DUST Search - Large Blaster Turret Proposition

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Large Blaster Turret Proposition - Re-designation of Role

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15126	Posted - 2014.11.27 22:38:00 - [1] - Quote Premise: That the current iteration of the Large Blaster Turret is not suitable for a role as a Large Turret and as a Primary AV weapon, nor to does it really represent the nature of superior fire power and ordinance deployment that the other Large Turrets do. Suggestion: Alter the Large Blaster so it better reflects the nature of Blaster Turrets EVE side. Each time a Hybrid Blaster Turret fire it shoots off a volley, cycles, and then fires off another volley. In order to reflect this the Large Blaster should be altered to fire Plasmas Cannon Rounds. Each magazine for the blaster should have 6 rounds, with a very short reload time, and have the firing arc and small AoE of the plasma Cannon at roughly 3.5m The Statistics: For example (The Current) Ion Cannon Damage- 136.5 RoF GÇô 428.6 RPM Heat Build Up GÇô X Value (allows for 48 consecutive rounds to be fired) 136.548 = 6552 Damage Take that Damage Profile 6552/ 6 = 1092 damage per round on a direct hit. Assuming that splash damage is calculated at 0.25 of total damage that means that the AoE damage is roughly 273 damage unmodified, Proposed Charged Electron/Ion Cannon Direct Damage GÇô 1092 Splash Damage Modifier GÇô 0.2 RoF GÇô 60 RPM Rounds Carried GÇô 78 Reload Speed = No Changes This proposal accepts that - The Large Blaster is now primarily an Anti Vehicle weapon - The Large Blaster remains effective in dealing with infantry but requires better aim - The Large Blaster receives an 11% DPS increase (though sustained DPS and applications of DPS against small targets is significantly lessened) - The Large Blaster somewhat now reflects the EVE side blasters which volley a number of shots. - The Large Blasters now visually and functionally represents Gallentean artillery weapons too heavy to be equipped to dropsuits. - The Large Blasters can now evenly engage other Large Turret forms in less duration/attrition based combat and more on the level of a main battle tank. This proposal acknowledges that - The Large Rail Turret will be unbalanced vs this AV option - The Large Missile (rocket) Turret will require tweaks to ensure its DPS role and total damage per magazine output is fair and equivalent with the Large Blaster. - The Large Rail Turret with require a means of alteration subject to its specific EVE racial characteristics to fundamentally ensure that it in the same manner as the Large Blaster Reflects powerful Caldari and Gallentean Artillery weapons I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15153	Posted - 2014.11.28 03:47:00 - [2] - Quote Bump I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 2157	Posted - 2014.11.28 04:10:00 - [3] - Quote Hmmm... Very, very interesting idea. Sounds... Interesting. I think that the damage should be half the Plasma cannon, double your ROF suggestion, and make it a hitscan weapon w/ the effect of a big ass , excuse my suggestion, green laser that just passed through. I Live for Tears
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 166	Posted - 2014.11.28 04:22:00 - [4] - Quote I dunno, I really like this sort of borderline-barrage weapon. It gives the potential for HAVs to be more than "mobile bunker that murders everything". Which is only a good thing, IMO. HAVs are sort of fun right now (ass KB/M vehicles controls are a bit of a downer), but they don't really have anything that actually makes them super-awesome at a particular task. Sort of like how Logis are (supposed to be) really awesome at equipment, and dropships really awesome at transport. HAVs don't really have a particular task that they are designed to excel at. I think that this idea sounds a lot like "hey, Large Blasters should be moderate RoF, PLC analogues"... which does lend some potential to bombardment fire, and opens the window for smoothly introducing, say, a "Large Plasma Blastgun" that functions as a dedicated indirect fire weapon. Or even just any kind of turret that has that role, really. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15157	Posted - 2014.11.28 04:57:00 - [5] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Hmmm... Very, very interesting idea. Sounds... Interesting. I think that the damage should be half the Plasma cannon, double your ROF suggestion, and make it a hitscan weapon w/ the effect of a big ass , excuse my suggestion, green laser that just passed through. The reason I kept the original suggestion low is to keep DPS the same. Blaster DPS is fine vs HAV in many respects but what I want to do with this is make the Blaster primary an AV with the capacity to skill shot an infantry. Depending on how this is received discussion could then be turned to ROF or Splash or Direct damage even. I actually balanced this off what I thought was the prototype PLC which has 1155 damage if I am not mistaken. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 167	Posted - 2014.11.28 05:04:00 - [6] - Quote Actually, I believe that the PLC is currently 1155 dmg at STD level... yup, just referenced some info I wrote down once; PLC direct-fire damage is 1155 at STD, 1328.25 at ADV, and a whopping 1501.5 damage at prototype. This being said, I think that a vehicle weapon which boils down to "PLC as a repeating turret" is something that would be kind of hard to actually make [i]really[/] broken. My only vehement complain about Large Blaster turrets, in fact, is that the turret model looks like it sits much too high on the tank. It also looks rather ugly, IMO, for it to sit that high up on the mount. It would be rather nice if Large Blasters sat a little bit lower down on the turret mount so that the Soma/Madrugar looked a little bit more streamlined instead of this "sleek base, giraffe head turret" look it's got going on right now. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1025	Posted - 2014.11.28 05:58:00 - [7] - Quote Yes please. I wholeheartedly support your idea. I'd suggest that the large turret projectiles move faster than PLC rounds though. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 2158	Posted - 2014.11.28 06:08:00 - [8] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Yes please. I wholeheartedly support your idea. I'd suggest that the large turret projectiles move faster than PLC rounds though. And flatter, if they are going to act as PLC rounds I Live for Tears
