressed/breach variant) would make it still a useful turret, but not seem like the most OP infantry slaying gun ever in modern gaming history and prevent them from being able to easily kill people when they're past in the swarm launcher's lock-on range. Small blaster In addition to the general blaster problems and efficacy problem against vehicles above, small blasters have an awful targeting reticule, have too little reserve ammo, and they overheat too quickly, making the worst turret ever. They need an aiming reticule more like an HMG, they they really need splash radius back, lower heat cost per shot, and its reserve ammo capacity improved. I used to use blasters on my ADS against infantry when they had a splash radius and it was pretty fun for me and my gunners for a short while; it was good enough to get several kills and scare away other vehicles, but wasn't as effective as it should be. The changes above would make them fun and actually useful for something, even on a dropship. MAG vet, Dust closed beta vet, and an alt of Velvet Overkill (infantry) & Agent Overkill (vehicle).
The-Errorist 690	Posted - 2014.05.21 04:30:00 - [75] - Quote {Part 3/3 Other issues} [Vehicles] All vehicles classes should not share the same damage-to-stop-shield-recharge/Shield Impairment Dmg threshold; tanks should keep theirs at 102, dropships should have theirs a little lower, and LAVs should have theirs even lower, so that a small blaster at it's optimal range would be able to stop an LAVs shields from regenerating. This makes sense since small turrets are supposed to be effective against small targets, large turrets are for large targets, and it wouldn't be make sense if a large blaster can stop shield regen on a tank. but a small blaster can't stop shield regen on an LAV. Turret pitch Gallente tanks still have a greater range of motion than caldari tanks, making them even better for any turret. Just try and see how low you can aim a railgun on a soma compared to a sica. LAVs To also bolster small turret use, there would need to be more protection for gunners either by giving them a frontal shield or maybe even a bit of damage resistance if that client-side change isn't possible. I would very much like shotgun style reload for missiles, it makes lots of sense just like the recent ability to individually fire missiles. Though it sounds cool, missiles would need to be rebalanced so that they won't be overpowered, especially for an ADS, it would be a nightmare to have to go against an ADS with lv5 reload skills that is seemingly able to fire missiles nonstop as infantry. [Installations] Turret installations get destroyed in the first minute of the match and don't get to serve any tactical value because of how squishy they are and they need to be easier to hack then to destroy, not the other way around. They need at least 3k more HP to serve any purpose on the battlefield. Turrets installations need to have the same stats as their standard vehicle turret counterparts and benefit from the gunner's skills like for turret rotation and reload speed. The AI is too smart sometimes and can target you when not aggressed and you're far away from it. Large missile installations They can hit targets all the way from your ground spawn area all the way to the enemy MCC, and the reload speed is pretty high which makes it way OP against dropships. MAG vet, Dust closed beta vet, and an alt of Velvet Overkill (infantry) & Agent Overkill (vehicle).
nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:45:00 - [76] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I feel that large missile turrets should have a shotgun style reload, but I don't think that's a server side change. (?) On small turrets: Small missile turrets are the best atm, for both anti-infantry and AV. Especially on assault dropships, where they're basically the only option. Small railguns are mostly in a good place but I'm baffled as to why there's an overheat on them. It would excel in a focused AV role except overheat stops it being able to sustain the damage output long enough to kill vehicles. I'd like to see these as the best small turret for pure AV. Small blasters aren't really very good. They're just kind of... lacking. You can't really use them on an assault dropship, if you're going to use them on an LAV it's more effective (and safer) to get out and use a rifle, and if you're going to use them to gun on an HAV there are better things to do with that player. One thing I don't like about small turrets in general is their use on LAVs. They're overly difficult to hit targets with whilst moving and if you're stationary the gunner can get killed very, very easily. I'd like to see a frontal shield on LAV gunners - that way they're still very vulnerable if you flank them but if you attack them head on they can actually be dangerous. Though again that's not really a server side change... Shotgun style reload for missiles is interesting, might actually be possible serverside. I'll look into it. I think I've heard from some people on the forums that small rails have reduced damage against vehicles (?!), so we'll look at that first. I think the overheat is there more to limit it against infantry, so maybe we need to just give it a boost in damage against vehicles anyway. Small blasters are the one I'm most worried about for the small turrets. Not really sure where to start with them personally, I think someone else had some ideas. Still interested to hear some ideas from people on how to make them better in an anti-infantry role, with at least some ability to tickle vehicles. It would be nice to have them as a viable option for dropships against infantry. here's just a general idea since the dps is so low vs vehicle, why not just add a small explosive damage vs vehicle only as well. other then that honestly they are completely useless in the game all around. well they are hybrid so really not sure, cause that would fall under a min gun, maybe a burst effect like a small flux just hit it for an extra 25 hp towards shield per bullet. love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.
Grimmiers 560	Posted - 2014.05.21 19:33:00 - [77] - Quote Oh I forgot one more important thing about turrets. Add a deadzone to the vehicles movement affecting where the turret is aiming. If a vehicles is turning slowly the turret should still be aiming at the same angle while quicker turns will would mess up the gunner's aim. Halo vehicle turrets work like this for a reference point, only I wouldn't want the lav to be able to do 360 spins while the gunner's horizontal angle never changes. This would probably alleviate some of the problems with turrets being so inaccurate.


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.