DUST Search - Fixing Small Blaster Turrets; The easy and efficient way

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Fixing Small Blaster Turrets; The easy and efficient way

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1342	Posted - 2014.05.20 10:38:00 - [1] - Quote THE THING ABOUT SMALL BLASTER TURRETS This is a quick intro and I will skip to the important part as soon as possible. The feedback I am going to post about is specifically about Small Blaster turrets. Small missiles turrets and small rails are exactly where they need to be right now and, If I am not mistaken, I don't think anyone has a problem as to how they work/function/feel in the wild. Missiles work excellently against anti-infantry and rails are an excellent support weapon VS vehicles. Blasters on the other hand are lacking in both departments and here is why: PROBLEMS AIMING MECHANISM: The little dot and laser like fire makes it a very temperamental turret to use since it requires almost inhuman dexterity to keep the small blaster turret on target from a moving vehicle. DPS: The DPS of the small blaster turret is less than that of it's tiered assault rifle meaning that the player would literally be better off getting out and using his light weapon. SUSTAINED FIRE: None of the above would be of particular effect if the weapon was capable of sustained fire. The current overheat of the weapon, in conjunction to the other two points, does not permit it to function properly as an Anti-infantry/support weapon. HIT DETECTION ISSUES: This weapon is heavily riddled with hit detection issues that hinder it's ability to deal proper damage. Coupled with overheat and a punishing aiming mechanism, this weapon does not give the player a chance to apply it's already lacking DPS. SIMPLE SOLUTION ************* REMOVE OVERHEAT *********** Quote: We must take into account that since the aiming mechanism is so punishing and hit detection so problematic, removing overheat will not have a significant increase in damage potential but just give the gunner more time to try and apply it. Quote: That being said, not having overheat brings yet another balancing aspect. The player will lose more ammo, hence he will have to leave the battlefield to restock on ammo more frequently. Giving the enemy team a chance to regroup. REASONING Removing the overheat mechanism is by far the best option for making the blaster turret viable, Keeping current balance and preventing power creep. Since most of it's problems lie in damage application due to punishing mechanics and bad hit detection, giving the player time to correct for gunner and server errors while firing the weapon seems like the way to go. This will not only compensate for for it's current flaws but will also better emulate the weapon which it shares it's DPS stats with, although DPS is a bit lower for the blaster turret. Below is a detailed list of how eliminating overheat would compensate for it's punishing mechanics while maintaining it balanced: AIMING MECHANISM: By being able to fire for longer, read till the clip runs out, the gunner will be able to compensate for his mistakes instead of getting overheated and failing to kill the target. DPS: By not increasing the damage of the weapon we avoid power creep. Since overheating was hindering applied DPS, not having overheat would, in theory, augment the DPS of the weapon by giving the gunner more shots to throw at his opponent. We must take into account that since the aiming mechanism is so punishing and hit detection so problematic, removing overheat will not have a significant increase in damage potential but just give the gunner more time to try and apply it. SUSTAINED FIRE: While sustained fire will increase, we must also take into account that DPS wont. Since it's dps is slightly lower than the assault rifle of it's tier it will cause no power creep. Maintaining the reload mechanism ensures that there is a time of suspended fire. Also it is important to remember that more bullets downhill doesn't mean more damage. It simply means more time to compensate since the weapon is already horrible to shoot with. That being said, not having overheat brings yet another balancing aspect. The player will lose more ammo, hence he will have to leave the battlefield to restock on ammo more frequently. Giving the enemy team a chance to regroup. HIT DETECTION ISSUES: Again, since hit detection issues are so prevalent in the blaster turrets, having more shots downhill creates a statistical increase in possible hits eliminating the need for hours of searching for the cause of hit detection issues to be able to fix t. Hit detection issues in and of themselves play a vital balancing role on the weapon, in this minimalistic plan to create balance while saving as much time as possible doing it. OTHER THOUGHTS I would like to reiterate that removing overheat from small blaster turrets will not cause imbalance or power creep but will serve to increase functionality. Their "hard to use nature" couple with having slightly less damage than assault rifles will make it so that they are competitive but not overpowered when compared to it's rail and missile counterparts. I would also like to state that, increasing it's damage may lead to balancing issues due to the nature of DPS oriented gameplay. Damage increase to this turret should be done only if other balancing mechanisms fail to bring it up to par with it's counterparts Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1342	Posted - 2014.05.20 10:38:00 - [2] - Quote reserved Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 544	Posted - 2014.05.20 15:53:00 - [3] - Quote I am emphasizing this above everything else *Fix hit detection*, it is the biggest limiting factor. Also a slight range increase is good. Add the AoE damage to the normal blasters that the scattered blasters had in 1.6. Lastly, yet again before CCP even started work on legion they didn't bother testing all aspects of gameplay (1.4) 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"
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1343	Posted - 2014.05.20 18:19:00 - [4] - Quote Evolution-7 wrote: I am emphasizing this above everything else *Fix hit detection*, it is the biggest limiting factor. Also a slight range increase is good. Add the AoE damage to the normal blasters that the scattered blasters had in 1.6. Lastly, yet again before CCP even started work on legion they didn't bother testing all aspects of gameplay (1.4) You are correct but, and I might be wrong here, I think CCP are looking for easy fixes or tweaks to the numbers. Maybe fixing the hi detection might be more of a hassle than anything else and that's why I proposed this. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Ryme Intrinseca The Rainbow Effect 1226	Posted - 2014.05.20 18:49:00 - [5] - Quote Small blasters are fine as they are. In this build I've seen Grimmiers get a 38 kill game purely from small blaster gunning on an LAV with (I think) Master Herm driving. Yes it was in a lolpub, but I've never seen anyone do anything comparable with small rails or small missiles+LAV, which makes me think that small blasters are fine for those who know how to use them.
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 39	Posted - 2014.05.20 18:57:00 - [6] - Quote Good idea! Something I thought of also was to make the turrets themselves less accurate thus having more spread and fire almost like a hmg- that should then turn the reticule from a dot to a small circle- about the size of the breach shotgun- that solves aim + your idea with out buffing them- better aim and mor bullets without buff!!!
Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 545	Posted - 2014.05.20 19:09:00 - [7] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Small blasters are fine as they are. In this build I've seen Grimmiers get a 38 kill game purely from small blaster gunning on an LAV with (I think) Master Herm driving. Yes it was in a lolpub, but I've never seen anyone do anything comparable with small rails or small missiles+LAV, which makes me think that small blasters are fine for those who know how to use them. Fine on a LAV, complete **** on anything that is airborne. 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"
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 456	Posted - 2014.05.21 13:30:00 - [8] - Quote In fact, I'd even suggest removing reload as well. Make it one huge ammo pool capable of a huge amount of sustained fire. Lower the overall ammo pool for this, though. It could be a good suppression weapon. Fire for an entire minute, to scare everyone into staying indoors. ...Then again, the low damage might make that worthless against heavies with HMGs, at least for LAVs.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 1334	Posted - 2014.05.21 16:01:00 - [9] - Quote Thanks for the feedback, it came at a good time. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens Final Resolution. 1877	Posted - 2014.05.21 16:46:00 - [10] - Quote I think even with Small Blasters not overheating, the ridiculous hit detection issues makes it ill-equipped to do the job it was meant to do. My Gunner could not hit a single thing with the Blaster, going full auto spraying bullets he was lucky to get an assist. I had an easier time killing Infantry at close range with my Large Railgun with meat-shots than he did. I swapped to the Railgun, which hurt my defense because of the higher CPU cost, and suddenly he is killing stuff. He is getting headshot after headshot. I asked him about it: "The Blaster didn't do anything if I was directly over someone. With the Rail, if I am on someone and I fire I hit them." The Blaster has short range, low damage/DPS, and hit detection issues. The first one is acceptable, the second makes little sense considering the first, and the third simply kills the weapon. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"

Grimmiers 560	Posted - 2014.05.21 19:10:00 - [11] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: I think even with Small Blasters not overheating, the ridiculous hit detection issues makes it ill-equipped to do the job it was meant to do. My Gunner could not hit a single thing with the Blaster, going full auto spraying bullets he was lucky to get an assist. I had an easier time killing Infantry at close range with my Large Railgun with meat-shots than he did. I swapped to the Railgun, which hurt my defense because of the higher CPU cost, and suddenly he is killing stuff. He is getting headshot after headshot. I asked him about it: "The Blaster didn't do anything if I was directly over someone. With the Rail, if I am on someone and I fire I hit them." The Blaster has short range, low damage/DPS, and hit detection issues. The first one is acceptable, the second makes little sense considering the first, and the third simply kills the weapon. It's definitely hard to use, but I managed to get 40+ kill games in with a blaster in 1.8. It hits like a hmg laser when you're able to track and kill stationary targets. If they can fix the hit detection while moving it could a nice hit and run tool.
