| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
TEBOW BAGGINS
Defenders of the Helghast Dream
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
1071
   |
Posted - 2014.06.29 02:06:00 -
[91] - Quote
they can already hit very hard vs vehicles when they are supported, it's not easy to blow one up when theres other AV near it
AKA Zirzo Valcyn
|
Lynn Beck
EnvyUs.
1963
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 02:41:00 -
[92] - Quote
TEBOW BAGGINS wrote:they can already hit very hard vs vehicles when they are supported, it's not easy to blow one up when theres other AV near it
in a dream game mode we would push domination points to a final complex where super turret exist
XD the super turret.
35million HP railgun, instablaps everything with 3,000,000 direct, splash of 1300Dmg/45msplasj
32 v 1 battle go!
General John Ripper
-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.
This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation
|
Vitoka79 from SVK
ACME SPECIAL FORCES
RISE of LEGION
102
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 04:45:00 -
[93] - Quote
The hp buff is a good idea.But thats not enough i think.First of all we shouldn't be rewarded with wp's when destroying a neutral turet.And we need some wp reward when the turet we hacked kills an enemy infantry or vehicle.
DUST 514 open market?Rest in pieces...
|
Sylwester Dziewiecki
Interregnum.
316
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 05:26:00 -
[94] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Jerricho Lionheart wrote:Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.
Seeing that there is NEVER going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.
Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.
I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter.
Problem of installations always consist in how quickly they can switch side and became extremely dangerous. Yes, they are dangerous that's why everyone is destroying them at the beginning of match. It has nothing to do with they EHP, they are silent-killers - if you will let blueberry to hack them, he will not defend them from enemy hack, when they are red and you retreat next to them with 25-35%HP left you are dead. No one uses them because they get destroyed as soon as you do, if a scout doesn't put one in your head. Make them worth defending and people might defend them.
BS, people always will value more null-cannons over some stable installation that will not blowup they MCC from the sky. Beside, there was always a crowd of people here on forum raging on snipers that play no contribution to they own team - if this buff will go through, and players will start to effectively use installations we will have bunch of even worst snipers, because none on current installation are place so they can camp terminals directly.
Thats why I think that buffing installation without other changes is bad idea.
I propose that we remove option to hack them, and bound them to team that holds null-cannon in they closest proximity - if someone will start the process of hacking null-cannon, defense system of installations is disable temporarily, as soon as hack is finish all installations is switching to defend that n-c. It will annihilate problem of unexpected silent-killers, and at the same point will make job of gunner more safe(because no one will come to hack it).
One more thing, there shouldn't be neutral installation at beginning of match. They should appear after n-c is hacked.
Nosum Hseebnrido
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
565
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 07:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
TEBOW BAGGINS wrote:it takes us 2 cycles of XT-1 turret +10% already to blow one up one more do you want,
You're saying that it takes two clips of proto missiles with 10% damage from ADS to kill a turret right now is the basis for not buffing it? Because that's nonsense. It takes me one clip at only level three ADS. Fix your logic.
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:I propose that we remove option to hack them, and bound them to team that holds null-cannon in they closest proximity - if someone will start the process of hacking null-cannon, defense system of installations is disable temporarily, as soon as hack is finish all installations is switching to defend that n-c. It will annihilate problem of unexpected silent-killers, and at the same point will make job of gunner more safe(because no one will come to hack it).
One more thing, there shouldn't be neutral installation at beginning of match. They should appear after n-c is hacked.
I really like this idea, though what if hacking them didn't turn them, but instead disabled them until an enemy reenabled it by rehacking it/the null cannon changes hands? Reduce the WP gain from the action, but I think indirect options (ie, not just damaging/destruction) should be available. |
Pvt Numnutz
Watchdoge Explosives
1577
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 07:31:00 -
[96] - Quote
Just had a thought and thought I might spit ball it here.
What if turrets didn't exist on the battlefield until the objective or installation its protecting is hacked?
Eg, team deploys and moves to E. once E is hacked the turrets for E are deployed (like in OMS) either blue or neutral. Same would go for turrets around CRU's.
Edit: maybe also have an eve like aspect of putting objectives into a reinforce period after a hack where a certain time elapses before fresh turrets are dropped by the warbarge allowing defenders the chance to wrestle back control beforemore turrets are dropped. This would keep turrets as a threat even after they are destroyed keeping everyone alert to the strength of objectives defenses and provide a deterrent to vehicles for those unskilled in av.
Thoughts? |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
639
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 09:32:00 -
[97] - Quote
Jerricho Lionheart wrote:But I think a high EHP buff, almost brain-dead AI, a nerf to missile range, and an increase to WP for destroying as well as assist points for damage would be a solid balance to start with. I really, REALLY hope they don't get removed. The last thing this game needs is to become LESS dynamic. Very good points, however I'm not sure I support an increase in WP for installation destruction.
This question really boils down to just how much of a buff the installations are going to receive. When the ehp is doubled turret destruction is still a matter of ~15-20 seconds with next to no resistance. Hardly worth more than 50 WP. If it is a bigger buff then it's going to be tough work chewing through all these installations, warranting a bigger reward of course.
Just consider that, if installations actually respawn, this may distribute a lot more WP than right now.
My preferred scenario would be a doubling in ehp through 50% resistance to damage, making them respawn after 5 minutes of being destroyed, no WP for neutral installations, 50 WP for destruction and finally fixing missile turrets.
Depending on just how large the buff is this change will lead to a significant change in playstyle. Scouts will consider installations prime targets for switching and squads will regularly check on the status of strategically important installations when defending an outpost. That's why I prefer smaller changes rather than big ones with difficult to predict consequences. There will likely be a hotfix delta, so if the first step isn't big enough just fix it again the next time around. |
manboar thunder fist
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 11:29:00 -
[98] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:manboar thunder fist wrote:I think you'll find it takes a railgun tank 4 shots to destroy an installation, whereas an installation still deals original "UNNERFED" damage to tanks. If a tank is in a battle, a railgun installation will definitely turn the tide.
The missile installation can successfully deter ADS and hot drop pilots all day.
The blaster is a good suppression turret and can annihilate infantry and LAVs as well as dropships in the right hands.
Buffing the HP of installations would result in more people camping in them, even people repping them.
This would make the game slower paced, more frustrating and "campy" Damage: sure, let's fix that. That's just numbers, hardly something that requires a rewrite of the Internet. Missiles: Yes, they can deter them, but they still have restricted elevation. The only issue is, as I mentioned earlier, the infinite range. Once that gets dealt with, Missile turrets will be dangerous to the incautious DS pilot, but will be able to be dealt with still. Blasters: With the dispersion changes, it's primarily AV, which is fine for the most part. It's still dangeorus to infatntry though. Camping them? They're still vulnerable to Scouts running up and Knifing/Shotgunning them in the back, hacking them and switching its allegiance. On a turret, you're hal blind. If your squad is supporting you, then it's a lot less about the turret and more about OP Teamwork!! As far as slower paced is concerned, I'm all for it: Dropships gain relevance, by being used to actually transport people, something lacking in our currently small and very fast paxed battles. Tanks have a purposes by distracting and/or destroying installations to push paths for their infantry, then taking on the role of a mobile turret to support them further. In other words, it gives HAVs a purpose, something they are lacking right now. People would need to be more cautious with moving about in the open: this is an FPS trying to relate a high-tech warzone, it should be dangerous out there! As for frustration: why would a turret be any more frustrating than a fuill proto squad stomping your face in? At least if you grab an installation, you'll be able to hammer THEM! Really, I don't accept your complaints.
Damage: Rewrite of the internet? didn't write an essay last time i checked, simply mentioned it.