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3650	Posted - 2014.11.28 08:08:00 - [9] - Quote Totally agree that the way Blasters work is....incorrect. Blasters should be 'blobs' of damage that hit in big chunks at close range. I think the two best examples of Gallente Blaster tech are the Plasma Cannon and the Shotgun, which really exemplify the Gallente racial theme. I'd love to see Blaster behave either like shotguns or like plasma cannons, because lets be honest, current Blasters really act like what I would expect an Autocannon turret to behave like. Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15397	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:52:00 - [10] - Quote Bump. Please God let Rattati actually read a Vehicles thread for once. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 95	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:26:00 - [11] - Quote So...burst fire Plasma Cannon? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15401	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:33:00 - [12] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So...burst fire Plasma Cannon? Not really. It is an automatic plasma cannon (I was inspired by the Kubo's) with minimal rounds to reduce killing potential vs Infantry targets, and buff the Blaster's DPS from the current lowest of all three Large Turrets to middle field, making it more competitive vs enemy HAV and Turrets. While at the same time representing Gallentean heavy armaments and allowing HAV to effectively bombard and area. As I stated the stats I believe are fair. Smaller Direct Damage per shell is less than similarly tiered PLC DPS is increased by 117 Represents Blaster Turrets in EVE side Reduced Anti Infantry Capacity without good aim. Could also have overheat and dispersion mechanics added. Sustained damage = exactly the same as the currently Ion Cannon. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 96	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:03:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So...burst fire Plasma Cannon? Not really. It is an automatic plasma cannon (I was inspired by the Kubo's) with minimal rounds to reduce killing potential vs Infantry targets, and buff the Blaster's DPS from the current lowest of all three Large Turrets to middle field, making it more competitive vs enemy HAV and Turrets. While at the same time representing Gallentean heavy armaments and allowing HAV to effectively bombard and area. As I stated the stats I believe are fair. Smaller Direct Damage per shell is less than similarly tiered PLC DPS is increased by 117 Represents Blaster Turrets in EVE side Reduced Anti Infantry Capacity without good aim. Could also have overheat and dispersion mechanics added. Sustained damage = exactly the same as the currently Ion Cannon. Ok, I like it...I was about to suggest something like a charge-to-burst PLC for it but I like your idea just as much if not more. My Idea: Large Blaster turret with a magazine of 4, you can either fire them 1 at a time at a ROF similar to the max of a charge sniper rifle, or charge the turret to unleash all 4 in one burst (the rounds dispersing away from each other), with a monstrously fast reload speed to complement it (1/3 the time of a Railgun let's say). But I hadn't gotten any specific damage numbers beyond that Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15406	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:08:00 - [14] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So...burst fire Plasma Cannon? Not really. It is an automatic plasma cannon (I was inspired by the Kubo's) with minimal rounds to reduce killing potential vs Infantry targets, and buff the Blaster's DPS from the current lowest of all three Large Turrets to middle field, making it more competitive vs enemy HAV and Turrets. While at the same time representing Gallentean heavy armaments and allowing HAV to effectively bombard and area. As I stated the stats I believe are fair. Smaller Direct Damage per shell is less than similarly tiered PLC DPS is increased by 117 Represents Blaster Turrets in EVE side Reduced Anti Infantry Capacity without good aim. Could also have overheat and dispersion mechanics added. Sustained damage = exactly the same as the currently Ion Cannon. Ok, I like it...I was about to suggest something like a charge-to-burst PLC for it but I like your idea just as much if not more. My Idea: Large Blaster turret with a magazine of 4, you can either fire them 1 at a time at a ROF similar to the max of a charge sniper rifle, or charge the turret to unleash all 4 in one burst (the rounds dispersing away from each other), with a monstrously fast reload speed to complement it (1/3 the time of a Railgun let's say). But I hadn't gotten any specific damage numbers beyond that If it's reduced to 4 rounds we need to buff direct damage accordingly. At 4 rounds that is 1638 damage per shot which starts to really encroach in on the Railgun Turret....which would then mean I'd have to post my railgun turret rebalance section.....and god knows the community does not want to see that. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1046	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:14:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: At 4 rounds that is 1638 damage per shot which starts to really encroach in on the Railgun Turret....which would then mean I'd have to post my railgun turret rebalance section.....and god knows the community does not want to see that. I want to see it. As long as any range extension comes with a redline move, I'm happy Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 190	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:03:00 - [16] - Quote I too would like to see the Railgun change proposal of True Adamance. Something tells me that there are very few people who are even so much as equally qualified to form an intelligent discussion about Large Railgun turrets. Unfortunately, I also have a sneaking suspicion that such changes- like many others, in fact- would work best if we had large maps and higher player counts. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15408	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:07:00 - [17] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: I too would like to see the Railgun change proposal of True Adamance. Something tells me that there are very few people who are even so much as equally qualified to form an intelligent discussion about Large Railgun turrets. Unfortunately, I also have a sneaking suspicion that such changes- like many others, in fact- would work best if we had large maps and higher player counts. That's debatable and basically if I do post it I need critical feed back from other vehicle users because it will have a MASSIVE impact on how they pilot.... because it will introduce them to the kind of Tanking I am used to in WT:Ground Forces. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 190	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:17:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: That's debatable and basically if I do post it I need critical feed back from other vehicle users because it will have a MASSIVE impact on how they pilot.... because it will introduce them to the kind of Tanking I am used to in WT:Ground Forces. Well, firstly I'd like to ask what the "debatable" part is- I contend that you are the HAV user most likely to be able to lead/form an intelligent and well-reasoned discussion on pretty much any aspect of HAVs. It's really the emphasized part that gets it, IMO- there's plenty of very loud and equally opinionated tankers (like that Spkr guy), but they have a bad habit of being stupid. The map/player issue has less to do with any innate imagined aspect of such a proposal, and more to do with the fact that DUST seems like it was simply never intended to have 16v16 all the time. 3-point Skirmish on Manus Peak- and even 5-point on Ashlands- works reasonably well with 32 players/16v16. Pretty much any of the large 5-point Skirmish maps, and even some of the 4-point maps, would IMO work far better with at least 24v24. Spambush is simply ass anyways, and Dom seems to work well with 16v16; Dom just has other problems really. As far as the new 3-point maps go... Highlands is simply ass (love the new Caldari sockets though), and the whole "let's take a 5-point map and cut it down to 3!" shtick simply doesn't work well IMO. Of course, in the latter case that could be because of the whole "put CRUs in ground spawn, so that it's ultra-easy to spawncamp" thing. I'm sure that that wasn't the intent, but it absolutely seems like it's the result on a number of maps. Anyways, to get back on topic: CCP, you should obey True's vision of Large Blaster Turrets. Also, please change the Large Blaster model so it sits lower on the tank hulls, because tanks should not look like metal giraffe-boxes. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15412	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:34:00 - [19] - Quote Well my ideal Large Rail basically ends with...... 150mm Carbide Railgun...... a 2318 damage railgun with a slower RoF, less rounds per magazine, lower vertical tracking, and great AoE Splash....... slightly more range. It's not designed to engage much but terrestrial vehicles and static emplacements. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Isa Lucifer Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 116	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:51:00 - [20] - Quote I like your idea True Adamance. My input on this is; It opens the door for the current Large Blaster Turret (LBT) to be used by the Minmatar autocannons. It is my opinion that Heavy Autocannons RoF are very similar to the LBT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6TsOWH4EKw Look at the first 20 secs. Its RoF is considerably higher, but this shows the example that it is very similar to the actual LBT firing mechanic. Just to prove True Adamance point of Blasters mechanic in EVE Online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhUAYIJ1qE Same mechanic with small ones but with higher RoF. Does it look to the current LBT firing mechanic/behavior? No! If Dust514/Legion are both based on New Eden, there must be similarities! Amarr Victor

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15446	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:02:00 - [21] - Quote Isa Lucifer wrote: I like your idea True Adamance. My input on this is; It opens the door for the current Large Blaster Turret (LBT) to be used by the Minmatar autocannons. It is my opinion that Heavy Autocannons RoF are very similar to the LBT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6TsOWH4EKw Look at the first 20 secs. Its RoF is considerably higher, but this shows the example that it is very similar to the actual LBT firing mechanic. Just to prove True Adamance point of Blasters mechanic in EVE Online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhUAYIJ1qE Same mechanic with small ones but with higher RoF. Does it look to the current LBT firing mechanic/behavior? No! If Dust514/Legion are both based on New Eden, there must be similarities! Thank you for the support. If we can generate enough discussion I hope we can corner Rattati into engaging me on the subject of vehicles. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 97	Posted - 2014.12.04 07:52:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Well my ideal Large Rail basically ends with...... 150mm Carbide Railgun...... a 2318 damage railgun with a slower RoF, less rounds per magazine, lower vertical tracking, and great AoE Splash....... slightly more range. It's not designed to engage much but terrestrial vehicles and static emplacements. My ideal turrets for Blaster and Railgun are the ones mounted on the Hammerhead Skimmer Tank (the vanilla ones)...think about how awesomely good that thing relates between the two games (casts 40k bait for Rattati as well)...wish there where submunitions or canister shot variation railguns available...sometimes you just want a giant shotgun. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15452	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:57:00 - [23] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Well my ideal Large Rail basically ends with...... 150mm Carbide Railgun...... a 2318 damage railgun with a slower RoF, less rounds per magazine, lower vertical tracking, and great AoE Splash....... slightly more range. It's not designed to engage much but terrestrial vehicles and static emplacements. My ideal turrets for Blaster and Railgun are the ones mounted on the Hammerhead Skimmer Tank (the vanilla ones)...think about how awesomely good that thing relates between the two games (casts 40k bait for Rattati as well)...wish there where submunitions or canister shot variation railguns available...sometimes you just want a giant shotgun. Tau..... not the first choice I would have selected as a group to base something off of....... but makes sense I guess. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 98	Posted - 2014.12.04 10:01:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Well my ideal Large Rail basically ends with...... 150mm Carbide Railgun...... a 2318 damage railgun with a slower RoF, less rounds per magazine, lower vertical tracking, and great AoE Splash....... slightly more range. It's not designed to engage much but terrestrial vehicles and static emplacements. My ideal turrets for Blaster and Railgun are the ones mounted on the Hammerhead Skimmer Tank (the vanilla ones)...think about how awesomely good that thing relates between the two games (casts 40k bait for Rattati as well)...wish there where submunitions or canister shot variation railguns available...sometimes you just want a giant shotgun. Tau..... not the first choice I would have selected as a group to base something off of....... but makes sense I guess. Why not? High Tech-Shooty Army that uses a combination of Plasma based weaponry and Railguns? Great for Gallente and Caldari...not to mention their tank turrets are also called the Railgun and Ion Cannon XD (In one of the supplements you can also take missile pods) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 156	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:30:00 - [25] - Quote 1. The very old blaster we had with a single dot and when it turned red you got a hit was more accurate than what we have now which is essentially and inaccurate HMG which has worse range, every 2nd shot misses without fail and an overheat mechanic which can make the dispersion so large it will miss an LAV at 50m 2. The old blaster got nerfed because 'we were too accurate' and got high kill counts when no AV turned up against us and the enemy let us run riot 3. The old blaster in Chrome days was perfectly fine for taking out other tanks, add in a heat sink and a dmg mod and away you go while it also kept its anti infantry role, tho couldnt see infantry 50m in front so it didnt pose too much of a threat at the time 4. So if all large are anti vehicle then all small need to be anti infantry and with anti infantry they will need to be able to fire a damn decent range since FG can be 300m out, SL 175m, let alone rendering 5. If i have to fit small turret to defend myself from AV does my tank get a buff and better PG/CPU so i can actually fit some defences espc in the case of the maddy 5a. Does small turrets get a range buff since 300m FG is on par with the LARGE railgun 5c. Rendering needs to be improved with small turrets 6. Since im forced to run small turrets will the HAV get a EHP buff? or any buff but the answer would be no from ccp 7. Since i need to run a crew, 3man for my HAV, will it take 3 AV to kill it? Cant seen infantry getting behind that one since they have fought for a milita SL to destroy everything in one hit
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19845	Posted - 2014.12.04 21:51:00 - [26] - Quote Yes please. This would make me insanely happy. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15465	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:17:00 - [27] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. The very old blaster we had with a single dot and when it turned red you got a hit was more accurate than what we have now which is essentially and inaccurate HMG which has worse range, every 2nd shot misses without fail and an overheat mechanic which can make the dispersion so large it will miss an LAV at 50m 2. The old blaster got nerfed because 'we were too accurate' and got high kill counts when no AV turned up against us and the enemy let us run riot 3. The old blaster in Chrome days was perfectly fine for taking out other tanks, add in a heat sink and a dmg mod and away you go while it also kept its anti infantry role, tho couldnt see infantry 50m in front so it didnt pose too much of a threat at the time 4. So if all large are anti vehicle then all small need to be anti infantry and with anti infantry they will need to be able to fire a damn decent range since FG can be 300m out, SL 175m, let alone rendering 5. If i have to fit small turret to defend myself from AV does my tank get a buff and better PG/CPU so i can actually fit some defences espc in the case of the maddy 5a. Does small turrets get a range buff since 300m FG is on par with the LARGE railgun 5c. Rendering needs to be improved with small turrets 6. Since im forced to run small turrets will the HAV get a EHP buff? or any buff but the answer would be no from ccp 7. Since i need to run a crew, 3man for my HAV, will it take 3 AV to kill it? Cant seen infantry getting behind that one since they have fought for a milita SL to destroy everything in one hit I'll allay some of your concerns. Firstly I am not trying to turn the Blaster into an exclusively AV weapon. With this proposal I had two key thoughts in my mind. 1.) How can we better represent the ideal/paradigm of a main battle cannon on the Gallentean HAV and make it role appropriate. 2.) How can we bring its DPS up to a more respectable level and make it compete more directly with Shield HAV. Now I do remember the old time where we had dot blasters and in some respects I can accept that yeah we did get too accurate with them (that was a matter of skill and target stupidity though) and yielded results better than should have been our role. I do intend to address the ranges of turrets in other posts and suggest that once we start moving in a direction that sees turrets in positions where they are primarily anti vehicle weapons that we adjust and balance the ranges that each turret should have which depending on implementation could vary with the weapons own statistics. Addressing point 5.) all tanks throughout history have been equipped with machine gunners, either on the forward hull or cuppola. This is an ideal that I believe should translate into Dust 514. While I did say I wanted to make the HAV primarily and AV unit that does not mean I wish to completely remove AI capacity from HAV which I why I am suggesting we shift focus to AoE splash damage and skill shotting infantry as the primary means AI work. My ideals in suggesting this are - Direct hits will kill outright or wound significantly -AOE splash reflects the power and impact of your weapon allowing you to bombard static emplacements. HAV will not get EHP buffs for fitting small turrets and there is no reason vehicle pilots should. Vehicles have 3 turrets slots and their use should be incentivised rather and deincentivised. Unsurprisingly I love running 3 man HAV and from extensive experience doing it I can suggest that again there is no reason you should ever have additional EHP for manning a tank. When you mout 3 players in an HAV you gain the benefits of having 3 pairs of eyes, two anti infantry guns independent of your own main gun, and depending on your turret choices anywhere between 2300 and 5000 DPS when fire is focused. A highly skilled tank should be a tool players want to use and not and invincible death factory. It is already more effective in Shield HAV to fit two small turrets and switch to those vs infantry for fast tracking, high alpha, precision weapons....with arguably wonky hit detection. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2245	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:06:00 - [28] - Quote This isn't a bad idea at all. However, the problem then becomes: why run tanks at all? If tanks can only shoot tanks, what is their purpose? Strapped down to my bed, feet cold and eyes red I'm out of my head, am I alive or am I dead
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15467	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:15:00 - [29] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: This isn't a bad idea at all. However, the problem then becomes: why run tanks at all? If tanks can only shoot tanks, what is their purpose? Point out one place in this thread where I said tank could only shoot other tanks? In the last post I expressly stated that Anti infantry work should be a combination of solid accuracy with your weapon and AOE damage through bombardment of an area. In this case players still have the fair chance of firing automatic plasma cannon shells with a 3-3.5m splash radius at a target. This is still very good anti infantry capability but some more easily competes at AV level. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 99	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:47:00 - [30] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: This isn't a bad idea at all. However, the problem then becomes: why run tanks at all? If tanks can only shoot tanks, what is their purpose? All tank weapons should be anti-material...luckily for the tankers, infantry happen to be made out of material as well Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

I Live for Tears

I Live for Tears