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)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 6073	Posted - 2014.08.29 02:11:00 - [1] - Quote 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? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood Public.Disorder. 6313	Posted - 2014.08.29 02:22:00 - [2] - Quote I came here to see if my saga days from chrome would return as I did blaster and all, so blank though..... I suppose I'll have to redownload dust tomorrow and test it myself. shrugs edit:actually let me go link this to the barbershop, yeah I'll go do that........ Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 5 Prof 1 STB-Infantry (Demolition)
ladwar SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 2080	Posted - 2014.08.29 02:24:00 - [3] - Quote Not over rails on any platform. You want the truth you got it. Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth doing reviews in free time, want 1?
ResistanceGTA D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1449	Posted - 2014.08.29 02:52:00 - [4] - Quote ladwar wrote: Not over rails on any platform. You want the truth you got it. This. I don't see many Heavy's trolling with Methana's and Blasters. Railguns, on the other hand, always prevalent. If you find an issue and I stumble upon your thread, I will do my darnedest to get the issue known. Also, Raptors...
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 709	Posted - 2014.08.29 03:02:00 - [5] - Quote ladwar wrote: Not over rails on any platform. You want the truth you got it. This. I've written a lot about LAVs in the past but the crux of the situation where the LAV is concerned is that there will never be a reason to fit Small Blasters so long as the Small Rail has the power that it has, at the range that its able to operate, and with the versatility in terms of choice of targets. The Small Rail is superior in both solo and team LAV formats due to its destructive ability both against Infantry and Vehicular targets. Even if you gave Small Blasters the damage they would need to sincerely compete the Small Rail still has the upper hand due to insane destructive ability at 200 meters out. Why would I risk my pilot and my own safety to do comparable damage against solely infantry when I can use the Small Rail and give my gunner a high powered rapid tactical sniper that also damages vehicles? As for Dropships they're still not a very viable choice due to Missiles reigning supreme. They have the combination splash radius (which is easier to make use of when looking down) and damage to the point where no other turret type really comes close from an infantry perspective. Rails have a niche when it comes to taking out vehicles with an Incubus though but the versatility of the Missile turret is hard to ignore. There would need to be a variant of the blaster that worked from a longer range with a cone of fire that applied to the entirety of the cone. Think in terms of Closed Beta HMGs with the old sharpshooter skill.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 7387	Posted - 2014.08.29 03:14:00 - [6] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: ladwar wrote: Not over rails on any platform. You want the truth you got it. This. I've written a lot about LAVs in the past but the crux of the situation where the LAV is concerned is that there will never be a reason to fit Small Blasters so long as the Small Rail has the power that it has, at the range that its able to operate, and with the versatility in terms of choice of targets. The Small Rail is superior in both solo and team LAV formats due to its destructive ability both against Infantry and Vehicular targets. Even if you gave Small Blasters the damage they would need to sincerely compete the Small Rail still has the upper hand due to insane destructive ability at 200 meters out. Why would I risk my pilot and my own safety to do comparable damage against solely infantry when I can use the Small Rail and give my gunner a high powered rapid tactical sniper that also damages vehicles? As for Dropships they're still not a very viable choice due to Missiles reigning supreme. They have the combination splash radius (which is easier to make use of when looking down) and damage to the point where no other turret type really comes close from an infantry perspective. Rails have a niche when it comes to taking out vehicles with an Incubus though but the versatility of the Missile turret is hard to ignore. There would need to be a variant of the blaster that worked from a longer range with a cone of fire that applied to the entirety of the cone. Think in terms of Closed Beta HMGs with the old sharpshooter skill. This is pretty accurate. You can completely forget about putting them on your front gun on a dropship; there's not enough range, damage, accuracy to find use in it. You're better off using a Small Missile or Rail. Missiles don't require a lot aiming so it's perfect for strafing runs on dropships. With Ground vehicles you might as well use a Rail because it offers you instant blap. With the Automatic Nature, RoF and low heat build up and range of Small Rails there's absolutely no point in using blasters in a competitive environment. Also you are right Rat, a big drawback is the fact that you're so easy to get killed out of the turret it's ridiculous. Another Reason why Rails and Missiles are much prefered on LAVs and Dropship Gunner ports. You're not having to be right on top of the enemy were you can be a free target practice lesson. Lucent Echelon -The Brightest Ranks Gallente Faction Warfare Chanel

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 6080	Posted - 2014.08.29 03:29:00 - [7] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alldin Kan Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1206	Posted - 2014.08.29 03:45:00 - [8] - 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? Greatly lower rate of fire of Small Rail turrets and raise efficiency vs vehicles to full damage. With the current rate of fire, a MLT can still kill heavy quickly. Alldin Kan has joined the battle!
