| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derrith Erador
Fatal Absolution
2978
   |
Posted - 2014.11.11 14:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
So I just decided to test out the blasters a few days ago, and I think I nailed the main issues you have with them Rat.
1) Lack of Range: It's a simple fact that rockets and rails have greater range than the blaster, not quite greater DPS, but the fact that I have to be at most 20 meters to do any damage is a little annoying. I'd say give them increased range in this respect.
2) ADS blaster bonus: In many cases in which I ran door gun blaster, I noticed that my dispersion was hurting my aim. I'd say that swapping the incubus blaster bonus to dispersion reduction would do wonders with making blasters a viable side turret. You could also reduce overall dispersion to blasters period, that is another option.
3) Rails still sniping infantry: This is still a big issue. I still prefer to run rails as a side turret because I can have my gunner both snipe infantry and lay the smackdown on other big bad vehicles with me. What I would propose to keep them from sniping infantry is to add a "shaking" or dispersion effect whenever charging the rail on the side guns (LAV turrets, HAV, and door ADS guns, the like), not enough to make them miss vehicles, but enough to where you'll have to really be boss to snipe infantry with it. In theory, this should put the blasters on top, and keep rails to an AV weapon.
And while we're here, I've been looking at threads saying giving Python a splash radius bonus is a good idea. I'm thoroughly against this. There are two reasons I say this:
1) It takes less skill with the shot: I've always thought that it should take some skill to aim the python turret, adding splash will make shots way more forgiving, and shots I should've missed in an AV vs V duel will end up hitting.
2) Increased ADS team kills: With higher splash on ADS, the amount of friendly fire from ADS will increase. This will cause more ADS pilots to get kicked from FW, and probably cause more PC and FW TKs. I have no wish to get kicked from FW because some shotgun scout saw my target before me and tried blast him in the back while I was shooting him.
R&B gets more kinky with every album Still rocking ADS
|
Derrith Erador
Fatal Absolution
3020
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 13:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shameless bump.
R&B gets more kinky with every album Still rocking ADS
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2588
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 14:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
1 & 2) the range is fine for its role, it's just the dispersion that's the problem. I think a skill bonus to dispersion would be great, whether it's the Incubus skill or the proficiency.
3) Perhaps a small amount of dispersion could be added to the rails making hitting pinpoint shots at infantry difficult at long range. This wouldn't affect vehicles too much since they're bigger (maybe LAVs a tad).
1b) (I'm going to assume my ideas for turrets were emplemented, eps. the AV and AI turret types) So what? In all honesty this sounds pretty elitist. I will agree that if current turrets got a splash bonus it would be a little OP, which is why I'd suggest a reasonable splash damage nerf as well, meaning you'd need to land more shots even though they're easier.
2b) I think this is a good balancing factor I hadn't thought of when suggesting the bonus. Realistically it makes sense, if you're shooting a turret mounted missile you don't want friendlies in the area anyway, if it means you need to be more selective with your shots than that's a good balance imo.
Dust is there! I was real!
Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
|
Atiim
Heaven's Lost Property
Negative-Feedback
13780
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 14:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Personally I think 20GJ Blasters should've always been mid-range weapons (as in 45-50m).
Having a CQC turret doesn't work simply because in that range you can be easily killed by a proper AVer, or if they don't have any AVers fielded they can simply shoot you out (or if you use Sentinels, strap REs to the LAV/DS).
The 1st Matari Commando
-HAND
|
Mexxx Dust-Slayer
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 20:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Personally I think 20GJ Blasters should've always been mid-range weapons (as in 45-50m).
Having a CQC turret doesn't work simply because in that range you can be easily killed by a proper AVer, or if they don't have any AVers fielded they can simply shoot you out (or if you use Sentinels, strap REs to the LAV/DS).
40m should be considered short range in the vehicle playing field. Then maybe swarms launchers mid-range weapons and then forges the long range weapons. |
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2191
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 20:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mexxx Dust-Slayer wrote:Atiim wrote:Personally I think 20GJ Blasters should've always been mid-range weapons (as in 45-50m).
Having a CQC turret doesn't work simply because in that range you can be easily killed by a proper AVer, or if they don't have any AVers fielded they can simply shoot you out (or if you use Sentinels, strap REs to the LAV/DS). 40m should be considered short range in the vehicle playing field. Then maybe swarms launchers mid-range weapons and then forges the long range weapons.
Personally, small blasters should be "mid-range" in the sense that they are effective from 0-100m. If All large turrets are supposed to be AV (niot a good idea) and small rails are supposed to be AV (another not-good idea) then small blasters should be the be-all-end-all of anti-infantry. Nothing, not the best tanked Sentinel with the best possible skillset, should withstand a blaster for any appreciable length of time (read: more than a second) Vehicles need something that kills infantry, and we should be able to do it best, since everything else we have isn't supposed to be used on infantry.
Proof that Rattati/CCP do listen to the playerbase.
|
Kaeru Nayiri
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
185
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 20:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Whatever is done with the small blaster needs to be checked carefully. It has to become decent enough to slap onto an Incubus without being totally stupid on a LAV.
Balance the Small Blaster to be very effective anti infantry on Tanks and LAVS, then tweak it further via Gal Assault Dropship skill to make it viable from a dropship without messing it up on lavs/tanks.
I suggest a range and splash damage bonus. Do not touch the dispersion. Everything in the reticule should take a steady stream of damage. Making that circle smaller just adds to the difficulty of applying damage. If everything in the reticule takes damage more steadily, it will already become a lot better. Best way to achieve that is either more rate of fire (more bullets per square meter inside the reticule) or more splash so each shot impacts a wider area when aimed at the ground.
This is just my opinion, I am also in the process of testing small blasters but do not have expert knowledge on them. |
LowerThan SnakeShip
The Scope
Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 16:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
i think the blaster turrent is fine there should be a different turrnet that you could only fit as an aircraft main gun that should allow you to do strafe runs that would look something like at a 10. just saying maybe a fixed turret that can not rotate maybe 150 to 300m effective range 1200 rpm with 100 dps standard 200 proto with a large cool down time or reload time maybe 45 sec |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |