DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Small Blaster Turret

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Small Blaster Turret

» 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 - 4 post(s)
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 69	Posted - 2014.08.30 12:52:00 - [31] - Quote Small blaster gunner on my HAV would rather hop out and deal with close range infantry with his STD Combat Rifle....only reason I have it on there is for something to lay down fire that he'll use (Missile turret doesn't work well with that narrow margin of fire, and he hates the small railgun for some reason). Worth fitting yet? not quite if the intention is to do anything other than slightly annoy infantry, to even suppress them you'd need more dps (either through more RPM or more Damage per bullet)...but that's for an HAV or LAV, I would never place one on a dropship, without more range on it (the small blaster turret), it just puts the crew at unnecessary risk. The best weapon I think for a dropship side-gun would be a rail-rifle with a box-mag (For infantry suppression) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Shooter Somewhere Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 57	Posted - 2014.08.30 22:29:00 - [32] - Quote The only way to make small blasters reliable is to make this as OP on infantry as the large. Or at least give them 100% ef through a good range at any movement speed. A big problem with them is when you move the bullets go all over and your guys cant do anything. This would really even out the V versus AV front and get some of these AV scrubs to put some SP into vehicles like they should instead of chasing the next OP FOTM. (since you no longer want the game to be vehicles vs vehicles rattai which I have come to realize) -Panda Uzimaki HEADSHOT! HEADSHOT!! HEADSHOT!!! HEADSHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=earCbU6vgAo
Leovarian L Lavitz G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1145	Posted - 2014.08.30 22:57:00 - [33] - Quote Remove heat build up on small blasters - i feel it was added when the blaster had infinite ammo, now that the gun has finite ammo per magazine, the heat build up ads a second complication on a weapon that blows through ammo as fast and requires as much reloading as the small blaster. Or keep heat build up and give the small baster infinite ammo. Omni-Soldier Few are my equal in these specialties, none compare in all of them
JP Acuna Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 234	Posted - 2014.08.31 01:10:00 - [34] - Quote totally not worth it. I tried it on my Incubus and it couldn't even hit an uplink a few meters away. Sometimes enemy shields drained quickly but then nothing. Then i took a friend as a gunner. Too short range, and it doesn't feel more powerful than a rifle. The gunner's exposed for too long and too close to the enemy before doing anything productive. If there were 3 target mercs, he woud kill 1 and then die. Railguns are still better for killing infantry. Besides, i really don't understand why it's overheating faster. It hasn't even become effective yet, why the nerf?
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 6863	Posted - 2014.08.31 02:25:00 - [35] - Quote Small Blasters don't even do enough damage to stop LAV shield regen FA's Stabber Extraordinaire Minmatar Enthusiast Explosions and Bulletstorm? Count me in!
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3041	Posted - 2014.08.31 03:27:00 - [36] - Quote Will test but I'd have to guess no as it is only really fit able on a gunnlogi running a complex CPU and a Complex PG with really high if not maxed vehicle core skills, and on a Madrugar you can only fit 2 ADV with a PRO large turret and not run anything in your two high slots running all basic mods with core's maxed. The fact that they are god awful at anything to do with Vehicle vs Vehicle means you have to run a PRO turret. So as far as fittings your screwed in TvsT for both fits against a good tanker. I imagine you have to be pretty damn close and if your that close why not use a Large Blaster which is effective in very close quarters. When I can next play tomorrow night I might skill ADV or just to basic and use LP ADV and play around with them. Tanker/Logi/Assault
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 964	Posted - 2014.08.31 05:36:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: All right A few points The blaster is clearly not intended to compete with a landed DS on top of a building with rails. It was meant to be anti infantry - close range. What you are kind of saying, "the HMG is worse then a Forge because I can't kill vehicles and infantry with it." Not, splitting hairs, it's just a different role. Second, it was also meant to be a drive by weapon, I don't see anyone using rails whilst moving. We were hoping that the firepower of the Blaster would be enought to hurt/kill infantry in those situations. Third, and that's not for PC/competitiveness, it was also meant to be fun, yes, an alien concept. I like the idea of mowing down infantry with a vehicle mounted turret, or adding some serious firepower to a HAV that goes deep into enemy territory or is on point defense. All that said and done, if the Small Blaster fits none of these criteria, we need to keep looking at it. Alright, you asked for feedback, you'll get some: From the point of view of a guy with poor hit detection: impossible to get anything other than shield flare unless both the target and the vehicle it is mounted to is not moving. From the point of view of a guy with good hit detection: when you get your shots on target it mows down even the toughest heavies in no time at all, wheter it is mounted to a tank or the side of a dropship, it kills stuff real fast when you get your shots on target. The thing is, you gotta burst it so you don't miss but a few good bursts is enough to kill anything that moves. So the problem is not that it doesn't have enough firepower, so what is the problem? The problem is that it doesn't have enough total ammo and also not enough ammo in clip, on top of that it overheats too fast, if it's meant to mow down infantry then it needs to be able to kill more than 1 guy per clip / overheat. It also needs more than 4 clips without ammo capacity skill. If it doesn't have this, it's still always going to be overshadowed by it's big brother even though it's big brother has lower accuracy and is effective against vehicles too. On top of all that the small rail is really effective at killing infantry too and it's ammo lasts 10 times longer than the small blaster's does. And the small blaster isn't effective at killing other vehicles. What do I think would make it viable to be used: +100% more ammo capacity, +50% increased clip size and -25% reduced heat build-up. Doesn't need more range or damage, those things are fine, arguably it could be slightly more accurate but I think it's fine when you have proper hit detection. Usually I don't but I tend to have a gunner with really good hit detection so I know what it's capable of and I know it's shortcomings as well.
