|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1183
   |
Posted - 2014.09.04 20:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
You really need to reconsider this.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1183
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 20:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
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.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1185
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 20:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:
At least I tend to mostly get shield flare when using Large Blaster against infantry and generally I get a lot more infantry kills in a game when using Large Rail than Large Blaster, it's true the Large Blaster is easier, yes, more effective no. I can easily lead my targets and get them even when moving, I get much more range and accuracy, I get much lower TTK with Large Rail.
The only times I struggle to kill infantry with Large Rail is if the enemy is running up or down a hill or is sticking really close to my tank.
And if they are sticking really close to your tank you shouldn't be able to shoot them with any Large Turret IMO.
If a Rail Gunnlogi is losing to Blaster Gunnlogi in fair fight then they are doing something terribly wrong. Or the Blaster Gunnlogi is just insanely good at dodging rail shots.
I'm assuming you are playing PC at least sometimes, how many times have you ever seen anyone use anything other than Rail in PC for tank vs tank fights? I sometimes use Missiles or Blaster when against some less skilled tankers because I just want some change to the dull Rail but other than that, it's always Rail.
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.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1185
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 20:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:If I was to make an assertion rails should have the best DPS at range, but i'd make it so that at CQC rails were less effective at tank brawling so that in cqc blasters > missiles > rails in cqc and rails > missiles > blasters at range. Blaster need to be vehicles dominators at cqc Missile need to be worse than rails at range and blasters at CQC but pretty good at both Rails need to be ****** in CQC (taking away infantry terrorizing splash will help) and it needs to dominate at range. I also feel giving rails 400 meter range would be good. Missiles need to be good out to like 250-300m and yet be pretty damn good at brawling tanks but just overall be out dps'ed by blaster effectiveness if they are within say..40-50 meters. I'd take missiles if I'm planning on doing a little bit of everything and I am just a better pilot overall because I can overcome my disadvantages against blasters and rail in their ranges through stratagem or superior play. I'm also pushing for tanks to be able to rotate the turrets higher because currently ads can just own tanks.  The only counter to being owned by an ads atm is to jump out with a forge and I think that's poor counterplay. tanks obviously shouldn't be able to look straight up, but they need a little bit better height.
You tank?
I don't like a lot of your suggestions. I don't know where people get the idea that a rail should simply dominate at range. Range in my mind can equate to damage.
When you shorten the range, you increase the damage.
But conversely as you lengthen the range, the damage needs to drop.
It's already been shown that a High alpha rail with High range trumps all other turrets, and I think a large part of that is due to your line of thinking (not just you, many have said this before you). And could you push for actually adding versatility to turrets (read my sig). These three types are stale and stagnant, and I think attribute for a lot of the disparity between turrets.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1186
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 18:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:
I don't it'd be so stagnant if engaging tanks was a matter of deciding which range you were trying to engage at and then excelling at that range.
Making missiles the most versatile, rails the longest range (and best at doing damage at range through mechanics) and blasters the best at brawling CQC.
I'm just going to point this section out as I think it sums up what you are trying to say.
Tanks currently DO have effective ranges that make them much more effective when in that range. When you play tanks, you play with that knowledge in mind. Rails do damage within 300M, Missiles 250M, and Blasters 150M. So a railgun would put itself at the least disadvantage engaging an enemy outside of their optimal. Where the blaster is at the least disadvantage keeping the enemy within 150M.
Blasters already can shred up close. Not simply due to damage output, but turret rotation speed and another oft looked over factor; the differences between the two tank types. A blaster on a gunnlogi isn't the same as a maddie with a blaster, as a rail on a gunnlogi isn't the same as the maddie with a rail.
There are distinct advantages and disadvantages that will changes the way you use that turret and approach your enemies. Just to name a few:
Maneuverability, basically the turning speed and acceleration of a tank. Maddies turn FAR slower, like big lugging brutes, while the gunnlogi is rather nimble in comparison. Still a maddie has rather good straight line speed and is able to use a nitro for added acceleration without sacrificing tank like a gunnlogi.
Yet putting a nitro on a gunnlogi allows one to better outmaneuver opponents in close quarters. A large part due to the fact they are FAR more nimble meaning that boost of acceleration is put to far better use dancing around another tank.Add in the fact that turning your tank and turret at the same time VASTLY increases turret rotation, a gunnlogi has an easier time out tracking an opponents turret rotation.
Inate resistances, Shields are resistant to explosive, while armor takes extra damage from explosive, yet less from a blaster fire where a shield takes extra. This has a very large impact on many of the outcomes to a battle. It's not as easy as saying, I'm at my effective, now fire.
Missiles are not going to get the best of a shield tank fit for shield defense. Much like a gunnlogi with a blaster more than likely isn't going to best a maddie with a blaster. So by making blaster anymore powerful in CQC, you will just make it harder for one tank type in CQC, the gunnlogi.
Turret depression, maddies can basically aim down, where a gunnlogi can only go level and no further down. I mention this because a maddie with a rail AND range has a large advantage. Why, because they can use high elevation for sniping, and remain unreachable by another rail. Where a gunnlogi in the same position much physically angle itself down an elevation, which generally means exposing itself and remaining that way to apply damage.
So gunnlogis like it flat, and maddies like it rounded. Maddies can go up an elevation and fire as they are coming back to level, where a gunnlogi is defenseless as they go up an elevation to level ground until they plane off.
I guess what I'm saying here is that when you consider turrets, you also much consider what that turret is attached to, and how this can create an advantage for one tank type over another. You approach saying that a tank needs to approach battles with their optimal in mind ignores the fact that tanks are different. It makes total sense if we just had one tank type and flat damage percentages, but we don't. We have turrets that do varying amounts to certain tanks as well as having optimal ranges with those turrets.
I really don't think we can simply say that optimals are the problem and fixing that will lead to better game play. You say rails should be best at range and blasters at CQC (you don't understand missiles I guess, Versatility??), I say there should be close range rails as well and longer range blasters.
Examples:
Rail type with 250M range, good damage output, but horrid tracking speed, meaning a blaster that gets in within 50m - 100m has the advantage, so the rail would rather it not get too close.
Sniper rail, 500 or 600M range, low alpha, decent ROF. Ultimate range, but the trade off is a low DPS. More for support fire as that range makes it somewhat untouchable by many things.
Breach Rail, much like the breach FG. Long range like the sniper (400M), but a much longer charge up time, very high heat buildup, and high alpha damage. While it can do pretty decent damage per shot, it needs to take 8 -10 seconds between shots.
This would make it far less stagnant, it would be no longer as simple as saying, oh he has a rail, and knowing exactly the limits of that rail as there is only one type and the most I need to know is if it's a particle cannon or not. With some sort of variety to rails, I would need to determine first which type one uses and go from there on how to approach that target.
Right now it's as simple as saying, it's a rail gun, and I have a blaster, so I must reach my optimal before I let it engage me. Ranges are already there and we already play to them as you mention.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1186
|
Posted - 2014.09.06 18:50:00 -
[6] - 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.
And I can easily say the same about my blaster engaging a shield rail. I just don't lose 1v1 to a rail, especially one that tries to CQC with me.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1187
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 02:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
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.
This so much. Making them purely AV focused is a BAD idea. I've made the argument that tanks be more AV focused with the emphasis on equipping turrets for AI, YET, that argument was some what conditional. I also wanted AI large turrets that were effective against infantry but faltered against other vehicles.
In this way there would actually be a need for AV tanks, otherwise tanks have no actual role that isn't trumped by other classes, IE AV and ADS. That is the biggest problem we are coming into with this focus that a Large is solely AV, and smalls are solely AI.
As I said, we have seen what happens when you nerf the large blaster into oblivion against infantry, TANKS BECOME OBSOLETE. I still view PC as a good indicator of what's imbalanced and even now, tanks are VERY sparse. To the point you can do with a FG over the tank easily.
SO please rethink your approach Rattati.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1191
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 17:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: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)
Yeah idea's I kinda threw out there so that CPM could get a feel for what I was speaking of when I say tanks are somewhat stagnant now. I think it's a direction we need to move in with turrets. Idea is the turrets work in a way that complement tank hulls, as well as being AV or AI focused.
I want to create a need for AV tanks on the field, but I don't want AI tanks to be overly powerful in the AV department. Running AI means you put yourself at a serious disadvantage against other vehicles on the field, and while you can fit for gunners to help mitigate that disadvantage, you will still be at a disadvantage, and there will be minus 2 infantry from the field.
Hell, just increasing the PG/CPU req of an "AI" turret above that of the AV turrets would mean an AI tank is physically weaker against infantry AV or other tanks due to the lack of PG/CPU for tank.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1191
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 17:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: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. Maybe I should. I just have never been killed by missiles when I am in a shield rail tank. I know I've taken out lots of redline shield rail tanks myself with missiles but that requires 2 complex dmg mods. And if you come across a competent tanker you are dead if you don't get the kill with first volley. Maybe I just haven't come across a good enough missile tanker to take out my shield rail. But then again they would have to do some very fancy stuff to survive after they've fired their first volley. EDIT: I've never paid attention to the dmg profile of missiles in game but I heard they were like -40/+20 atm so when they fix that, maybe they will actually become more deadly. But somehow I recall them being -31/+20 or so, but like I said, I haven't paid attention that much.
Missiles are my baby, always loved them (more before they changed them). True against shield tanks they require some fancy driving, but if you can manage to get 2 volleys into a shield tank, you are in a decent position. Even then I know it's rough. I came across a decent gunnlogi with 5300 shields and a hardener in my missile tank, and managed to win.
But that required 4 to 5 volleys, and fortuanatly I was able to trick him into going around a socket as I went down into the socket. He expected to flank me, instead I came up behind him and finished him. But often times I don't bother trying with missiles, I'll switch out to a rail or blaster (blasters work very good against a shield tank when it's running missiles).
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
| |
|