AV

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?

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?

AV

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.

AV

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.

Good but Rattati I have a suggestion for you, and I hope CCP in general.

Please remind them that Tanks are......Tanks.

Their main cannons should not be designed to directly combat infantry, instead a Large Turret should be designed to fire a small magazine/ set of charges of powerful and destructive shells at a larger target.

Blasters do not make sense to me in this way....... why mount something comparable to a .50 Calibre Machine gun as your main gun when you platform allows from something more akin to a 220mm Cannon or a pair of SAM Pods.

Suppose the large blaster was more off a supped up plasma cannon?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AV

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

AV

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!

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.

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.

AV

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.

I'm just going to point this section out as I think it sums up what you are trying to say.

.
.
.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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)

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.