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game 82	Posted - 2014.08.31 05:51:00 - [38] - Quote Specced proto into all small turrets... Incubus pilot Couple observations: Blaster dispersion on front turret ads still an issue Sometimes you shoot and shield flickers but no dmg is applied Hit detection is very random Range you need to be at means you die to forge swarm very very easily Very hard to shoot without first person mode in ads as you can't see people under you through the ship NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game 82	Posted - 2014.08.31 05:54:00 - [39] - Quote Think of it like this ratatti "my man"... 3 missile/60 ---> medium suit dead 2 rails/100 ---> medium suit dead 100 blaster/600 ----> medium suit dead See the problem with its ammo consumption and clip size? NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 964	Posted - 2014.08.31 06:01:00 - [40] - Quote manboar thunder fist wrote: Think of it like this ratatti "my man"... 3 missile/60 ---> medium suit dead 2 rails/100 ---> medium suit dead 100 blaster/600 ----> medium suit dead See the problem with its ammo consumption and clip size? You managed to shorten my wall of text to 3 lines, lol. Good job.

Raedon Vo-Graza Armored Dragon Dust 41	Posted - 2014.08.31 07:47:00 - [41] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: All right A few points The blaster is clearly not intended to compete with a landed DS on top of a building with rails. It was meant to be anti infantry - close range. What you are kind of saying, "the HMG is worse then a Forge because I can't kill vehicles and infantry with it." Not, splitting hairs, it's just a different role. Second, it was also meant to be a drive by weapon, I don't see anyone using rails whilst moving. We were hoping that the firepower of the Blaster would be enought to hurt/kill infantry in those situations. Third, and that's not for PC/competitiveness, it was also meant to be fun, yes, an alien concept. I like the idea of mowing down infantry with a vehicle mounted turret, or adding some serious firepower to a HAV that goes deep into enemy territory or is on point defense. All that said and done, if the Small Blaster fits none of these criteria, we need to keep looking at it. one reason is because of the turning ability, the turret turns pitifuly slow and this means it's pretty difficult to get a target on the run, then keep the target as you pass it by. also it's difficult to hold a target on the move anyway and many find it easier to just shoot with a rail gun from a stopped vehicle. this is true for drop ships as well many times the the drop ship can turn faster then the turret can and the gunner can get stuck until the driver stops turning. so one way to help turrets is to increase their turn speed in my opinion
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game 83	Posted - 2014.08.31 10:37:00 - [42] - Quote turret turn speed buff would be appreciated, or atleast make the proficiency skill double the effect of what it currently is. NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1098	Posted - 2014.08.31 18:42:00 - [43] - Quote On LAVs they're useless, on an Incubus however they're completely worth it. Amarrica! It's Not Safe to Swim.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1098	Posted - 2014.08.31 18:43:00 - [44] - Quote EDIT: Derp posted. Amarrica! It's Not Safe to Swim.
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 56	Posted - 2014.08.31 19:05:00 - [45] - Quote To change a bit of gameplay, we tried with some friends the blaster as a side turret on the Incubus. Provided it came in range, the turret is litteraly a monster, against both infantry and vehicles. (the gunner bug is greatly in cause for this). I still have some brain bugs when I see this poor Myron (3.50 on the vid), Here is a sample of what happened during those games : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITGU-EAYas The best thing in having a side blaster is the cover fire you can provide when it come to attack a position. And if you have the possibility to work with 2 guys that use the ADS as a transport, it is even better. I hope that this will become the gameplay of Gorgons and Grimsnes in the months to come. Prima Gallicus diplomat. Contact Hubert De LaBatte or me if you have business to do with us.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 371	Posted - 2014.08.31 22:14:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: All right, again as promised we want to follow up on this little guy. I am having fun soloing on a LAV, aside from how ridiculously easy it is to kill a gunner. I wish the LAV conferred some shield or armor bonus. Will explore further. Anecdotally, I also saw a few HAV's with a front gunner yesterday. No idea about dropships though. Pilots of all vehicles, is the Small Blaster worth fitting yet? It's fun to use, I've had one on the front of an ads, side of an ads and on an LAV... You gotta get close, but when you do it's usually a kill... Thing is it isn't worth fitting over a missile or rail, because they're both really easy and have more range. Also with killing side gunners or Lav turret users, a simple seat switch makes you near invincible, unless you're slow to hit the button or you went balls deep against several opponents and 1 was smart enough to aim at the other seats. THUNDERGROOVE wrote: EDIT: Derp posted. You can see into the future! O___O
bamboo x Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 1093	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:07:00 - [47] - Quote it, like all things in dust that are gallente except the shotgun, is UP *Eternal Beings* - #76 in All Time WP - #90 in All Time Kills. Member since day one, 10 months ago.
Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 11916	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:17:00 - [48] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: All right A few points The blaster is clearly not intended to compete with a landed DS on top of a building with rails. It was meant to be anti infantry - close range. What you are kind of saying, "the HMG is worse then a Forge because I can't kill vehicles and infantry with it." Not, splitting hairs, it's just a different role. Second, it was also meant to be a drive by weapon, I don't see anyone using rails whilst moving. We were hoping that the firepower of the Blaster would be enought to hurt/kill infantry in those situations. Third, and that's not for PC/competitiveness, it was also meant to be fun, yes, an alien concept. I like the idea of mowing down infantry with a vehicle mounted turret, or adding some serious firepower to a HAV that goes deep into enemy territory or is on point defense. All that said and done, if the Small Blaster fits none of these criteria, we need to keep looking at it. The blaster needs a LOT of work before it can compete with rails in the anti infantry job. Also, increase range, we aren't talking infantry here, getting close with vehicles doesn't happen that often. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
Y-BLOCK BioCyberDevelopment 15	Posted - 2014.09.01 05:37:00 - [49] - Quote Small Blaster Orientation & Movement Speed When switching from the driver or passenger positions, on a LAV, to the turret, the turret should always face the direction the LAV is facing. Also, if the small turret is mainly for taking down infantry, then the movement speed of the turret should be effectively increased. These are the only issues I have with the Small Blaster Turret.
Shooter Somewhere Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 61	Posted - 2014.09.01 13:53:00 - [50] - Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSREPOQB_oA AY YO RATTATIAAATTTYAAA small blasters need a damage nerf a considerable range buff and dispersion taken away up to 60-80m all that DPS nothing when the bullets are going everywhere. If you want small blasters to compete with rails this is what you need to do, This is coming from someone who actually tanks, and when tanks become my problem I don't pull out a FG our some SWL and get on a rooftop I get my own and go toe to toe with him like it should be not go ***** mode. So I really hope you listen to tankers instead of tankers instead of AV this time. HEADSHOT! HEADSHOT!! HEADSHOT!!! HEADSHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=earCbU6vgAo

PLAYSTTION GamersForChrist 200	Posted - 2014.09.01 19:35:00 - [51] - Quote I was just gunning in a squadie's ads with a militia one i think and it was great. The best its ever been. 44/4 in a BPO Scout (1.8) 40/5 in a Proto Assault (1.7) Open Beta Vet 27mil sp R.I.P Dust 514
Shooter Somewhere Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 63	Posted - 2014.09.01 20:44:00 - [52] - Quote PLAYSTTION wrote: I was just gunning in a squadie's ads with a militia one i think and it was great. The best its ever been. That corp name... I... I.. I just cant... HEADSHOT! HEADSHOT!! HEADSHOT!!! HEADSHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=earCbU6vgAo
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1248	Posted - 2014.09.01 22:51:00 - [53] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: All right, again as promised we want to follow up on this little guy. I am having fun soloing on a LAV, aside from how ridiculously easy it is to kill a gunner. I wish the LAV conferred some shield or armor bonus. Will explore further. Anecdotally, I also saw a few HAV's with a front gunner yesterday. No idea about dropships though. Pilots of all vehicles, is the Small Blaster worth fitting yet? At the moment they feel mediocre. If one of my pals has fitted 'em, I still hope that there would be small rails instead as they do AI work at least as good. Noticed one attribute about small blasters: Maximum ammo is extremely low, at least for skilled rof operators. It can be 60 to 90 secs or so and empty, maybe less. Buffing max ammo makes sense. Reload speed could be slightly nerfed. Kill power isn't quite there yet. Personally I like the wider HMGish spread. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1228	Posted - 2014.09.01 23:28:00 - [54] - Quote Small blasters need a lot more ammo, they just run out way too quick... as far as damage goes, the only improvement I think they need is a small bit of splash damage. Maybe .5 or .75m splash range. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.