| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1767
   |
Posted - 2014.07.26 08:52:00 -
[31] - Quote
Please please no.
There's no need for this. Large Rails are OP as heck now anyway with perfect tracking and insta-locking, even out of range (so they'll keep shooting even after you back out to cooldown or reload). No one even uses turrets even if they're not blown up, so keeping the out is only an annoyance to tankers and more so DSs and LAVs.
What is an LAV going to do against an installation? Forge it? Small rail or missile it? This change will be like taking out a Supply Depot currently. Seriously, try doing that in a LAV, heck, even an ADS and see how effective it is.
This isn't going to stop tanks from destroying them or make them anymore useful. It's only going to hurt DSs and LAVs and be generally annoying in every case. Honestly, I'd be for removing them entirely.
Edit: And as shaman oga said, it's more of a pain on AV since they're wasting more ammo. There's nothing good coming from thisGǪ |
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
988
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 09:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
I think doubling the HP values is enough, AV grenades should work on turrets and turret skills should work on turrets. Tone the AI WAY down, if I shoot a rail turret it one pops me, that may be Ok now but if my engagement time is doubled or more that is just too much.
I suggest this wait until Delta, we have quite a few AV/vehicle balance changes to test out already. Vehicles are starting to feel some pain and us AV'ers want their to be plenty of vehicles.
I predict Jihad jeeps against turrets.
Because, that's why.
|
shaman oga
Nexus Balusa Horizon
2536
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 10:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:
I predict Jihad jeeps against turrets.
I approve jihad jeeps against turrets 
Off map support is the key imo, the only good thing of domination in Line Harvest is the off map support.
Installation should drop 2-3 minutes after they have been destroyed, this should happen for supply depots and cru as well.
PSN: ogamega
"Dust is full of communist who despise people with enough isk to buy expensive items"
|
Zhenechka Zivonencia
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 11:06:00 -
[34] - Quote
Have to agree with Nothing, double their eHp is just ebought and then they will be fine.
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
709
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 12:06:00 -
[35] - Quote
I just calculated that it takes ~22 seconds to kill the 12k ehp installation with an IAFG. 8 Shots is what I assumed. This is a number rather similar to what we have with an actual fight against a Madrugar if the HAV driver is smart enough to move about a bit instead of just taking the shots. A single logi with an axis repair tool will be able to extend the lifespan of the installation to ~30 seconds.
So in conclusion I'd like to see how this pans out. It will probably be preferable to just hack them so that's a mission accomplished I guess.
Did you check on the technical possibility of having installations redeploy a while after being destroyed? That would allow us to go lower on the ehp numbers maybe. Perhaps this is rather a topic for Delta.
I have long since wanted Dust to be more about territory control and this change might improve that aspect a lot. So I'm looking forward to how this community will adapt to the changes in the weeks following Hotfix Charlie. |
anaboop
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 12:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
Would be nice if vehicle skills such as increased shield armor turret rotation blah blah, increased turrets instead of something everyone can use, or new skills so u have to skill into it to make it good, would force newbies out them and peopoe that skill into worth hacking and staying on them.
Fully sick Anaboop trading card
|
Vitharr Foebane
Terminal Courtesy
Proficiency V.
1655
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 13:36:00 -
[37] - Quote
Like the changes nothing annoys me more then hacking a turret only to have it blow up in my face because some tanker wants a free 100 wp
Amarr: Assault V, Scout V, Sentinel V, Commando IV, Logistics IV
I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
|
Cat Merc
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
11306
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 13:44:00 -
[38] - Quote
Just make sure the AI doesn't go ham with infantry killing.
The last thing we need is railguns sniping us with perfect accuracy from 300m.
Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
|
ladwar
HEARTS OF PHOENIX
2016
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 13:53:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered  Thanks!
will you tell us these ranges or what? and by normalize with player bought turrets you mean missiles turrets which have been needing a range reduction from their 2km range. so will you change the location of some clearly bad placed turrets? also can you add friendly fire to blue turrets in all game modes? i only ask this because there is no reason for ground troops to protect turrets from being hack and normally won't hack it back. the armor is bit high 5,000 is a bit more reasonable.
Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet.
I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth
doing reviews in free time, want 1?
|
ladwar
HEARTS OF PHOENIX
2016
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 14:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
Temias Mercurial wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets.
Can you elaborate what you mean by player bought turrets, as there has never ever been any info on those for the players? We have no stats for starters, and they haven't been in game for our testing so far. Of course, we'd be glad to see them implemented =)))) As long as map engine allow bringing more stuff in at arbitrary locations and you solve the issue of using landing turrets as bombs on tank (by giving them same kind of signal+more delay as OBs) He's talking vehicle turrets I believe at some point the developers were actually considering allowing players to put down purchased turret installations, but that was a looooooooong time ago. I believe that may have been why he asked for clarification.
they planned on it and then abandoned it and finally removed the tab along with other things. it was on of the early selling points for dust.
Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet.
I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth
doing reviews in free time, want 1?
|
|
|
Nao Kun
Nyain San
General Tso's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 14:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks!
Tanker is completely dead.
AND We want to take the Null Cannon and kill the enemy, we did not want to hakking.
This will lead to a deterioration of efficiency.
I don't think this change is necessary.
thanks for watching.
I love Madrugar.
|
Killar-12
The Exemplars
Top Men.
3058
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 14:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
Way too much HP x2 or less
I am an Idiot, and so are you!
|
voidfaction
Void of Faction
350
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 15:22:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks! Now only if the Yellow turrets that are not in control by either side would return fire on anything that shoots at them I would be happy.
Will be nice having turret for cover fire from a patrolling tank for more than 1 sec. |
Atiim
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
10953
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 15:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
Killar-12 wrote:Way too much HP x2 or less
The Installations are stationary and anyone who's smart enough to look here will never be surprised by one, so they need to have an extreme amount of eHP..
And nothing of value was lost that day...
-HAND
|
Kevall Longstride
DUST University
Ivy League
1496
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 15:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
I approve.
The turrets are stationary so it's no surprise to anyone where they are. It means that tankers will have to rely and support the infantry on their side while they hack them to allow them to move forward.
It'll also mean that Tankers will, if they want to be successful defend those on their team from other Tanks rather than just act as a solo slayer.
Like Rattati says, you'll have to use teamwork.
Dropships are getting a buff so they'll fair better against the turrets.
Let's see how it plays out before demanding changes 
CPM1 Candidate
CEO of DUST University
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
6740
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 16:04:00 -
[46] - Quote
I'm completely fine with these changes.
The Blaster Turret should have a lot less dispersion because of the stable platform it's on.
All Turrets should have to reload like any other turret but I'm fine with them having infinite ammo.
see you space cowboy...
|
gauntlet44 LbowDeep
Heaven84 Devils
General Tso's Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 16:44:00 -
[47] - Quote
it will be nice to be able to hack a neutral turret before the tanker on my team that sees me hacking it, can destroy it.
Absorb what is useful,
discard what is not,
make it uniquely your own........ Bruce Lee
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
411
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 16:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
My 2 cents:
The Reason why I kill turrets first has nothing to do with WP's (shocker, I know). They alone are a massive threat. They could really damage me and lower my mag size, even get me using my modules, and there could be a HAV rushing me right after I deal with it, and I'm done unless I get help. All that has to happen is some reddot hacks it, and boom, you got basically a weak HAV sitting guard. So I make it a point to go kill them pronto. Yet now you are quite literally adding in turrets with more eHP than 1.7 2x hardened Maddies, and they STILL have their AI. If you want them to be tougher to kill, get rid of their AI. Otherwise, hell no. |
Dalton Smithe
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
103
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 16:57:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks!
So now HAV's will become even less effective. How is this in line with their purpose? I can understand taking them out of ambush where the only objective is to deplete clones, but in Skirm/Dom, they are supposed to break deadlocks on objectives. They aren't supposed to be squishy, which is what they have become.
Dropships in contrast, which are supposed to be, pretty much reign over the battlefield, raining down death with impunity. It takes a well coordinated team to take out a dropship, where infantry can solo a tank extremely easily...
A dropship pilot takes a hit and flys away, regenerates, comes in again, rinse and repeat....
A tank takes a hit, tries to leave the area, and gets popped before it can reach any kind of cover.....
I only run a tank every now and then, but I have seen my teams tank get popped within moments of coming into an area, by a single player with a forge, or one with a swarm launcher(which are a joke for dropships) |
The dark cloud
The Rainbow Effect
3714
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 17:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
well at least theres a reason to hack them now in PC matches rather then trying to blow them up for some WP.
New shield module!
|
|
|
Kevall Longstride
DUST University
Ivy League
1500
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 17:32:00 -
[51] - Quote
Worth hacking AND defending.
A smart squad leader could so some good WP farming putting a defend order on one in a strategic place.
CPM 1 member
CEO of DUST University
|
501st Headstrong
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 17:45:00 -
[52] - Quote
Dalton Smithe wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks! So now HAV's will become even less effective. How is this in line with their purpose? I can understand taking them out of ambush where the only objective is to deplete clones, but in Skirm/Dom, they are supposed to break deadlocks on objectives. They aren't supposed to be squishy, which is what they have become. Dropships in contrast, which are supposed to be, pretty much reign over the battlefield, raining down death with impunity. It takes a well coordinated team to take out a dropship, where infantry can solo a tank extremely easily... A dropship pilot takes a hit and flys away, regenerates, comes in again, rinse and repeat.... A tank takes a hit, tries to leave the area, and gets popped before it can reach any kind of cover..... I only run a tank every now and then, but I have seen my teams tank get popped within moments of coming into an area, by a single player with a forge, or one with a swarm launcher(which are a joke for dropships)
It may be me, but your tanker sucks then if a single forge can kill them. Perhaps they got stuck on cover when backing up, overestimated enemy AV, etc. The point a tanker that is trying to solo five AV isn't going to win. Sorry to ruin your parade, but it aint happening. You want to be come death, you get a team to get your back. Otherwise stop trying to return to 1.7. A blaster that catches me out in the open is an assured death. I don't understand your dispersion issues, but i get slaughtered regardless. HAVS are to inspire fear and slay, but they aren't the killing a chines of 70-0 that was 3 months ago. Dropships are worth that investment. 350k with a militia missile? You go down once and you most likely aren't making that isk back. 90k for a tank, you can die 3 times and still cost less than that one ads.
I personally like these changes, but in this case then please change the placement of the turrets so it forces the infantry to battle over choke-points. My biggest reference (bridge map. Make a turret right in the middle of the bridge, and then one on either side. A team that controls the middle turret can still get blown up by the other turret on either side. To prevent it from becoming OP, the turrets on either side become Rail turrets, and the center of the bridge is a blaster for destroying infantry and vehicles. If a tank wants to pass the bridge, that turret must be destroyed. It will be off to the side however so if a friendly hacks it, you can still move your tanks across.
Tdlr: Change vehicle locations to focus chokepoints. Remove redline installations
From the Clone Wars I came. Here I am a man among tamed beasts, and a god...among men
CEO of G0DS AM0NG MEN
|
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
133
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 18:06:00 -
[53] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Not sure if this would require a client side update, but I'll suggest anyways.
What if upon clicking on the Installation option on the Deployment Tab, we were shown the overhead map, similar to the Orbital Strike Menu. Then, we'd use the same mechanics as selecting where to place a Warbarge Strike to deploy an Installation.
The Installations, would then appear in the same place as the 80GJ Turrets on the Marketplace.
Y/N?
That's what the developers were initially thinking about doing in early Dust, but was scraped. It would require a client side update, as it adds onto the user interface, or any content for the matter. Server side updates can change numbers (damage, turret rotation speed, module numbers, etc.); however, there are always exceptions that might require a client side update.
My apologies if I come off as an elitist, but I try to view things objectively, logically, and factually.
|
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
133
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 18:16:00 -
[54] - Quote
Dalton Smithe wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks! So now HAV's will become even less effective. How is this in line with their purpose? I can understand taking them out of ambush where the only objective is to deplete clones, but in Skirm/Dom, they are supposed to break deadlocks on objectives. They aren't supposed to be squishy, which is what they have become. Dropships in contrast, which are supposed to be, pretty much reign over the battlefield, raining down death with impunity. It takes a well coordinated team to take out a dropship, where infantry can solo a tank extremely easily... A dropship pilot takes a hit and flys away, regenerates, comes in again, rinse and repeat.... A tank takes a hit, tries to leave the area, and gets popped before it can reach any kind of cover..... I only run a tank every now and then, but I have seen my teams tank get popped within moments of coming into an area, by a single player with a forge, or one with a swarm launcher(which are a joke for dropships)
Even with that 'rinse and repeat' method, the most kills any pilot will make on average is 10, which isn't game breaking. Also, if a dropship is reigning over the battlefield, then it's quite obvious that it's being ignored by any form of counter and is being allowed to do so. Dropships can't take damage. The moment that first swarm hits you must activate your burner, especially when there is the possibility of more than one player with AV. You don't take chances. The most number of people you need to take down a dropship is one or two people who are communicating or at least coordinating with one another.
