|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1260
   |
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Meee One wrote:Rizlax Yazzax wrote:I believe Rattati explicitly stated large blasters are AV a while back. Hence the increased dispersion to make it less effective on infantry.
Can't be arsed to find the thread but pretty sure that's the case. 98% of the time i see Large blasters killing infantry. Ironically i only ever see small turrets on rails to make up for their lack of spray and pray ability. Large blasters should be renerfed,they shouldn't be able to snipe an uplink from 100m,or for that matter infantry.
All three points of this post are wrong.
Recommend everyone to ignore this.
People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1260
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Consider that Lg Blaster is the weakest of three Lg turret types in AV work, that it could have somewhat better performance in AP function than those other two.
Besides, mounting blasters means that those tanks put themselves into the reach of all AV, including those scary AV nade volleys. Rails and missiles can avoid that while killing at range.
People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1260
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:Leeroy Gannarsein wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:MarasdF Loron wrote:So, I might have fallen out of the loop here at some point but are Large Blasters meant to be anti infantry or anti vehicle? I'm just wondering because the Large Railgun outperforms the Large Blaster at both roles. Large Railgun takes one shot to kill most infantry, works at close to far range and is more effective at taking out other vehicles at close to far range as well.
The only thing in favor of the Large Blaster is that it doesn't require aiming thanks to the dispersion. You just point it generally in the right direction and hold the trigger down and wait for kills to happen. If you aim it directly at your enemies then it's still no more effective at it's job.
So the "problem" with Large Railgun is that it requires aiming, but if you got aim, there's no reason to go for the Blaster. It's accuracy is poor, range is poor and damage is poor.
Not asking for any changes to be made here, I just want to know what it's meant for because currently there is very little incentive to use it for anything if you know how to aim. I only ever use it when I want to relax and don't want to aim, instead just point it roughly at my enemies and hope that it hits something enough times to kill it.
Edit: Just realized this might be in the wrong section. Oh well, damage is already done. Blaster kills infantry far better than the railgun. You can claim to have aim, but you certainly aren't going to go around with a large railgun and kill infantry that doesn't stand still for you. Sure you get a lucky shot now and again, and some are more consistent, but the fact still remains a blaster will outperform a rail in most all situations. When it comes to killing infantry that is. Added note, I use blasters to deal with shield tanks, works GREAT. Missiles for maddies, and a railgun for versatility simply due to nature of it. But more often then not, a railgun gunnlogi isn't going to beat my blaster gunnlogi in a straight up fight. this. Fighting at close range with a blaster is orders of magnitude easier than the same with a railgun. There isn't any margin for error with a rail; if you miss one shot by the time you cool down enough to fire again the blaster's got the advantage through sheer sustained fire. The railgun's better more because it's versatile than because it's still CQC king. Learn to aim, learn to maneuver, learn to be aware of your surroundings and you wont lose to a blaster tank in 1v1, ever, not with a rail.
Ever? How about if the rail pilot has learned to aim, maneuver, knows surroundings like back of his hand plus knows how to conserve shots?
Caldari hulls with rails have surprisingly good cqc agility.
Ever is such a harsh word.
People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1260
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:
I'm just going to point this section out as I think it sums up what you are trying to say.
.
.
.
An excellent analysis by a clearly experienced tanker.
Those things should be known well while planning the turret fine balance.
(examples seem just ideas though, not ready to implement as such)
People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1260
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:
I didn't read Tebu's post because it's too much text but Rail is still superior to any other turret at any range in AV situation, that's why you only see Rail turrets in PCs when they are fighting other vehicles.
Actually, missiles are far better at taking down Incubus, but that's about it. Everyone uses shield tanks in PCs so no need for missiles there if they are only good against one type of vehicle in the whole match which stays up high all game anyway.
Btw you really should read Tebu's post.
Now, the rails are no longer superior to missiles, even at range. Only at extreme last 80-100% of rail max range of course missiles can't hit. But rail tanks stabilizing to get their shot can be quick vollied at far far distance with good missiles.
So -1 for your first paragraph.
MarasdF Loron wrote:
If you reduce the large turret effectiveness against infantry then the only job remaining for tanks in PCs is to destroy ADS, and forge does a much better job at that. So you completely remove the need for tanks in PCs. For pubs they still have their purpose with gunners. But if tanks can't hurt infantry, then there is no need for tanks currently. You might be saying to take out LAVs but they are few and far between and tanks are not even effective at taking out LAVs because they can just drive away from you in the blink of an eye.
Nobody wants to bring out tanks just to take out other tanks. Because tanks are becoming quite rare already, not quite as rare as in 1.6, but still rare, so you don't always get any enemy tanks on the field, so what do you do then when you have no one to kill and you don't have your gunner online and no one else wants to gun for you (because trust me, a lot of people don't want to be gunners) and all your SP is in vehicles?
Tanks need the power to kill infantry to create the need for AV tanks. If there were MAVs that are for anti infantry then you don't need anti infantry capabilities for tanks, but you don't have MAVs, do you?
Well there you are absolutely right. +1
Bonus points for the MAX comment.
People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1260
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 12:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Dergle wrote:So all large turrets are technically AV? I thought the blaster was anti-infantry. That was before tanks were made pointless. Infantry are allowed to kill tanks, tanks are allowed to kill tanks, ADS are allowed to kill tanks. Tanks are not allowed to kill infantry or ADS. Didn't you know? So do your part, call in your tank and go kill those other tanks that are accomplishing nothing. What are you waiting for, sir?
Luckily that is not the situation. Yet. 
People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
|
|
|
| |
|