Ryme Intrinseca The Rainbow Effect 1237	Posted - 2014.05.21 19:33:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Thanks for the feedback, it came at a good time. Not against an adjustment of some sort but tread carefully. Removing overheat would be a massive buff, and ammunition supply is no serious limitation (an LAV can get to a supply depot and back in a matter of seconds). Infantry is dominated by vehicles right now, straight up buffs for vehicle-carried anti-infantry weapons will only make things worse. Especially considering the small blaster is already devastating in the right hands (see Grimmier's post above).
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 671	Posted - 2014.05.21 20:34:00 - [13] - Quote Umm ... no. No. Look closely everyone, this is what happens when you try to make a point without providing numbers to back up your case. Removing the Small Blaster turret's overheat won't address the fundamental problem with the turret in the slightest as the problem is not in aiming detection or sustained fire or hit detection issues (the latter point the Small Railgun in particular also deals with) but almost entirely in its DAMAGE. So let's compare Small Railgun vs. Small Blaster in a MLTv.Proto standoff. Data taken from the 1.7 Devblog. The spool up time of the Small Railgun is .7 seconds so it takes that long for the Small Railgun to charge up and fire its first shot, every subsequent shot after that point has a .5 second delay. The Small Blaster has no spool up and a .1 second delay between every shot. So from cooldown to when the Small Railgun fires its first shot the Small Blaster will have fired 7 shots to the Small Railgun's 1. Let's compare the damages in a situation where every single Blaster shot hits its target (lol) vs. the charge up and first release of a Small Railgun shot. MLT Small Blaster - 7 Shots * 38 damage per shot = 266 damage dealt MLT Small Railgun - 1 Shot * 290 damage per shot = 290 damage dealt PRO Small Blaster - 7 Shots * 49.4 damage per shot = 345.8 damage dealt PRO Small Railgun 1 Shot * 377 damage per shot = 377 damage dealt So EVEN ACCOUNTING for the longer spool up time the Small Railgun turret is out damaging the Blaster from the very first shot on a gun that has over twice the effective and optimal ranges. The comparisons from that point get worse when the fire interval on the Small Railgun is decreased to .5 seconds per shot after its longer spool up time. THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY THE SMALL BLASTER IS USELESS. The Small Railgun is an OBJECTIVELY better Anti-infantry weapon than the Small Blaster is and does MORE damage at TWICE the ranges involved, even in situations where you're landing every single shot. To illustrate my point further take this comparison - MLT Railgun v. PRO Blaster after 3 Railgun shots or 1.7s (.7 spool up time + .5s +.5s) total time elapsed PRO Small Blaster - 17 Shots at 49.4 damage per shot = 839.8 damage dealt MLT Small Railgun - 3 Shots at 290 damage per shot = 870 damage dealt So the Militia Small Railgun beats the PROTOTYPE Small Blaster's damage output after only the third shot. Removing the overheat does not address this massive discrepancy. If you're going to suggest this then it absolutely needs to be done so along with a buff to the Blaster's damage. Regarding some of your other points, they seem to be a bit outdated. Small Railguns are just as if not more effective on the anti-infantry front (on the ground) than they are on the anti-vehicle front and the DPS comparison between Assault Rifles and Blasters is no longer applicable since 1.8 addressed TTK.
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 789	Posted - 2014.05.21 21:19:00 - [14] - Quote if the small blaster turret could fire forever without worry of overheat. i still think itd be useless. id rather take the blaster turret off that mount and use my hmg instead. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere... dust 514 shall be eternal. pve for dust 514
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1352	Posted - 2014.05.21 23:52:00 - [15] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Umm ... no. No. Look closely everyone, this is what happens when you try to make a point without providing numbers to back up your case. Removing the Small Blaster turret's overheat won't address the fundamental problem with the turret in the slightest as the problem is not in aiming detection or sustained fire or hit detection issues (the latter point the Small Railgun in particular also deals with) but almost entirely in its DAMAGE. So let's compare Small Railgun vs. Small Blaster in a MLTv.Proto standoff. Data taken from the 1.7 Devblog. The spool up time of the Small Railgun is .7 seconds so it takes that long for the Small Railgun to charge up and fire its first shot, every subsequent shot after that point has a .5 second delay. The Small Blaster has no spool up and a .1 second delay between every shot. So from cooldown to when the Small Railgun fires its first shot the Small Blaster will have fired 7 shots to the Small Railgun's 1. Let's compare the damages in a situation where every single Blaster shot hits its target (lol) vs. the charge up and first release of a Small Railgun shot. MLT Small Blaster - 7 Shots * 38 damage per shot = 266 damage dealt MLT Small Railgun - 1 Shot * 290 damage per shot = 290 damage dealt PRO Small Blaster - 7 Shots * 49.4 damage per shot = 345.8 damage dealt PRO Small Railgun 1 Shot * 377 damage per shot = 377 damage dealt So EVEN ACCOUNTING for the longer spool up time the Small Railgun turret is out damaging the Blaster from the very first shot on a gun that has over twice the effective and optimal ranges. The comparisons from that point get worse when the fire interval on the Small Railgun is decreased to .5 seconds per shot after its longer spool up time. THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY THE SMALL BLASTER IS USELESS. The Small Railgun is an OBJECTIVELY better Anti-infantry weapon than the Small Blaster is and does MORE damage at TWICE the ranges involved, even in situations where you're landing every single shot. To illustrate my point further take this comparison - MLT Railgun v. PRO Blaster after 3 Railgun shots or 1.7s (.7 spool up time + .5s +.5s) total time elapsed PRO Small Blaster - 17 Shots at 49.4 damage per shot = 839.8 damage dealt MLT Small Railgun - 3 Shots at 290 damage per shot = 870 damage dealt So the Militia Small Railgun beats the PROTOTYPE Small Blaster's damage output after only the third shot. Removing the overheat does not address this massive discrepancy. If you're going to suggest this then it absolutely needs to be done so along with a buff to the Blaster's damage. Regarding some of your other points, they seem to be a bit outdated. Small Railguns are just as if not more effective on the anti-infantry front (on the ground) than they are on the anti-vehicle front and the DPS comparison between Assault Rifles and Blasters is no longer applicable since 1.8 addressed TTK. RoF increases powerfully in the right vehicle and if damage is increased it would become unbalanced. I don't include the numbers because I already did them and as I state at least three times in the OP, it is slightly less than that of the AR. AT proto level, and you would know this if you did the math, The blaster turret has 10 damage per second more than the Duvolle assault rifle. Being troll just for being a troll gets you nowhere... I and my gunners use the blaster turret all the time. the thing is people in general don't use anything unless it is obviously good and they don't have to work for it. So yes, i did the numbers and the scalability of it's damage was the reason i did not advocate for a damage increase.To be more thorough on the subject, I never said that damage should never be increased, I said damage should only be increased after everything that's wrong with it is fixed and other methods are tried. Power creep is a big problem in dust. We have to stop the cycle of buff, ner, buff, nerf by making good decisions and not simply increasing the damage of everything and anything that feels slightly sub-par Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1352	Posted - 2014.05.22 00:09:00 - [16] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: In fact, I'd even suggest removing reload as well. Make it one huge ammo pool capable of a huge amount of sustained fire. Lower the overall ammo pool for this, though. It could be a good suppression weapon. Fire for an entire minute, to scare everyone into staying indoors. ...Then again, the low damage might make that worthless against heavies with HMGs, at least for LAVs. I like this and it would work since it's dps is comparable to that of a regular AR. Just more bullets... ammo though; I wouldn't lower it, it goes away to fast... I have had matches where my gunner run out of ammo in the first minute or two of the match. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 671	Posted - 2014.05.22 03:22:00 - [17] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: RoF increases powerfully in the right vehicle and if damage is increased it would become unbalanced. I don't include the numbers because I already did them and as I state at least three times in the OP, it is slightly less than that of the AR. AT proto level, and you would know this if you did the math, The blaster turret has 10 damage per second more than the Duvolle assault rifle. I and my gunners use the blaster turret all the time. the thing is people in general don't use anything unless it is obviously good and they don't have to work for it. So yes, i did the numbers and the scalability of it's damage was the reason i did not advocate for a damage increase.To be more thorough on the subject, I never said that damage should never be increased, I said damage should only be increased after everything that's wrong with it is fixed and other methods are tried. Power creep is a big problem in dust. We have to stop the cycle of buff, ner, buff, nerf by making good decisions and not simply increasing the damage of everything and anything that feels slightly sub-par "ROF increases powerfully in the right vehicle" I'm assuming you mean the Incubus? What numbers do you have and how do they compare to the Small Railgun with the exact same ROF bonus? Not that it matters because if you're implying that the only situation in which Small Blasters are decent are in an Assault Dropship with the ADS skill leveled up then it gives further weight to the argument that they need to have their damage buffed regardless. If all you're going to do in this post is claim you've done the math and seen the numbers without taking the time to display them then the discussion can't move forward from this point. I think I've made a pretty compelling argument as to why the buffs that you mentioned in your thread alone would be insufficient in making the Small Blaster worth using and you've done nothing to address the fact that Small Railguns get a higher DPS with twice the range available to them. If that fact alone wasn't the most damning to any argument that tries to buff the Small Blaster without touching its damage then I don't know what is. There's nothing inherently wrong with tweaking the numbers of different weapons when the situation calls for it either, in this case it does. You tweak until the point where the balance is right, we're beta testing for Legion at this point so we might as well get this all cemented now rather than later.
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws Proficiency V. 1353	Posted - 2014.05.22 03:54:00 - [18] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: XxGhazbaranxX wrote: RoF increases powerfully in the right vehicle and if damage is increased it would become unbalanced. I don't include the numbers because I already did them and as I state at least three times in the OP, it is slightly less than that of the AR. AT proto level, and you would know this if you did the math, The blaster turret has 10 damage per second more than the Duvolle assault rifle. I and my gunners use the blaster turret all the time. the thing is people in general don't use anything unless it is obviously good and they don't have to work for it. So yes, i did the numbers and the scalability of it's damage was the reason i did not advocate for a damage increase.To be more thorough on the subject, I never said that damage should never be increased, I said damage should only be increased after everything that's wrong with it is fixed and other methods are tried. Power creep is a big problem in dust. We have to stop the cycle of buff, ner, buff, nerf by making good decisions and not simply increasing the damage of everything and anything that feels slightly sub-par "ROF increases powerfully in the right vehicle" I'm assuming you mean the Incubus? What numbers do you have and how do they compare to the Small Railgun with the exact same ROF bonus? Not that it matters because if you're implying that the only situation in which Small Blasters are decent are in an Assault Dropship with the ADS skill leveled up then it gives further weight to the argument that they need to have their damage buffed regardless. If all you're going to do in this post is claim you've done the math and seen the numbers without taking the time to display them then the discussion can't move forward from this point. I think I've made a pretty compelling argument as to why the buffs that you mentioned in your thread alone would be insufficient in making the Small Blaster worth using and you've done nothing to address the fact that Small Railguns get a higher DPS with twice the range available to them. If that fact alone wasn't the most damning to any argument that tries to buff the Small Blaster without touching its damage then I don't know what is. There's nothing inherently wrong with tweaking the numbers of different weapons when the situation calls for it either, in this case it does. You tweak until the point where the balance is right, we're beta testing for Legion at this point so we might as well get this all cemented now rather than later. Blaster turret RoF is 514 ( a troll on CCP's part) They do not by any means need the same damage ( DPS) as small rails because they are not the same thing. That being said I have had my gunner in grimsnes and they where still viable. Of course they are not "The best" and they sure as hell are no combat rifle. This is the problem in the game. Everyone wants an easy weapon to use. We use that weapon good in any ship. Believe what you want but there something that you must be doing wrong. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
THUNDERGROOVE The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance 783	Posted - 2014.05.22 07:38:00 - [19] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Small blasters are fine as they are. In this build I've seen Grimmiers get a 38 kill game purely from small blaster gunning on an LAV with (I think) Master Herm driving. Yes it was in a lolpub, but I've never seen anyone do anything comparable with small rails or small missiles+LAV, which makes me think that small blasters are fine for those who know how to use them. Yes and Grimmiers has better aim than 95% of people I've seen play DUST. If you've used the small blasters since 1.7 you would know the hit detection is horrible. TDBS Fight heavy spam with plasma cannons!