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1022	Posted - 2014.08.29 03:48:00 - [9] - Quote I use a small blaster on my rail tank. It does the job, vaguely. Dust/Eve transfers
Gabriel Ceja Knights of Eternal Darkness League of Infamy 42	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:03:00 - [10] - Quote Well after the most recent change I was actually enjoying the blaster on the ADS - INCUBUS so much I had even posted about it. It was cool because finally I was able to kill people but unfortunately it still has some problems. GùÅ one problem is the biggest of all as a turret with the role of AI it is still hilariously outperformed by the missile turret. The cause of this is that it is still pretty difficult to hit a target with the blaster turret. GùÅ The second problem is that (and I know it's not an av turret) is that when it comes to vehicles you get no WP for vehicle damage and also when you deplete a vehicles shields using the blaster it's shield regeneration rate continues nonstop without delay. If there are any other problems I can think of I'll be sure to let you know but those are the biggest I can think of right away. "Throw on the flux capacitor." activates fuel injector "WOOOOOO!!!"

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 7388	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:03:00 - [11] - 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. I'm not wanting the Blaster to be good against vehicles. Blaster was meant to be Anti-Infantry, not vehicles, like you said but just like with the Plasma Rifle, other weapons do much better in their role than they do. To be honest, all that it would take to fix the blasters is a way to at least protect the gunner in an LAV and lower the RoF on the Small Rail Turret. I really like using the Blaster on my LAV as a mobile Frontline Support platform but due to reasons said already, it can't perform too well on the ground outside of "For the Lols" Lucent Echelon -The Brightest Ranks Gallente Faction Warfare Chanel
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 709	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:11:00 - [12] - 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. I don't think anyone's brought up landing a DS on top of a building and using it with rails, the rails are just a far better multipurpose and general use weapon. The Forge/HMG example fails here because where as the Forge is clearly an AV weapon that occasionally can be used to effectively go against Infantry the Small Rail turret is what happens when you give a Breach Rifle variant the ability to take down LAVs. It's not just an AV focused weapon, the thing absolutely destroys infantry and vehicles alike. Missiles are great against Infantry and Vehicles (Air). Rails are great against Infantry and Vehicles (Ground). Blasters, if their focus is solely on infantry, do not do anywhere near well enough in their area of expertise to ever justify their use compared to either the Rails or Missiles. There is no niche for the Blaster that wouldn't be better used for the Rail (on the ground) in its current state. Quote: 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. You're not going to find many situations where ANY Small turret is used whilst on a moving, grounded platform. Okay now we have a direction with which to make suggestions. A Drive-By based turret. First let's think about what a "Drive-By" vehicle is competing with in the current state of the game. If I'm gunning in an LAV I'm using a Heavy frame in order to soak up as much damage as possible first and foremost. If I'm running a heavy frame that opens up a certain number of weapon types to me immediately, namely the HMG. So you have to create a situation where it is preferrable for me, the pilot (or gunner), to want to use my Blaster turret instead of jumping out and gunning them down with my HMG. Use that as the base for your ideas for balancing the weapon moving forward. If I'm immediately competing with an infantry based counterpart then rotation speed and damage come to mind from the get go. If they're meant to be used in a moving vehicle then you need to consider the coordination involved with a driver having to slowly circle a target and do enough damage to kill them in that short engagement time, remember that every bump and acceleration difference felt by the driver is immediately applied to the gunner, you're not going to find your aim is at all effective in these scenarios unless the LAV turrets movement is made to be independent of the movement of the vehicle. The ONLY turret that i've used on an LAV thats been effective while the driver is moving were the old Small Missile turrets back before the movement of the vehicle effected the trajectory of the bullets. That was ONLY because I could take advantage of their splash and didn't need to be super precise with my aim. If you change the damage a gunner takes whilst using a turret then think VERY VERY carefully about what that means with respect to the rail turret. Is it possible to change the damage taken on individual turrets vs. every turret? Hopefully I've shed some more light on the situation at hand.