Missiles: Often a struggling dropship will shrug off swarms just to be killed by a missile from a turret used by some noob in the redline 500m away. Not pretty when each one costs 500,000 isk. Imagine if the game had inbuilt remotes on your spawn, how would you feel?
Blasters: DO you even play the game?! blasters are still largely effective anti infantry weapons.
Camping: Shotgunners? Scouts? Last time i checked shotgunners don't tend to run 100m into the redline for a laugh and back out.
Slower pace: Dropships used for infantry transport? HOW ABSURD! do you even play in squads? Oh and show us where on your clone the bad proto touched you.
NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES
nerf life
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
566
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 12:09:00 -
[99] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:Damage: Rewrite of the internet? didn't write an essay last time i checked, simply mentioned it.
Yes, I used hyperbole. It is a form of emphasis. My emphasis was to show that it would be a very easy fix. Thus that your concern over the damage differences between vehicle/installations is unnecessary.
manboar thunder fist wrote:Missiles: Often a struggling dropship will shrug off swarms just to be killed by a missile from a turret used by some noob in the redline 500m away. Not pretty when each one costs 500,000 isk. Imagine if the game had inbuilt remotes on your spawn, how would you feel?
You realise I'm also an ADS pilot right? I know just how it feels to lose 500k to a random missile, how irritating it is to have to dart in and out of the redline trying to destroy them without getting tagged/redline timer ******* up.
If you read any of this thread, you should have seen myself and other advocating for reducing the impact/impulse effect of the missiles and reducing the range from infinity. Either and/or both of those would do more than enough for dropships, while the missiles would still be incredibly dangerous to them - as they should be!
manboar thunder fist wrote:Blasters: DO you even play the game?! blasters are still largely effective anti infantry weapons.
Of course, because I vaguely disagree with you I must not play. The large Blaster dispersion changes made its antipersonnel ability less effective: yes, it can still kill all stripes of enemy, which is fine. Are you suggesting that infantry/tanks/lavs/dropships/any or all of the above should for some reason be exempt?
manboar thunder fist wrote:Camping: Shotgunners? Scouts? Last time i checked shotgunners don't tend to run 100m into the redline for a laugh and back out.
Because only redline turrets matter? Sure, the redline missile turrets are annoying because of infinite range, but we're talking about fixing the range right here in this very thread! Rattati has even talked about it!
manboar thunder fist wrote:Slower pace: Dropships used for infantry transport? HOW ABSURD! do you even play in squads? Oh and show us where on your clone the bad proto touched you.
Who doesn't love straw men..?
1) Dropships are rarely used for transportation unless its a well coordinated squad. Maybe some day we could have teams working together, instead of disparate groups. Right now? Unlikely, but let's look to the future.
2) Proto stomping squads have been a blight on DUST for ages. To deny Proto stomping is an issue is absurd. Proto stomping drives away new players. I can take a lot of the proto scrubs out there one on one (a lot really are just bad and rely on their gear, not all) but stuff six running vaguely close together and it's an issue for anyone. |
manboar thunder fist
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 10:37:00 -
[100] - Quote
Do we really need free installations that are able to kill 500,000 dropships and 350000 tanks with ease?
Already a tank or dropship on low hp can be killed by any turret. Have you ever hovered a dropship where it can be shot by a blaster turret? It melts
Since these installations are free they should serve as they do... Turrets not doomsday devices
That's what AV is for.
Already people sit in the redline for the whole match. I sure will abuse the hell out of turrets.
I can already climb into a turret and easily kill tanks and people alike. All the turrets hve their roles and are in a good place
NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES
nerf life
|
|
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
848
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 11:15:00 -
[101] - Quote
Installations need
Lots of HP
The ability to LOOK UP
Better positioning.
As of right now, about 80% of the turrets we have are obstructed through 90-100% of their viable use region (as in a building straight in the center preventing the turret from ever being used because nobody will ever appear around the sides of said building, or they are in a corner, and cannot fire over a hill placed to obscure their line of sight from even the low traffic routes.
Installations are basically Junk right now.
http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU
Dust to Dust, theme
|
Edgar Reinhart
Resheph Interstellar Strategy
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 11:25:00 -
[102] - Quote
As a novice blueberry in a Militia suit I often find that falling back and using a turret is one way that I can...... briefly..... be of genuine use to the team. I've posted about this before and although I'm not sure of it's viability with the fixes that can be made at the moment I was wondering if it would be worth buffing the turrets in a way that would encourage them to be manned during the battle.
To this end I thought it might be worth giving them active modules as standard so that if there is somebody operating them they have access to a decent dmg module, repair module and hardener module meaning they can keep the turret in the fight longer and do more damage.
I don't know how the AI works but presumably it wouldn't have access to the modules and therefore a manned turret would have the potential to be more dangerous and useful than an AI one and to repair itself after an engagement. HAVs and, especially, Dropships and LAVs can easily out manoeuvre a turret and would need to use this advantage more.
I'd also remove WP from un hacked neutral turrets, by all means destroy them for the threat that they potentially pose but until they are an actual threat no WP...... or substantially reduced say +5 like equipment.
As I said this is coming from the POV of a relative newb with little experience of using vehicles themselves so I only have a one sided view of balance at the moment but that's my two cents worth. |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 13:08:00 -
[103] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:Do we really need free installations that are able to kill 500,000 dropships and 350000 tanks with ease?
Already a tank or dropship on low hp can be killed by any turret. Have you ever hovered a dropship where it can be shot by a blaster turret? It melts
Good god man!? A medium aerial vehicle melts when a large blaster shoots at a non/slow moving target?! That's it, DUST is broken, I'm going home and taking my football with me! [/sarcasm]
Installations should be just as dangerous as vehicles, otherwise what's the point?! If you are dumb enough to hover in front of a turret, inside it's effective elevation you damn well get hurt for being a moron!
manboar thunder fist wrote:Since these installations are free they should serve as they do...
I see now. You want free war points.Duly noted.
manboar thunder fist wrote:Turrets not doomsday devices
ERM, they have standard level weapons (currently not updated) and you think that's a doomsday weapon?! Seriously?
manboar thunder fist wrote:I can already climb into a turret and easily kill tanks and people alike. All the turrets hve their roles and are in a good place
Really? Because I, like quite a lot of others it seems, are of the impression that non-redline Missile turrets are absolute garbage because they die so damn fast. It's not like any of us are also vehicle pilots like you, or that any of us want a challenge rather than free, easy pickings
Seriously, a lot of your noise is stemming from your brain dead refusal to accept that people are trying to make them relevant, not overpowered. Buffing EHP is one of the simplest methods to make them dangerous! Because then they don't simply disappear in 5 seconds before they cannot least scratch the offender. There's other suggestions in this thread, like fixing their damage/range profiles so they are in line with the current vehicle weapons and to modify where they are positioned on the battlefield.
I suggest you try rereading the thread and actually turning your brain on instead of spouting ridiculous reactionary nonsense. |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
996
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 13:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.
Well Hav Pilots should not only worry a little bit about installations they should be a real danger to them (which would encourage fighting over them as well). Currently installations are just one thing easy points either for a HAV pilot or for me when I blow them up with RE's...(as I am Infantry this AI controlled sniper Rails ARE a thread for me so it's safer to blow them up  ) |
Litany 0f Fury
Revolution of Evil Henchmen
18
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 14:41:00 -
[105] - Quote
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.
Commando 'till i die... then another commando
'Face Melter' Visiam Laser Rifle
Beta / / Stephenius
|
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 16:37:00 -
[106] - Quote
Litany 0f Fury wrote: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.
I like most of those ideas, but I wouldn't increase their hit points that high (more around 65-75% of the hit points of a Supply Depot), and with that increased health, the AI should be toned down or removed.
Turret Installations do need to be relevant, but not ludicrously powerful with near invincibility with that many hit points.
