I've been saying this for a year.
(This is the first time I haven't seen Spkr's pitiful attempts at logic included.)
With the absolute Range now nerfed on Railgun and Missile Installations, why the hell not?

More drops in OMS (at least 100%). Please.

Installations are 3 shots from my FG and yield 100 WP. A Supply Depot takes my entire ammo cache, yet only yields 50 WP. CRU Destruction should be 100 WP (minimally) because of its high HP and importance on the field.

you know i never though there was a functional brain inside ccp until i saw you. yes i think this is a great idea..one i have been for for a long time. although i would also like to note

that rail gun installations have more range than rail tanks also they're ai is incredibly strong if your going to buff the ehp to make it take some serious time to kill them you should make they're offensive abilities more similar to the tanks.

i think blaster installation ai could be buffed they are pretty weak..i would like to see infantry not running right at the red blaster installation without it even trying to kill em

Good point. I think this was raised before 1.7, but nothing ever came of it, because CCP Messia- I mean Rattati hadn't come along. The first part I definitely agree with and I mostly do for the second: but what about Projectie and Laser weapons? There are no Installations that use that damage profile - use the nearest? So Laser at Blaster, Projectile at Rail?

Large Missile installations, missile projectile has a range of 2,000m which is longer than the longest map. When just the AI missile turret locks on you, they will stay locked on you the entire game and spam missiles half way across a map and not stop. So not infinite range but no difference.

The way i see it is like this...

1.You buff the HP of turrets to the point similar to a Supply depot. This is so that they start to become fairly relevant.
2. Then give them the militia grade or basic grade Vehicle weapons with everything from range and damage that comes with it. This should stop them from having too much range and put them on a similar par to tanks.
3. I would suggest having different type Turrets for different functions tailoring positions accordingly. Keep Rail and Blaster Turrets the same (but with more HP), then have missile turrets slightly weaker but with increased angle of attack so that they can actively engage dropships. I like the idea of Assault dropships not being able to solo Missile Turrets but having to carry a team to storm it, dropping in then hacking or demolishing. Blaster and Rail Turrets would then have limited effect against dropships.
4. Increase Remote explosive efficiency against turrets to counter increased HP.
5. Apply Vehicle damage WP system for Turrets making them inline with tanks.
6. Get rid of all Red Line Turrets.

As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.

I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue.

I agree that a assault dropship should eventually be able to take out a missile turret on its own but it would have to spend a bit of time doing it. If it was not maned then the turret would defend itself in the normal way they do now, causing the ADS pilot to move and therefore make it more challenging. It would therefore be more efficient to hotdrop a small squad in. Either that or coordinate attacks so that scouts take out all AA (missile) turrets before going in with ADS to transport, harass, take out other turrets, which wont be able to shoot up, and generally do your thing.

This as you say would not be possible without either (preferably both) getting rid of all turrets in the red line or changing turret weapons to the same stats as basic vehicle weapons.

However i completely disagree with the ideology that by using those ridiculous XT-1 missiles, you should be able to take out and have free rain at destroying all targets from tanks, infantry and turrets with only having to worry about the occasional group of AVers.

Yes, Litany... you're identifying a tricky thing with Dust 514. We console players are "WICKED", we rapidly detect patterns or glitches in the sessions of a game title, grin to ourselves, and EXPLOIT IT faster than a duck can poop! (Someday, I'd like to find out if PC players are as good at finding 'exploits' in their games as consolers are in ours...could be interesting data).

I THINK (could be wrong) that CCP would want small-turrets (vehicle-mounts) and large-turrets (not to be confused with what we call installations) to always be two slightly overlappng species.
In the small-turret species, there really isn't a drastic champion in range or EHP, because the type of moving platform we choose to fit them on substantially effects how lethal each one ends up. (I think when most players say the XT-1 missile is the "best" turret, they're really just responding to the fact that it's the only turret type that will forgive you for mounting it on the back of a drunk-bucking bronco bull, and will still get reasonable kills for you while you're sloshing around. LOL) .

In the large-turret species, there tends to be an argument that the RAIL is the best turret to mount on your HAV as soon as you can afford it. (The large-blaster and large-missile heads MAY be something most vehicle players resort to because they don't have the ISK/SP to fit the good Rails yet, or because sometimes you just want a "disposable" turret on your HAV).

I suggest treating the "installation" as a distinct THIRD species. Since it's something that (for now?) is not bought or fitted in the game by PLAYERS, like the HAV/Lav/DS turrets, it has a right to be given its own distinct stats that don't need to overlap or relate much to say the HAV's stats.

To deter stand-off sniping, keep the range of any Installation type substantially LONGER than the its HAV (large-turret) version. This would give it an advantage over the HAV turret weapon. (The HAV turret weapon already has an advantage over the Installation by being MOBILE on the map).
Hence, the BLASTER installation would have a noticeably longer reach (range) than the Blaster-turret an HAV driver could buy.
The MISSILE installation would have a longer reach than the HAV's Missile-turret, and the RAILGUN installation longer reach than the HAV's large-Railgun turret.
This way the HAV will always have to risk itself in order to "snipe" most installations.


(This would reinforce MY personal feeling about choosing to use installations and vehicles in a fight: if you want to stay way in the back-edge of the map and sniper at folks with the biggest non-handheld weapon you can find, you ought to be allowed enough reach to kill the enemy 3-fifths across the map, but only harass/frighten/suppress an enemy at 4-fifths distance, and NEVER be able to touch reds at the other end of the football field. If you want to DESTROY someone that far away and stay out of retaliatory reach, only a true sniper rifle should give you that privelege---the rest of us should be foreced to step in closer and risk getting killed in return, if we want to be a merc).