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 709	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:19:00 - [13] - Quote And to those bringing up lowering the Small Rail turret's rate of fire just don't forget that what you're talking about directly impacts the effectiveness of the Incubus as well.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1933	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:20:00 - [14] - Quote The DS and Blaster are incompatible just because of their conflicting natures: The Dropship (specifically ADS but others apply, albeit with a caveat) is fragile and needs to be able to keep moving and keep a safe distance(especially with the ground), which the blaster needs the opposite of. The increased elevation of the dropships also make missile ideal because it's easier to target the splash damage against the ground; this can make blasters difficult because now the target can move up and down and left and right, making it more difficult to keep the stream of plasma on target, compared to an LAV or tank where movement is strictly horizontal. Most people are wanting buffs mainly for using blasters as an Incubus forward turret. However, not only do I think this is a impractical because of the above reasons, but I think this could instead be a great opportunity to buff SDT dropships. I honestly could only see blasters used on STD dropships to support landing troops, but DSs are very difficult to fit and use effectively. If you want to do this, I might suggest the following changes: Rebalance (read: buff) STD dropship CPU/PG. The Grimsnes is ok-ish, I can fit a somewhat decent tank but it requires 2cplx PG mods and one ADV turret (and I have armor fitting 3) and has about as much ehp and reps as my Incubus but is significantly slower thus takes more damage. The Myron needs serious help, I have shields fitting 4 and 2cplx PG mods and I still cannot fit an acceptable tank, even without turrets. Making DSs more defensive would increase their appeal for serious use. Add a small shield to the front of turrets. Just enough to cover the upper body, but still leaves the legs and head exposed, especially from the side. Just a little more gunner defense for up close. Fix hot dropping. For those who don't know: hot dropping is having several people in your dropship jump out at the same time into a combat area. Right now it is impossible in PC and FW and is difficult in pubs because when passengers are ejected, they are splattered (if TKing is on) or carried off by the dropship (otherwise). Fixing this will encourage use of dropships (I could see dropping 4 infantry and circling back around with a side gunner for support and intel). Reworking the MCRU. This has to be the least used module in the game (in fact, I might put ISK down that it is, categorically). Three things need done: 1) Togglibility. It should be able to be turned on and off whenever with no cooldown or duration, just to keep blueberries from incessantly spawning when you want teammates. 2) Skill bonus. Without the advent of ADV and PRO variants (or even with them with some changes), the skill is a waste after lvl1. A 10% decrease in spawn time per level (max -50% or 5 sec) would be better than new mods and make the skill actually worth a darn. 3) Reduction on fitting costs. Just to make it more appealing. The blasters themselves I think are fine. I've only really tried MLT but had little difficulty killing even armor heavies. On a DS, the blaster should be used for infantry SUPPORT (not necessarily as a main/solo weapon for killing scrubs in pubs) and I feel that it is capable of such a role, it's just that the DSs need to catch up and the players actually have to use it for such purposes.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 7389	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:29:00 - [15] - Quote Foundation Seldon is spot on. I'd also like to add that back in the old days when LAV Blaster gunning was actually good it actually had a very small splash radius which also helped with hit and runs and man, did it help! I remember me and my buddy going around in our Scattered Blaster Turret just pushing objectives with Infantry mowing people down that dared to pop out of cover. sighs The good Ol days... I said before the problem with the Small Blaster is literally the exactly same problem the plasma rifle has with other rifle variants (besides the fact that it's on a vehicle compared to vehicle type small turrets). You specifically proposed a damage buff because you CCP Rattati, said something along the lines of 'The Plasma Rifle Sacrifices range for power'. This is pretty much the same way you can solve a lot of the Small Blasters issues. Lucent Echelon -The Brightest Ranks Gallente Faction Warfare Chanel
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 710	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:42:00 - [16] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Foundation Seldon is spot on. I'd also like to add that back in the old days when LAV Blaster gunning was actually good it actually had a very small splash radius which also helped with hit and runs and man, did it help! I remember me and my buddy going around in our Scattered Blaster Turret just pushing objectives with Infantry mowing people down that dared to pop out of cover. sighs The good Ol days... I said before the problem with the Small Blaster is literally the exactly same problem the plasma rifle has with other rifle variants (besides the fact that it's on a vehicle compared to vehicle type small turrets). You specifically proposed a damage buff because you CCP Rattati, said something along the