I just feel that would be abused to gain an obscene number of kill and/or war points, especially from a free asset.
If we had the commander mode (calling down installations, placing them, controlling the MCC, and etc ) that was presented a few years ago I would consider having that many hit points for a turret installation, as they would likely have had to be bought for a hefty price. |
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 16:46:00 -
[107] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote: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 believe 1.7 was Rail Turret 514 for any ADS... two shotted out of the air across the map before even getting 10 feet off the ground... no thank you. |
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
169
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:03:00 -
[108] - Quote
This is a nice comfortable subject (...hey, anything that doesn't go on about how Legion is going to be the "doom of Dust", oh my Lorde, cry-cry-cry... is a comforable Dust subject as far as I'm concerned. It is nice to see the clouds clearing and battelfield talk resume).
When I first started Dust, I feared Installations. It was a good thing. It felt as though the "AI " (the installation's ability to scan your presence and open up on you when it's on automatic and NOT being manned by a player) was shockingly high; it BLOCKED and BOOBYTRAPPED your movements around the map. So you wanted that thing working on YOUR side--you even willingly sacraficed a few clone lives to repeatedly sneak around and eventually hack it.
Once the first Patches came out, it felt (can't confirm) as if their "AI" had been toned down. No matter how much EHP or range or type it has, it can't keep a lone player from rolling up on it anymore. That kills any chance of controlling enemy movement, and the only consistant value the "installations" have now are when a player jumps on one to provide a little support (like me), or when they are being solo farmed for destruction-WP or hacking-WP, not for controling the match.
There will always be random moments when a player drives her vehicle too near a present day installation at the wrong second, and pays for her carelessness... but that should not be misinterpretted as a "good, well-operating installation".
The installations are not strong, effective game pieces anymore.
I have my personal view (which of course I want to see come to reality): that Installations should be PRIZES on the map, as strategically desirable for hacking as the CRU's. We should want to destroy only what we can't REACH.
--They should be DANGEROUS as hell when on "automatic" , with pinpoint accuracy the thing that gets kills in any of the three types. This makes them tools for delaying an enemy's travel across a map, and helpful as a guard-dog and early-warning companion for the player who's momentarily on her own and needs a few minutes of protection).
But CCP has its "Waves of Opportunity" view (which I DON'T endorse, but will respect): that EVERY playing piece on the map should have an exploitable weakness to balance whatever stand-out strength it has.
---Dropships have super access to the map, but have thin, thin protection. HAVs are strong, but they travel slo-- umm, I mean, err. Well, you know what I'm getting at.
So my suggestion here tries to give justice to BOTH points of view:
 Increase the AI of all Installation types. This can be done by giving them better scanning than what we can acheive with our typical dropsuits, or better rotating/tracking ability (but ONLY when on "auto), Give each installation vehicle-scanner precision equal to HALF of its firing range. Pinpoint Accuracy should be on every type of installation AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE IT ON AUTO.
Handicap its agility and accuracy when you switch to "manual", handicaps that ease up only with lots of perseverance and a few of those turret-SP bonuses, to DETER players from exploiting them as some new leaderboard toy.
If it's a missile Installation, give it enough range at one end of the football field to reach 3-fifths across the field---but by then disperse the volley to leave only marginal chance of wearing down vehicles EHP and be effective more for pestering infantry than actaully killing many at that range. It's destructiveness should be dictated by increasing the likeliness of getting hit my ALL the missiles in the volley as you get nearer to the missile installation (4 hits from the volley should be harmful). Its sheild/armour should be weak enough that it'll need repping occasionally, but enemy vehicles have to expose themselves in lengthy TTK to destroy it.
Make players consider the missile installation as the only installation we can use across a handful of situations, but we don't mind if we have to abandon it in a fight.