Glyd Path Nec Tributis 68	Posted - 2014.05.22 11:16:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Thanks for the feedback, it came at a good time. Project Legion is going to have missile turrets! Wow, who would have thought. We dust mercenaries know they don't work though as they are based on the broken dust turrets. Dust turrets have a hilariously expensive failure rate so you might have someone look into that before the next crowd of bug reports start to flood in from legion's direction. Nobody at CCP cares because we ain't Legionnaires.

Glyd Path Nec Tributis 68	Posted - 2014.05.22 11:19:00 - [21] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: cut legion suggestions There are no client updates planned for dust. All client work is for the currently not approved project legion on PC. So, try to find a legion forum for your next set of missives. Nobody at CCP cares because we ain't Legionnaires.
Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 301	Posted - 2014.05.22 11:45:00 - [22] - Quote +1 for the great posting format and good reason. However i disagree about the power of small railgun turrets. They take so much CPU & PG that they deprive the shield tank of a secondary defense measure. They also require manpower to operate and its hard to justify their fitting cost, ISK cost and the cost of the crew. Hotfix alpha promised a buff to small rails. I hope it is a substantial buff to help offset all the negatives of using small turrets. & justice for all
Grimmiers 587	Posted - 2014.06.11 16:14:00 - [23] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Small blasters are fine as they are. In this build I've seen Grimmiers get a 38 kill game purely from small blaster gunning on an LAV with (I think) Master Herm driving. Yes it was in a lolpub, but I've never seen anyone do anything comparable with small rails or small missiles+LAV, which makes me think that small blasters are fine for those who know how to use them. Shh... let them buff it...

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2499	Posted - 2014.06.11 16:53:00 - [24] - Quote It is quite buffed in Bravo, let's see how it pans out. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp Covert Intervention 545	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:36:00 - [25] - Quote It's good in bravo, but it is still quite difficult to hit a target while moving, I'm not sure how to fix that, but that seems to be the problem. I've tested it on the top of tanks and LAVs I havnt tried on dropships. -Sincerely --The Dual Swarm Commando
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1296	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:31:00 - [26] - Quote 1. Keep overheat. It is a good limiting factor for my other points. 2. Add dispersion. Enough that 90% of shots will land on a heavy suit at 60m. This will help kill, as you won't need so much precision, which makes no sense on a close combat rapid fire weapon. 3. Add splash damage. Even a miss can deal a small amount of damage to infantry. 4. buff damage. the standard should have DPS on par with the Boundless HMG, and then go up from there. Small blasters should be THE BEST at killing infantry. The small blaster should be an HMG on major steroids. This gives tanks a big incentive to make room to fit small blasters. The reason we hated fitting them and begged for the ability to drive without them in 1.7 was because of how terrible they are. They should be looked at as an asset, not as a detriment. That's what you get!! - DA Rick

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2540	Posted - 2014.06.11 22:56:00 - [27] - Quote bl Alena Ventrallis wrote: 1. Keep overheat. It is a good limiting factor for my other points. 2. Add dispersion. Enough that 90% of shots will land on a heavy suit at 60m. This will help kill, as you won't need so much precision, which makes no sense on a close combat rapid fire weapon. 3. Add splash damage. Even a miss can deal a small amount of damage to infantry. 4. buff damage. the standard should have DPS on par with the Boundless HMG, and then go up from there. Small blasters should be THE BEST at killing infantry. The small blaster should be an HMG on major steroids. This gives tanks a big incentive to make room to fit small blasters. The reason we hated fitting them and begged for the ability to drive without them in 1.7 was because of how terrible they are. They should be looked at as an asset, not as a detriment. 2 and 4 are done, while overheat reduced a little for longer sustained fire "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 1445	Posted - 2014.06.11 23:42:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: bl Alena Ventrallis wrote: 1. Keep overheat. It is a good limiting factor for my other points. 2. Add dispersion. Enough that 90% of shots will land on a heavy suit at 60m. This will help kill, as you won't need so much precision, which makes no sense on a close combat rapid fire weapon. 3. Add splash damage. Even a miss can deal a small amount of damage to infantry. 4. buff damage. the standard should have DPS on par with the Boundless HMG, and then go up from there. Small blasters should be THE BEST at killing infantry. The small blaster should be an HMG on major steroids. This gives tanks a big incentive to make room to fit small blasters. The reason we hated fitting them and begged for the ability to drive without them in 1.7 was because of how terrible they are. They should be looked at as an asset, not as a detriment. 2 and 4 are done, while overheat reduced a little for longer sustained fire CCP i'm glad you took some extra time to check the mechanics of the small blaster turret before including the buff in a hotfix. I hope that my feedback was at least some help and didn't land you in the wrong aspects of buffing the weapon. I have to be honest in that I was fearing it becoming overpowered by a direct damage buff and in consequently it becoming nerfed again. This has actually been the most active I have seen developers in DUST interacting directly with the community about game mechanics. it actually got me making videos again. Thanks guys Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1063	Posted - 2014.06.12 01:02:00 - [29] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: . . . OP POST . . . Wholly agreeing on every point of problem and symptom mentioned. Not sure about the fix, the removal of overheat. As I read your reasons, they made sense, so maybe. But what people said about small blasters being inferior on all counts nevertheless, that is likely to be true. :-S
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1063	Posted - 2014.06.12 01:04:00 - [30] - Quote Evolution-7 wrote: I am emphasizing this above everything else *Fix hit detection*, it is the biggest limiting factor. . . . We may have to accept federation contr.... Erm, hit detection being unfixable for the time being. :-S


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2556	Posted - 2014.06.12 03:28:00 - [31] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Evolution-7 wrote: I am emphasizing this above everything else *Fix hit detection*, it is the biggest limiting factor. . . . We may have to accept federation contr.... Erm, hit detection being unfixable for the time being. We are making the dispersion and shooting mechanism much closer to the HMG, so that will help a lot on hitting infantry. And we didn't remove heat cost, just reduced it to make it less of a nuisance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1307	Posted - 2014.06.12 08:52:00 - [32] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Evolution-7 wrote: I am emphasizing this above everything else *Fix hit detection, it is the biggest limiting factor. . . . We may have to accept federation contr.... Erm, hit detection being unfixable for the time being. We are making the dispersion and shooting mechanism much closer to the HMG, so that will help a lot on hitting infantry. And we didn't remove heat cost, just reduced it to make it less of a nuisance. A question. At what range is it intended to engage? It should be MGs 40m at any rate. That's what you get!!* - DA Rick
MINA Longstrike 860	Posted - 2014.06.12 09:27:00 - [33] - Quote Would you look at adding in say .5m to 1m splash range for half damage? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 2415	Posted - 2014.06.12 11:47:00 - [34] - Quote MMMMMmmmm.... New Scout hunter?
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3482	Posted - 2014.06.12 15:43:00 - [35] - Quote Small blasters have a fire interval of 0.07, which comes to 857 RPM; at a current damage of 45.6 damage per shot for the Neutron blaster (it's the one I have fitted at the moment) that rounds out to about 651 DPS (disregarding decimals) which comes out to pretty reasonable damage. I would have thought that rather than buffing RoF (especially so dramatically, to 0.05 or 1200 RPM) reducing overheat dramatically was the way to go; it will now have a DPS of 912, which is kind of obscene; it'll actually be superior to the HMG except insofar as you can't strafe with it. Not that you can really strafe all that much with a heavy, but even so. (EDIT: There are two reasons I'm pretty certain that 857 is the right RoF. First, in 1.6 the large and small blasters had a listed RoF of 428 and 857 respectively, and there was no evidence they changed that. Second, the large blaster has an interval of 0.14 at the moment, which rounds out to 428 anyway. The audio doesn't seem to have changed either, the way it did when they buffed HMG a little (although I might be misremembering at this point.)) CCP Rattati Best Dev Sorry, Blowout...
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 1454	Posted - 2014.06.12 17:38:00 - [36] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Small blasters have a fire interval of 0.07, which comes to 857 RPM; at a current damage of 45.6 damage per shot for the Neutron blaster (it's the one I have fitted at the moment) that rounds out to about 651 DPS (disregarding decimals) which comes out to pretty reasonable damage. I would have thought that rather than buffing RoF (especially so dramatically, to 0.05 or 1200 RPM) reducing overheat dramatically was the way to go; it will now have a DPS of 912, which is kind of obscene; it'll actually be superior to the HMG except insofar as you can't strafe with it. Not that you can really strafe all that much with a heavy, but even so. (EDIT: There are two reasons I'm pretty certain that 857 is the right RoF. First, in 1.6 the large and small blasters had a listed RoF of 428 and 857 respectively, and there was no evidence they changed that. Second, the large blaster has an interval of 0.14 at the moment, which rounds out to 428 anyway. The audio doesn't seem to have changed either, the way it did when they buffed HMG a little (although I might be misremembering at this point.)) It's interesting because if the numbering is decimal you get the current RPM which would make you correct 100 centiseconds = 1 second .07 = 7 centiseconds 100/7 = 14.28 rounds per second 14.28*60 seconds = 856 rounds per minute But if you use the sexagesimal system you get a very interesting result and one that greatly resembles it's actual dps output .07 of a second = 7/60 = 8 rounds (8.57 rounds) per second = 514.285 rounds per minute or 514 rounded. Now this is interesting because the game is Called DUST 514 and the TTK with small blaster turets does resembled that of the AR so I am more inclined to believe that CCP used the sexagesimal system in order to produce an easter egg of some sort. EDIT: Any DEV want to clarify? Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2605	Posted - 2014.06.14 10:58:00 - [37] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Small blasters have a fire interval of 0.07, which comes to 857 RPM; at a current damage of 45.6 damage per shot for the Neutron blaster (it's the one I have fitted at the moment) that rounds out to about 651 DPS (disregarding decimals) which comes out to pretty reasonable damage. I would have thought that rather than buffing RoF (especially so dramatically, to 0.05 or 1200 RPM) reducing overheat dramatically was the way to go; it will now have a DPS of 912, which is kind of obscene; it'll actually be superior to the HMG except insofar as you can't strafe with it. Not that you can really strafe all that much with a heavy, but even so. (EDIT: There are two reasons I'm pretty certain that 857 is the right RoF. First, in 1.6 the large and small blasters had a listed RoF of 428 and 857 respectively, and there was no evidence they changed that. Second, the large blaster has an interval of 0.14 at the moment, which rounds out to 428 anyway. The audio doesn't seem to have changed either, the way it did when they buffed HMG a little (although I might be misremembering at this point.)) It's interesting because if the numbering is decimal you get the current RPM which would make you correct 100 centiseconds = 1 second .07 = 7 centiseconds 100/7 = 14.28 rounds per second 14.2860 seconds = 856 rounds per minute But if you use the sexagesimal system you get a very interesting result and one that greatly resembles it's actual dps output .07 of a second = 7/60 = 8 rounds (8.57 rounds) per second = 514.285 rounds per minute or 514 rounded. Now this is interesting because the game is Called DUST 514 and the TTK with small blaster turets does resembled that of the AR so I am more inclined to believe that CCP used the sexagesimal system in order to produce an easter egg of some sort. EDIT: Any DEV want to clarify? ROF is 1/fire interval60seconds. DPS is 1/fire interval*DMG (but that's the theoretical maximum for non-full auto rifles) Sorry, Ghaz, your theory while entertaining, is not something we designed "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3512	Posted - 2014.06.14 11:05:00 - [38] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: YOU GOT DEV'D (okay, I apologise, but I couldn't resist :P) EDIT: looks like I forgot to post actual math in my thing. Apologies again. Usually I just go '60/0.07=857.whatever' though :P CCP Rattati Best Dev I gots to stop making 3am posts...
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 14478	Posted - 2014.06.14 11:31:00 - [39] - Quote @Ghaz It's a conspiracy! You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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