lines of 'The Plasma Rifle Sacrifices range for power'. This is pretty much the same way you can solve a lot of the Small Blasters issues. I think we both agree that a buff to the Splash Radius of the weapon (with another damage buff or rotation buff pending the testing of said addition) for Small Blasters would be something that's seriously considered for making the Blaster turret an effective anti-infantry turret then, especially if we want its use potentially being made viable on moving platforms (LAVs) or Dropships. While we're on the subject of things that'd be NICE to have for the Small Blaster if not super game changing with respect to its viability I think the base ammo amount of the Small Blaster is a bit on the low side compared to what the Small Missile and Small Rail can do with comparable ammo amounts. Nice to see that there are other LAV Beta vets out there.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 6101	Posted - 2014.08.29 05:28:00 - [17] - Quote Excellent, I am seeing blast radius as the simplest way really lay the hurt on infantry, it as you said, needs to be better than the HMG you are carrying to not just jump out. I like and agree with the normal dropship, it should be tougher than the ADS, and be able to fit a little more, however, it's difficult because then pilots will just "all" migrate to the perceived stronger platform. Myron is UP, for sure and needs a bigger buff. Last comment, would fixing Small Blasters to the std dropships be too draconian as to say, this is the intended role? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 7394	Posted - 2014.08.29 05:45:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Last comment, would fixing Small Blasters to the std dropships be too draconian as to say, this is the intended role? It's probably due to me working 13 days in a row but I'm not understanding that sentence. Are you asking about putting it on a dropship automatically? Like a Pre-fitted vehicle or fixing it to the dropship as in not being able to move independently. Lucent Echelon -The Brightest Ranks Gallente Faction Warfare Chanel
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 387	Posted - 2014.08.29 06:39:00 - [19] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I like and agree with the normal dropship, it should be tougher than the ADS, and be able to fit a little more, however, it's difficult because then pilots will just "all" migrate to the perceived stronger platform. I dont know if they "all" would migrate over? I am not a dropship person myself (well, a very crappy one at least), but ADS is basically the only type I see in matches today, even for troop transport. I think pilots have gotten very used to the fact they can both fly and provide cover after dropping the "payload", so many will have a serious problem going back to the normal Dropship unless it has some serious advantages (like a HP buff as you mentioned). In my opinion, (and this applies to both vehicles and dropsuites), any specialisation should have to make sacrifices to give them the bonuses inherited by that specialisation.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 6107	Posted - 2014.08.29 06:40:00 - [20] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Last comment, would fixing Small Blasters to the std dropships be too draconian as to say, this is the intended role? It's probably due to me working 13 days in a row but I'm not understanding that sentence. Are you asking about putting it on a dropship automatically? Like a Pre-fitted vehicle or fixing it to the dropship as in not being able to move independently. sorry, I don't even understand that sentence, pre-fit and can't be removed from one or more turret hardpoints "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1025	Posted - 2014.08.29 07:00:00 - [21] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: sorry, I don't even understand that sentence, pre-fit and can't be removed from one or more turret hardpoints pre-fit (and thus free) is fine (militia dropships have militia missiles or rails already) Not being removable seems a bit fascist though. Regarding making transport dropships a lot tougher than ADS: It categorically will not force ADS pilots back to normal dropships. The entire point of an ADS is that you can pick up a few people, yay, but the ADS pilot himself can fire a weapon. That's it entire reason for existence: pilot flies dropship and fires turret at the same time. I mean, if you brought in specialised troop transports that were basically ultra-durable HAVs with no large turret, do you think tank pilots would flock to them? (hint: not a chance in kittening hell) edit: although, it's likely that a new type of pilot would use them instead of existing tankers. Dust/Eve transfers
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 714	Posted - 2014.08.29 08:17:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Last comment, would fixing Small Blasters to the std dropships be too draconian as to say, this is the intended role? It's probably due to me working 13 days in a row but I'm not understanding that sentence. Are you asking about putting it on a dropship automatically? Like a Pre-fitted vehicle or fixing it to the dropship as in not being able to move independently. sorry, I don't even understand that sentence, pre-fit and can't be removed from one or more turret hardpoints For the same reason we don't put mandatory cloaks on scout or HMGs on heavies I'd be against putting turret hardpoints on standard dropships. Just seems to go against a lot of the philosophy behind all the customization on the game. Feel free to stick them on MLT or Aurum variants though.