If it's a Blaster Installation, give it a range of 2-fifths of the map---but It should have the best scanning and tracking in the game to be lethal to individual infantry who approach it. PERHAPS (?) make it the only one to detect cloakers. Give it very little effectiveness against HAVs (LAVs and infantry should be its feast-prey)--but give it the sheild/armour of a Supply Depot, so HAVs will have to waste a lot of game-time to farm it. This will convince you to HACK this gun, not try to kill it, and you'll need to flank it or walk up to it behind an HAV in order to reach it.
Make players consider this the hands-down best Installation for stronghold or redline defense, that you feel comfortable leaving on automatic most of the time and won't rep, because it's the least destroyable of the three types.
If it's the controversial Railgun Installation, of course give it the longest range, and I believe this should be 4-fifths the football field, with no loss in HP---but it's horizontal tracking should be rubbish-poor (to allow enough time for DS/HAV to climb-away/duck-out accordingly). It's gun should always have a noticeably quicker TTK than most HAVs (either through hitpoint or RoF)---but its shield/armour be only slightly stronger than a MILITIA-rated HAV (so each gunfight could potentially end in rali-installation marginal win by bullet, or HAV marginal win by armour). This tracking/EHP combination means a hotshot DS can slip in close to it (but has to hammer it a LONG time to destroy it), while an HAV can destroy it sooner (but have a hard time getting close enough to guarantee it---no more quick drive-by kills).
Make a railgun installation the equivelant of a Fattie.... it should be the piece everyone wants to have close to them, but needs to MANUALLY operate it, and have someone covering its back and nurse it with reppers, to keep it truly effective.
Sorry, was TON of info.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
Doyle Reese
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
480
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 20:19:00 -
[109] - Quote
My tank has been hit by a Missile Turret from the enemy redline on the bridge map on Skirmish (Bridge Objective being A) before :( |
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
849
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 21:15:00 -
[110] - Quote
Doyle Reese wrote:My tank has been hit by a Missile Turret from the enemy redline on the bridge map on Skirmish (Bridge Objective being A) before :(
I cannot think of any map where the missile turrets have clear view of any bridge. The bridge you are most likely talking about is on the T shaped map, which has a missile turret directly at it's end in the center of the map.... Which is the center, meaning nowhere near the redline. Unless you are talking about the map with two buildings and a bridge in the center, then the large node off to the side, of which there is only a 5 meter gap at the very end of the bridge that a turret could hit you at. You would literally have to be stationary to be killed there by a missile turret.
You really should research your turrets before you make claims.
http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU
Dust to Dust, theme
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
578
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:12:00 -
[111] - Quote
I think this needs more Rattati love
Bump... |
axINVICTUSxa
DETHDEALERS
RISE of LEGION
151
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:22:00 -
[112] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.
Actually, I differ on this slightly. I feel that just as there are 80 GJ Blasters and 20 GJ blasters and such sizes of turrets, there should also be "Small Installations."
In HALO, they would have strategically placed Plasma Cannons at random points of the map. Maybe something similar would be nice. While destroyable, they have a decent amount of eHP. If anything, destroying small installations should net an insta kill if a person is manning the small installation.
However, just as with Large installations, users can still be shot off.
As for turret placement, I think large open maps (I really do not know any of the map names) but perhaps Peaks, Overlook points of some sort, Cities (especially on building balconies, where I can see there being a use of some sort).
I see more uses for a forge gun now, countering these turrets would be difficult for anything less than a sniper/rail rifle/forge gun.
What do you think?
Wherever the Wind (Aero) might take me, may it ever be True, for the way of the Commando is noble and right.
|
TEBOW BAGGINS
Defenders of the Helghast Dream
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
1073
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:29:00 -
[113] - Quote
axINVICTUSxa wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them. Actually, I differ on this slightly. I feel that just as there are 80 GJ Blasters and 20 GJ blasters and such sizes of turrets, there should also be "Small Installations." In HALO, they would have strategically placed Plasma Cannons at random points of the map. Maybe something similar would be nice. While destroyable, they have a decent amount of eHP. If anything, destroying small installations should net an insta kill if a person is manning the small installation. However, just as with Large installations, users can still be shot off. As for turret placement, I think large open maps (I really do not know any of the map names) but perhaps Peaks, Overlook points of some sort, Cities (especially on building balconies, where I can see there being a use of some sort). I see more uses for a forge gun now, countering these turrets would be difficult for anything less than a sniper/rail rifle/forge gun. What do you think?
once we retrain to hotdrop troops and kill the operator/RE the turret they will be back here demanding some kind of force field while manning turret
AKA Zirzo Valcyn
|
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Dirt Nap Squad.
973
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 03:05:00 -
[114] - Quote
Make them give less war points. If you have ever been sniped randomly by a rail turret, you understand why they need to die anyway |
Jerricho Lionheart
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 04:14:00 -
[115] - Quote
Fiddlestaxp wrote:Make them give less war points. If you have ever been sniped randomly by a rail turret, you understand why they need to die anyway
I've been playing since the release of uprising and I don't believe I've been killed by a single rail or missile turret outside of a vehicle, and I don't stand in the line-of-sight of red blaster turrets so.... I don't think it's enough of a factor to considered a problem judging by what I've heard from the commenters.
Speaking of, it seems like most people feel like the installations should have a buff but with definite caveats. The AI needing to be nerfed or removed, the points given out altered, and placement of them altered seem to be the most commonly agreed upon stipulations. Besides the placement change I thing this can be reasonably done via hotfix, but I would need a dev or cpm confirmation before i can say for sure, of course.
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
851
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 04:37:00 -
[116] - Quote
TEBOW BAGGINS wrote:axINVICTUSxa wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them. Actually, I differ on this slightly. I feel that just as there are 80 GJ Blasters and 20 GJ blasters and such sizes of turrets, there should also be "Small Installations." In HALO, they would have strategically placed Plasma Cannons at random points of the map. Maybe something similar would be nice. While destroyable, they have a decent amount of eHP. If anything, destroying small installations should net an insta kill if a person is manning the small installation. However, just as with Large installations, users can still be shot off. As for turret placement, I think large open maps (I really do not know any of the map names) but perhaps Peaks, Overlook points of some sort, Cities (especially on building balconies, where I can see there being a use of some sort). I see more uses for a forge gun now, countering these turrets would be difficult for anything less than a sniper/rail rifle/forge gun. What do you think? once we retrain to hotdrop troops and kill the operator/RE the turret they will be back here demanding some kind of force field while manning turret it takes 9 XT-1 small missles to destroy turret, if it only takes 16 after an EHP buff i could get behind that but another buff to make the turret shoot straight up/90 degree, plus an EHP buff is what bothers me most. this would effectively render dropship useless vs turret and force pilots into a tanking role when we already struggle to eliminate turrets each map. the biggest issue the CCP is not acknowledging is %30 of turrets are located in redline- those are the turrets we struggle to destroy because we have to fight the redline juvenile redline at the same time as we fight the turret. if the turrets get buffed then they should remove half of them and remove them from the redline.
And you think flying over the enemy redline should be safe? Why is that?
If you don't have the fortitude to secure the map before moving out, then you really shouldn't be using vehicles at all.
Dropships would not be useless vs turrets, as they can fly in circles around the target faster than they can rotate. What this would eliminate is people literally parking over a turret and just holding down the fire button waiting for the turret to blow up...
If you want to pull a tank or dropship, you should either expect it to blow up, or expect it to be used as a quick breaching tool.
Also, if turrets were improved, the health of dropships and tanks could be increased because the common infantry then could fight back by commandeering turrets.
As of right now, dropships have more survival opportunities than tanks do, even with their lowered health, and having to actually watch where you fly would make actual lanes for flight, like the buildings force tanks to drive around them...
http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU
Dust to Dust
Remember the dream you had before the day you were born.
|
axINVICTUSxa
DETHDEALERS
RISE of LEGION
151
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 04:42:00 -
[117] - Quote
Edgar Reinhart wrote:As a novice blueberry in a Militia suit I often find that falling back and using a turret is one way that I can...... briefly..... be of genuine use to the team. I've posted about this before and although I'm not sure of it's viability with the fixes that can be made at the moment I was wondering if it would be worth buffing the turrets in a way that would encourage them to be manned during the battle.
To this end I thought it might be worth giving them active modules as standard so that if there is somebody operating them they have access to a decent dmg module, repair module and hardener module meaning they can keep the turret in the fight longer and do more damage.
I don't know how the AI works but presumably it wouldn't have access to the modules and therefore a manned turret would have the potential to be more dangerous and useful than an AI one and to repair itself after an engagement. HAVs and, especially, Dropships and LAVs can easily out manoeuvre a turret and would need to use this advantage more.
I'd also remove WP from un hacked neutral turrets, by all means destroy them for the threat that they potentially pose but until they are an actual threat no WP...... or substantially reduced say +5 like equipment.
As I said this is coming from the POV of a relative newb with little experience of using vehicles themselves so I only have a one sided view of balance at the moment but that's my two cents worth.
This, sir...IS ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST PRODUCTIVE THINGS I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY!!!
You are a worthy comrade!
-Dmitri aka Invictus
Wherever the Wind (Aero) might take me, may it ever be True, for the way of the Commando is noble and right.
|
ladwar
HEARTS OF PHOENIX
2004
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 04:58:00 -
[118] - Quote
tread lightly on your buffs.... going from 3-4 shots to 5-6 fine, going to 3 minutes on 5 havs pounding it, no. nerf rail turret dps if you plan on buffing its ehp... seriously. one slight buff at a time followed by a long test time after each buff. its not like you guys play test, anything ever, so u need to wait to get FULL feedback on the buffs.
btw missile installations do have a max range but its longer then the map its around 2,500m. when mcc to mcc is around 600-800m on any given map
Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet.
I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth
doing reviews in free time, want 1?
|
Litany 0f Fury
Revolution of Evil Henchmen
19
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 13:10:00 -
[119] - Quote
TEBOW BAGGINS wrote:axINVICTUSxa wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them. Actually, I differ on this slightly. I feel that just as there are 80 GJ Blasters and 20 GJ blasters and such sizes of turrets, there should also be "Small Installations." In HALO, they would have strategically placed Plasma Cannons at random points of the map. Maybe something similar would be nice. While destroyable, they have a decent amount of eHP. If anything, destroying small installations should net an insta kill if a person is manning the small installation. However, just as with Large installations, users can still be shot off. As for turret placement, I think large open maps (I really do not know any of the map names) but perhaps Peaks, Overlook points of some sort, Cities (especially on building balconies, where I can see there being a use of some sort). I see more uses for a forge gun now, countering these turrets would be difficult for anything less than a sniper/rail rifle/forge gun. What do you think? once we retrain to hotdrop troops and kill the operator/RE the turret they will be back here demanding some kind of force field while manning turret it takes 9 XT-1 small missles to destroy turret, if it only takes 16 after an EHP buff i could get behind that but another buff to make the turret shoot straight up/90 degree, plus an EHP buff is what bothers me most. this would effectively render dropship useless vs turret and force pilots into a tanking role when we already struggle to eliminate turrets each map. the biggest issue the CCP is not acknowledging is %30 of turrets are located in redline- those are the turrets we struggle to destroy because we have to fight the redline juvenile redline at the same time as we fight the turret. if the turrets get buffed then they should remove half of them and remove them from the redline.
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.
Commando 'till i die... then another commando
'Face Melter' Visiam Laser Rifle
Beta / / Stephenius
|
waistr
DEAD-MEN-WALKING
191
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:48:00 -
[120] - Quote
reduce or remove WP for destruction
Increase WP for Hacking. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |