I've done time as a USMC Machine Gunner,


TL;DR: Goldfish are overpowered, nerf their active memory from 30 seconds to 13 seconds.

Can you produce an audio version?

No recording Software

If I read it will you give me ISK?

Respecfully, i couldn't disagree more.

High RoF is king of CQC.

Respecfully, i couldn't disagree more.

High RoF is king of CQC.

Do not agree on the large rail cannon, it's way too difficult now.
BP does not have travel time and BP spool time is way faster, but more than this turrets aren't mobile as rifles, you can't do 360-¦ spin, you can't aim downward, if you shoot 4 times in a row it overheats, you are not free to shoot whenever you want (if you charge half, you have to wait a cool down).

No, i would not define the large rail easy and no, it's easier to use an assault forge gun, at least in my opinion.

I said firing mechanic, not performance.

Right now the railgun is a POS across the board both light and heavy. Why do you think I state that vehicles aren't in a good spot? Its bad damage application via upscaled infantry weapons that are intended to kill vehicles but aren't good at doing it. Railtanks tend to hang back and snipe because closing and engaging isn't really doable.

But the current HAV turrets mimic designs intended as infantry weapons. They don't act like their own class of weapon, which they should be. A tank turret should not behave like an infantry weapon. Nor should it behave like a light turret. A light turret should behave similarly to a heavy weapon that a heavy might carry but with a differing grade of performance.

I can understand what you have in mind for large turrets, but i don't think large rails are similar to any infantry weapon.
BTW how do you imagine a large blaster to be?

So, I've collected a few thoughts after thinking about this a bit:

I like the idea of CQB-oriented guns being changed for a more alpha-damage style. In particular, with the Gallente blaster rifle, this much more accurately matches the blaster turrets in EVE- said turrets do not have an especially high rate of fire, but do have the highest per-shot damage (and the shortest range); since they do have a fairly moderate rate of fire, the high per-shot alpha means they end up with the highest DPS... but it all ends up being in big chunks of alpha, rather than a continuous barrage of lower-damage shots.

So changing the Gallente weapons to be more breach-style rather than "assault" style is, IMO a good idea. Perhaps a little bit because it would likely prompt the "AR" to be changed to the "Blaster Rifle", which would be awesome.

So, given that EVE-blasters are basically DUST-breach weapons, changing the AR to be much more alpha-oriented is actually quite logical. It's even consistent with the shotgun and the charge mechanic of the ion pistol (the latter needs some work though). Caveat: this likely means that rails will because the assault archetype. Please do not make RR firerate higher than 600-650 RPM. I like my space railgun AK with that sort of firing cadence, it just sounds better. But that's just a personal thing.

I do think that blaster turrets should not act like giant plasma cannons, however. It doesn't feel consistent with what they're called and the EVE analogues (yes yes, DUST != EVE). What I'd like to see is just have a really low firerate, perhaps around 120-180 rpm. This gives a turret that's sort-of-okayish at killing infantry (with the current dispersion mechanics and a reduced firerate, you'd be relying heavily on lucky hits), and is reasonably good at killing lighter vehicles.

However, this would likely mean that blaster turrets would be... suboptimal, for killing other tanks. IMO, however, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If large blaster turrets are adapted to be more of a slow-firing modern autocannon analogue, then we could potentially add a "plasma turret" that functions more similarly to the plasma cannon, and the large blaster turret is then used as the turret of choice for HAV pilots that fit their vehicles to be speed/scout style, the idea being it's supposed to hunt down and destroy lighter vehicles, like LAVs and the eventual MAVs.

Of course, that could all be undone by a. MAVs not being in the game, and/or b. medium blaster turrets functioning as I described a potential large blaster concept.

The other angle, of course, is dropping rate of fire even lower- say, comparable to current small rails, just without spool times or the pinpoint accuracy. This means using a large blaster on infantry isn't impossible, but is more like playing the lottery. Of course, I'd also like to see large blasters get a little bit of splash damage- not a lot, but just enough that infantry will want to get behind cover a little more than they might usually do.

I do, however wonder about a 6-second firing time for large rails. I'm certain that you know, but for posterity's sake (you know, those suckers who don't like math) I'll note that this is pretty much 10 rpm on the dot. I really don't like that sort of figure for large rails. Mostly because rails have never been an especially slow firing, high-alpha weapon that that RoF would tend to correlate with. I don't know offhand what large rail firerate is, but I'd say something around 20-30 (or even 40!) rpm would perhaps be more appropriate; simply balance this with a larger heat buildup so that it isn't generally practical to actually achieve and maintain that sort of firerate.

This then also allows for the eventual artillery turrets to be more distinct in having higher alpha and slower firerate.

Overall though, I like what you're getting at with CQB/long-range weapons being switched from DPS/alpha, respectively, to alpha/DPS, as well as your thoughts on vehicles.

Side note: I absolutely agree that heavies should not be "CQB point defense" (or at least not just that*), but I'd like to see the HMG be more of a sort of medium-range weapon rather than an actual long-ranged weapon. This then opens the door for other heavy weapons to diversify the ability of heavy suits to function in different conditions... but does require said heavy weapons to be brought in *looks at CCP*.

I do think heavies as CQB point defense should be something doable- and even, perhaps, desirable- but that that should be merely one of, and likely not even the best use, of a heavy in a defensive role. After all, a core aspect of the heavy suit is it's supposed ability to engage vehicles on an equal footing- and it's difficult to do so except in a defensive fashion, and almost implies that heavy weapons are quite deadly to vehicles regardless of whether or not it's an AV weapon.

Perhaps HMGs should be more lethal to LAVs and derpships... mostly just LAVs, I think.

*Mostly because I like the whole "enemies lemming into wall of HMG MURDERDEATHKILL" part of point defense... when they happen to stop by, anyways.

@ jathniel

To clarify it's not RR/ScR DOMINANCE.

They are overperforming because alpha in close. With the RR if you hold the weapon on a target for an average of one second out of 5 you are applying your damage better because each shot hits harder and applies more to target. If a DPS weapon misse at close ranges it'spissing away it's high damage over time which means slow and steady is winning in a brawl via attrition.

It's wasting less ammo and applying more immediate damage to target with a major buffer. Alpha weapons are less likely to suffer hit detection artifacting in close.

But in a DUST CONTEXT which is likely to kill you faster? The gallente AR or the gallente shotgun at 5-10m?

This is a practical application question, not a math check or comparison of individual skill. This is "all considerations are equal except the weapon type" tactical question.