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 55	Posted - 2014.08.29 08:45:00 - [23] - Quote I really like where this is going. I'm a bit sad, because the blaster turret in front of an ADS can do half the job I want it to do in PC, but I guess thatGÇÖs it. Anyway, I also think that pre-fitting blaster on standard dropship would be a problem. However, what you can do is replace small rail on Gorgon by blasters, and change the federation and AUR Grimsnes alongside Creodron dropship with blaster instead of missiles. As for caldari dropships, i donGÇÖt know if that would be interesting to pre-fit blaster on them as a flux grenades and HMG can be a threat as great as rail tanks. I think the best would be to let them with missiles so it represent two different gameplay. - The heavy tanked gallente dropship making close combat support, short range deployment and emergency evac - The light tanked caldari dropship making -½long-árange-+ support, mid range deployment ; but which must take risks if it come to take allies on the ground Talking of witches, mobile CRU might be something you also want to consider if you want to give a new breath to the dropships. They are intended to be fitted on transport dropships or MAV (but I donGÇÖt expect to see them so soon). In order to do that, I suggest giving WP to mobile CRU (we are asking for this for more than a year nowGÇª), and giving a bonus to dropship operation that reduce the PG/CPU of mobile CRU (because that thing take a lot of it). The other way to have a correct fitting that include mobile CRU would be to have back the Prometheus and the Eryx. But once again I donGÇÖt expect to se them ever again Prima Gallicus diplomat. Contact Hubert De LaBatte or me if you have business to do with us.
I-Shayz-I I----------I 4710	Posted - 2014.08.29 10:56:00 - [24] - Quote I have ZERO skills in vehicles, and very little experince piloting anything but a mlt gorgon for uplink placement. That said I have gunned for players numerous times and have tried out all 3 of the turrets. From my experince: Small Missiles are general purpose. They are decent at adding dps against tanks and act similar to the mass driver in terms of dropship stuff. IMO missile turrets are perfect. Skilled pilots with them are enough of a threat for me to get my forge gun, but don't feel OP at all. Small Rails are the anti-vehicle turrets. I've had many encounters with LAVs or dropships that can down my LAV very easily, but still have a hard time hitting me. While myself personally find them difficult to use in a dropship, I feel that they are too effective as anti-infantry on a LAV used in a similar way to a sniper. Two hits is all it takes, which can pop one of my proto suits without me even realizing where they were firing from. I do not want a damage nerf, but letting them fire these "automatic snipers" for long periods of time without having a ton of kick or heat buildup doesn't make much sense. Blasters are your primary infantry killers. After the update, they are great at killing things from close range, but should have the greatest benefit of firing for long periods of time without reloading. I feel that the extra amount of firing time blasters get compared to rails is not enough. Rails should be the precision weapons, blasters should be the better "spammers" That said, something I like about HMGs is their tight dispersion after firing for a while. I don't want to see the dispersion mechanics changed, but possibly making it easier to deal damage at longer ranges with the blaster. Currently, you start out with a pretty small dispersion that slowly gets bigger...but I feel that I can't "spam" the weapon very well especially at longer ranges. Maybe make it start out very precise instead of somewhat dispersed, or slow down the dispersion a bit. Damage increase doesn't feel necessary, I just want more of the rounds to actually hit the enemy. 7162 wp with a Repair Tool! List of Legion Feedback Threads!
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1621	Posted - 2014.08.29 14:00:00 - [25] - Quote My two cents here. On Blasters: They need more range, quite honestly. They could be used on Dropships easier with, say, 50-60m range. This puts them right in between Plasma Rifle range (44m) and Large Blaster range (85m) which gives them enough room to be useful. Second, I don't think the dispersion is working yet. I find I get next to no hits when someone is in the circle, but suddenly they melt once the faint dot in the center passes over them. I request that either the dispersion is properly applied, or make the dot in the center more visible. On Rails, since someone brought them up: rails are currently a better choice than blasters because of their high (relative) rate of fire making them better at killing infantry, and from greater distances. However, nerfing their damage or rate of fire hurts their ability to harm vehicles, which they aren't too good at unless used on an Incubus. Rattati, I would like you to aim a small rail at any vehicle. You will notice that the efficiency is at 77% when the vehicle has shield. It drops to 63% when you get to armor. So here is my solution. Increase rail efficiency to 109%/89% shield/armor efficiency (this is an improper railgun damage profile, but matches up with the Large Railgun) and then decrease rate of fire, such that the dps on vehicles remains the same, while at the same time it lowers dps on infantry who currently take proper damage. Thus, blasters will become a more viable choice when dealing with infantry. Rest in peace, oh Captain, my Captain.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1934	Posted - 2014.08.29 14:04:00 - [26] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Excellent, I am seeing blast radius as the simplest way really lay the hurt on infantry, it as you said, needs to be better than the HMG you are carrying to not just jump out. I like and agree with the normal dropship, it should be tougher than the ADS, and be able to fit a little more, however, it's difficult because then pilots will just "all" migrate to the perceived stronger platform. Myron is UP, for sure and needs a bigger buff. Last comment, would fixing Small Blasters to the std dropships be too draconian as to say, this is the intended role? I don't think pilots will all migrate and abandon the ADS if balanced properly. The DS needs teamwork to work well and has a specific role as transport. The ADS's massive firepower and maneuverability, not to mention the pilot retaining control of turrets, will still ensure it see use. That's also not to mention the the ADS will serve as arguably the best counter to other DSs. As for blasters on the sides, I wouldn't mind free turrets, as long as you incorporate their fitting cost to the DS base stats as to not trouble fitting other mods (especially since the blasters are heavy on PG). Thanks for looking into the Myron. While you're at it, could you also consider looking at LAVs? The swarm buff really hurt them and the Saga has been need of rebalance since the hardener nerf. Thanks for listening!
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 4006	Posted - 2014.08.29 14:33:00 - [27] - Quote Allright lets get some feedback done by a professional LAV driver and dropship pilot: LAV feedback: -you must use a heavy dropsuit or you are toast in the gunner seat. -the camera shaking while firing is damn annoying and can disturb aiming massively -rotation speed is a problem though small blasters should turn faster then any other turret -range is a issue and requires you to get really close (AR range) -rate of fire (believe it or not) is still not high enough (see below) Incubus feedback (stacked skills): -When the pilot+gunner have like lvl4 on gallente assault dropship the fire rate goes trough the roof -damage appliction (gunner) is very good when in optimal range and can kill infantry insanely fast -clip size ammo is too low i literally have to reload after 1~2 kills (150 rounds gone in like 2 secs of constant fire) -completely useless on the front gun cause you cant aim precisely with the dropship In my opinion buff the range and give LAV's the same rate of fire bonus like ADS have. -Saga+Saga II= missile rate of fire+max ammo -Methana= Small rails and Small blaster rate of fire+max ammo Base buffs: -increase range by 15m -increase clip size to 250 rounds -faster rotation speed by 25% Im using allready proto small blasters on the LAV and got proficency 3. And on the LAV it still feels lacklusters compared to small rails. Cause you can just park somewhere and keep shoting infantry from range. And yes i use this tactic with a squadmate and not the solo scrubbery as some other people do. They say when you die you see a white light which then forms the line of: "GAME OVER! PLEASE INSERT COIN"
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 7402	Posted - 2014.08.29 19:14:00 - [28] - Quote I'm running the LAV gunning right now in FW and loving it (Only because Caldari FW players are terrible) Another thing I've noticed is that I need to see the gunners health again especially in close quarters situations I need to be able to know when to run. Lucent Echelon -The Brightest Ranks Gallente Faction Warfare Chanel
Tread Loudly 2 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 40	Posted - 2014.08.29 19:34:00 - [29] - Quote I do enjoy running small blasters on HAV's but I still cannot justify running them on a dropship except for just bs'ng around I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 242	Posted - 2014.08.29 19:42:00 - [30] - Quote quote=CCP Rattati] Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Last comment, would fixing Small Blasters to the std dropships be too draconian as to say, this is the intended role? It's probably due to me working 13 days in a row but I'm not understanding that sentence. Are you asking about putting it on a dropship automatically? Like a Pre-fitted vehicle or fixing it to the dropship as in not being able to move independently. sorry, I don't even understand that sentence, pre-fit and can't be removed from one or more turret hardpoints[/quote] I think (THINK) Kirk is asking if you intend to "FIX" the turret into a motionless position on the dropship (can no longer rotate on its mount). Rattati, I think (THINK) you intend to "FIX" small blasters on the standard dropship as a default turret that the player cannot remove or swap out in the fittings screen. (So if I buy the std dropship, I'm stuck with two small blaster turrets on it, and can't upgrade the standard dropship's turret type). If I'm not driving a DS, I'm manning its door turrets, so I consider my opinion as advanced as my skill in this game (err,.. uh-oh): There's a concept in the minds of the Devs, and in players' minds, of the DS being the lovable Heuy that drops in with door-gun blazing away, to sweep the enemy back with large payload and heavy-hitting rounds and thundering HMG-scary sound---this concept is VALID! The only persons who would say "no" to that concept, are the players who don't want to be fired upon by it, or the players who don't want to see it abused in the game. Keep a ROF-to-Damage output on the small blaster that makes it sound just SLIGHTLY slower than the hand-held HMG, but with a higher DMG per second: the gunner at the door of the huey STAYS aboard the huey as long as she feels she can do more damage (even if its just psychological noise damage) using the blaster turret than hopping out. Give the small blaster turret much faster default ROTATION than it currently has: the gunner on a fragile LAV can't ask the driver to "take it easy" or "hold still---don't move around so quick". I have had to abandon LAV blaster turrets beacause I know it won't rotate freely enough to re-acpuire the infantry target we are dancing around with. (And I know the LAV driver HAS to dance around to keep us alive). Defer some forward-facing protection on the gunner, so that (even though she shouldn't expect the full safety and HAV hull gives), the gunner of an LAV can feel that "as long as I stay at my turret and aim my sights toward the red infantryman, I'm partly sheltered from his return fire". Perfect a DISPERSION-to-Damage ratio that limits the standard small balster turret to close-range, but delivers heavy damage to infantry in that close range. We need to be able to SWEEP enemy out of that clese-range zone, or else that concept of "the huey dropping in to sweep the enemy back" just won't be perceived by gunner or her targets. The infantry who is under close-range fire from a small blaster turret should see her dropsuit protection nearly halved by only a few dispersed rounds---so that turning and fleeing for cover is immediately more practical than trying to slug it out and strafe with the gunner. The Missile technology has always made a good small turret for crossing the span BETWEEN infantry-niche and vehicle-niches. The Rail technology has (by requiring too much accurate aiming to be useful on a fast moving platform) made a good vehicle-niche turret. By "balance" of gamplay behavior, it's only appropriate to make Plasma (Blaster) rounds the weakest against vehicles, but the strongest device we reach for when we want to stop a riot of red infantry. Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.

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]

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.