Tanks are only 'squishy' if you allow them to be. Any tank that gets popped by a single AV guy is obviously not that great of a tanker... I have a friend who will have everyone cowering in a corner (AV, tankers, and infantry) because of how damn good he is when tanking.
My apologies if I come off as an elitist, but I try to view things objectively, logically, and factually.
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
620
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 18:50:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 75tan3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks!
As a tanker, I LOVE THESE CHANGES
It never made sense to me that a turret, twice the size of a supply depot, only had 1/4 the health, and a supply depot is much more tactical to control
This means that in the heat of a battle, if a enemy tank/ADS is assaulting a position, instead of having to switch out to AV as a deterrent, you could simply hack an enemy turret and fend off the vehiclek
He already said ranges of turrets will be normalized so...150m for missle turrets, 300m for rail turrets, and about 80-150m for blasters, so calm down all you hobos with your "Oh no ranges, oh no redline strawberries, oh no I'm a scrub" talk
It would be a breathe of fresh air to see turrets be used tactically instead of just something you blow up as a tanker on the way to the enemy
Even with the health changes, as infantry you can take cover from a turret, as a tank you can run away from a turret, and as an ADS you can fly away, so you ALWAYS have the advantage over a frozen installation
And its not like rail turrets take like 10-20 seconds to turn all the way around or anything
And turrets do not regen health outside of shields, and even then they do not recharge fast enough that an assault rifle couldn't keep it down
As an installation, the top part is a cannon essentially, and the bottom is all ammo, this is why the turrets have heat build up and not clip like ammo, because the turret is being continually fed a deep reserve if ammo, and I think this is correct, but if turrets become too much of a problem, they can simply be given tank turret ammo clips in a "Charlie hotfix 1.5"
Another tip is to increase the WP you get from destroying a CRU or Supply depot
These are the most tactical installations on the battlefield, and the reason people would rather let them be rehacked, than flat out destroy them is because the WP benefit (50 WP for destruction) is so low for the amount of time it takes to destroy a supply depot or CRU its just not worth it
I suggest the WP for destruction shouod be150-250 WP, and even that may be too low for the time, but its a good start
The only problem I forsee is the frustration of vehicle pilots when blueberries go to hack turrets while a pilot is currently trying to destroy it (Because the installation is, say, on enemy HP and you KNOW the enemy is gonna take it back), so the blueberry goes for the easy points, and right when the tanker is in an exposed position, the turret gets hacked from behind him and now the vehicle is as good as gone
But overall +1
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
dogmanpig
black market bank
136
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 19:32:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks!
bear face doesn't = troll face, everyone knows its 
You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way.
Level 11 2/10 Forum alt.
"Its worth half a penny and a reach around"
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
993
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 19:46:00 -
[57] - Quote
Dalton Smithe wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks! So now HAV's will become even less effective. How is this in line with their purpose? I can understand taking them out of ambush where the only objective is to deplete clones, but in Skirm/Dom, they are supposed to break deadlocks on objectives. They aren't supposed to be squishy, which is what they have become. Dropships in contrast, which are supposed to be, pretty much reign over the battlefield, raining down death with impunity. It takes a well coordinated team to take out a dropship, where infantry can solo a tank extremely easily... A dropship pilot takes a hit and flys away, regenerates, comes in again, rinse and repeat.... A tank takes a hit, tries to leave the area, and gets popped before it can reach any kind of cover..... I only run a tank every now and then, but I have seen my teams tank get popped within moments of coming into an area, by a single player with a forge, or one with a swarm launcher(which are a joke for dropships)
As A forge gunner, the only vehicle which seems unbalanced to me is Pythons. I feel every other vehicle has a good chance against me but I have a good chance against them. Dropships other than the Python are usually the easier target, unless they have good gunners and/or drop down heavies with HMG's on me.
Because, that's why.
|
el OPERATOR
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
213
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 19:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
I'm okay with these changes, and would like them even more if:
1. Turret destruction blast radius were increased with WP for kills so that when that tanker does finally get his hard earned turret destruction, that ammo supply there acts like the bomb it would be and obliterates any infantry or equip within some TBD radius (15m?)
2. The OMS feature was reintroduced as a deployable equipment beacon, bought in the market, giving players the ability to "call down" the turrets for battlefield buttressing as we see fit.
3. The AV nade idea from above was instituted.
Even without these tho, doesn't sound too bad at all especially in light of the craziness called "Swarm Launcher nerfs".
Open-Beta Vet.
Drunk Night Tree Burner.
This is my Main and Original.
DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
351
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 20:19:00 -
[59] - Quote
I like the changes, provided the turret ranges are normalised (as suggested).
Question: Do we really need the turret AI?
We blame the vehicle users to farm WP, but infantry is guilty as well... Just run up and hack for 50WP, then leave 
If we want turrets to be tactical installations, why not make it so a turret have to be manned to be useful for the team.
Remove the AI and make vehicle (turret) skills apply on fixed turrets as well, and I foresee people specialising as "turret operators" after they become more survivable. |
Dalton Smithe
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
103
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 21:00:00 -
[60] - Quote
501st Headstrong wrote:Dalton Smithe wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. Please share your thoughts, in a civilized manner. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered Thanks! So now HAV's will become even less effective. How is this in line with their purpose? I can understand taking them out of ambush where the only objective is to deplete clones, but in Skirm/Dom, they are supposed to break deadlocks on objectives. They aren't supposed to be squishy, which is what they have become. Dropships in contrast, which are supposed to be, pretty much reign over the battlefield, raining down death with impunity. It takes a well coordinated team to take out a dropship, where infantry can solo a tank extremely easily... A dropship pilot takes a hit and flys away, regenerates, comes in again, rinse and repeat.... A tank takes a hit, tries to leave the area, and gets popped before it can reach any kind of cover..... I only run a tank every now and then, but I have seen my teams tank get popped within moments of coming into an area, by a single player with a forge, or one with a swarm launcher(which are a joke for dropships) It may be me, but your tanker sucks then if a single forge can kill them. Perhaps they got stuck on cover when backing up, overestimated enemy AV, etc. The point a tanker that is trying to solo five AV isn't going to win. Sorry to ruin your parade, but it aint happening. You want to be come death, you get a team to get your back. Otherwise stop trying to return to 1.7. A blaster that catches me out in the open is an assured death. I don't understand your dispersion issues, but i get slaughtered regardless. HAVS are to inspire fear and slay, but they aren't the killing a chines of 70-0 that was 3 months ago. Dropships are worth that investment. 350k with a militia missile? You go down once and you most likely aren't making that isk back. 90k for a tank, you can die 3 times and still cost less than that one ads. I personally like these changes, but in this case then please change the placement of the turrets so it forces the infantry to battle over choke-points. My biggest reference (bridge map. Make a turret right in the middle of the bridge, and then one on either side. A team that controls the middle turret can still get blown up by the other turret on either side. To prevent it from becoming OP, the turrets on either side become Rail turrets, and the center of the bridge is a blaster for destroying infantry and vehicles. If a tank wants to pass the bridge, that turret must be destroyed. It will be off to the side however so if a friendly hacks it, you can still move your tanks across. Tdlr: Change vehicle locations to focus chokepoints. Remove redline installations
The only tanks that cost 90K are militia. Every one of my tanks run at around 350+. So yeah, I don't bring them in very much.
Of course any infantry/dropship pilots are going to love these changes, it makes it easier on them. Everyone hated the fact that it took teamwork to take a tank out(or a jihad LAV), now a single player can take one down without breaking a sweat.
Yeah, if you run a milita tank you should get melted by a blaster, that goes without saying, but when you spend a good deal of money on your vehicle only to see it go up in flame the minute you bring it into play, there is an issue....tanks should not be easy to take out. Any tanker that has their tank popped(if they are running a decent fit) won't see a return on that battle.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |