Well then it kinda fails at it's job.


What do we have here?

Yet another gallente weapon that's outperformed by other weapons in it's intended range?

To be fair the one great thing about the Large blaster was kicking on the nitros and going in circles around your target with the Blasters Turning speed but not that Nitros and inertia are getting revamped i don't know what Advantage the Large Blaster has over the Missiles or Large Rails when it comes to AV.



If Large Rails had their old slow as molasses turning speed back and Large Missiles were looked at again the Large Blaster has a chance to actually be worth something in it's role but with how things look for delta, the Large Blasters only advantage against AV will be that you can kill infantry more easily with it....which isn't AV at all.



I know this is a stretch but have you thought about making the Large Blaster Turret perform like a Larger Plasma Cannon? Or is that a completely different idea entirely?

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.

False. As you get farther away, DPS should drop. Not damage.

Rails should hit really hard from far away, but have a very slow fire rate. Such as charging each shot.

I certainly disagree with your first part. While agreed there are situations where a rail will prevail over a blaster when it comes to killing infantry, like shooting snipers or forgegunners on high buildings where range is needed. But as far as killing infantry, the blaster does a much better job of it in my opinion.

Sure you can one shot kill someone with a rail and at times get double kills when the enemy stacks up on each other. But when I come into a group of enemies, it is far easier and faster taking the group out with a blaster. Something about the automatic nature of the blaster.

I liken the rail to a sniper and a blaster to the AR. Sure the sniper has the advantage of range, but with the slow ROF and the little room for any margin of error in your shots, groups of enemies require a slow and methodical approach. Whereas the AR is able to tackle opponents head on, quickly dropping one, re positioning, and dropping the others. My thoughts on it at least. I've been a rail tanker for a long time, and my forte has always been killing infantry with the rails, so I feel I know what you are talking about.

And yes, I've done a LOT of PC in my time, and yes the rails are certainly a popular choice. Namely for dealing with those DS. But blasters are needed on the field to lay the hurt on infantry to create a need for a rail that out ranges said blaster. Like I said, rails just tend to be a LOT more versatile.

That said, as I mentioned previously, blasters work very well at killing shield tanks. I'm pretty positive that they gain a damage bonus against shields, and being that a popular fitting choice for gunnlogi's entails stacking shields, a blaster does make short work of them. Sure if you let the rail engage you at their max range, you will have a much harder time dropping them. But often times I find I can lure them in, as railers tend to expect an easy kill.

Sure I come across MANY bad tankers, but I also (not to be big headed here) consider myself a top tier tanker. There are few tanks that will consistently beat me with whatever turret I choose. Blasters just require a bit more work to keep it alive against rail tanks, and the maps do make a large impact on how well one can perform over the rail tank.

I've run blasters in a lot of my recent PCs (Not big on PC anymore myself) and I recall a few instances where, as I was guarding HP, a rail gunnlogi made it my way. Using a depression in the field on that map I was able to keep myself out of his LOS until he made it close enough that I felt I could engage him and come out on top. Came at him at an angle, eventually outmaneuvering his tracking speed with the blasters superior tracking for a very conclusive win.

The second and third time he came at me, he was certainly a lot more leery of my tactic, so it ended up being a bit closer, but the fight was still very much in my favor. Though in that map I had a lot of terrain to work with to give me the advantage, where as if the map was much more open, he would have had a very clear advantage.

Sorry, I've ramble on enough already. Just my thoughts on it.

Damage over time in a cqc engagement of rails vrs blasters should have the blasters winning after the first second in the total damage dealt in that time.

If two tanks, a rail and a blaster tank, were sitting still facing each other, in cqc range and begin firing at the exact same moment, the blaster tank must beat the rail tank. if they both had the same ehp vrs weapon profiles.

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.

Wow, thatm ade a lot of sense Tebu.

Thanks for explaining all that. My premise was based on the truth that I can beat any tank with my rail gunlogi no matter the range...but I never really face off vs competent tankers. I rarely tank and when I do it's rail at whatever range.

I didn't even know maddies could aim down as I've never used them outside of chrome and my usage was very limited, I never learned the nuances.

I totally see your idea for turrets making the tank game waaaay more fun, I guess my only concern would be making sure we limit the effectiveness of large turrets vs infantry. Even now large blasters are pretty damn deadly and it's not that difficult.

LOOOOOOOOOL, if everything is AV then why would you call an AV tank to kill another AV tank if it is doing no damage to infantry, the only thing that it could do is kill supply depots and turrets etc, which are also useless in this game.

It should be that you call a AP tank to deal with a mass of infantry somewhere then to counter that a AV tank is called.

CCP Logic = MINDBLOWN!

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.

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.

Luckily that is not the situation. Yet.