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 [?]


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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15157	Posted - 2014.11.28 04:57:00 - [3] - 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15397	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:52:00 - [4] - 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15401	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:33:00 - [5] - 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15406	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:08:00 - [6] - 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15408	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:07:00 - [7] - 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15412	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:34:00 - [8] - 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15446	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:02:00 - [9] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15452	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:57:00 - [10] - 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.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15465	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:17:00 - [11] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15467	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:15:00 - [12] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15470	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:51:00 - [13] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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 THAT'S THE CONCEPT! I drive Tanks more often than not in War Thunder Ground Forces these days and when I look at what that 88mm gun can do to a tank, high velocity AT emplacement, or even an open patch of ground......... just be thankful I'm being reasonable on this one. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15471	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:01:00 - [14] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I adore the concept of an offensive bombardment oriented weapon rather than a sniper or alpha volley weapon. Every main gun on every tank since the inception of Armoured Warfare has been able, for its time, has been the most destructive ordinance know to their respective military groups. This ideal should hold true in Dust 514. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15471	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:09:00 - [15] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. An excellent point. I used very simply logic to determine this as a suggestion. -People say the Large Blaster requires no skill. -People say the Plasma Cannon does require skill. Thus if I fire Plasma Cannon rounds my turret now requires skill. Simple as that. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15501	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:08:00 - [16] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: True Adamance wrote: I used very simply logic to determine this as a suggestion. -People say the Large Blaster requires no skill. -People say the Plasma Cannon does require skill. Thus if I fire Plasma Cannon rounds my turret now requires skill. Simple as that. I approve this logic. Sgt Kirk wrote: I would just be happy with a Turret that fires a cannon like Projectile for once. Maybe this could be the thing with blasters. The bigger it is, the lesser the RoF or we could just make a new catagory of turrets for Gallente (since Caldari have two) and have them be the Large/Small Blaster Turret and Large/Small Plasma Turret. I would love to have a mini plasma Cannon on my LAV. It'd probably work like a grenade launcher on a LAV. It also creates more diversity for Medium turrets (which will probably never exist) I also like this idea of a sort of mini-auto-PLC turret for LAVs. It would also be nice to put on an Incubus as a substitute for missiles. While I think that suggestion is cool lets see if we can get this one pushed ahead and then iterated up. I have ideas for all the racial turrets. Amarr- Beam and Pulse Lasers Gallente- Hybird Blaster, Hybrid Rail Caldari- Hybrid Rail, Missile Minmtar- AutoCannon (kinda like the current blaster), Artillery *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15513	Posted - 2014.12.05 19:24:00 - [17] - Quote Ld Collins wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So...burst fire Plasma Cannon? reduce killing potential vs Infantry targets, This right here is just a big no no its already pretty hard for blaser tanks to kill AVers especially FG users and Min Commandos there is no logical reason to make it even harder. Blaster tanks have gotten 3 nerfs already now you want to nerf it more this is getting ridiculous. This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. This is not a nerf. This is a redesignation of the Larg Blasters role to make it more competitive as an anti vehicle option which is really what every Large Turret should be. Now if you have read this you will see that you do have 6 rounds fired automatically, each rounds doing 1092 damage on a direct hit, each round having a 3.5m splash radius and doing 25% of total direct damage...... This opens up potential room for the Autocannon which will then function in a similar manner to the blaster but with a few tweaks to reduce anti infantry capacity to a manageable level. Moreover if you are having trouble with AV might I suggest mounting a small 20gj Railgun (or on my HAV) 20gj Particle Cannon and smacking those AV around with ease. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15513	Posted - 2014.12.05 19:30:00 - [18] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. e.g- Current Ion Cannon with 2x Particle Cannon = 975 + (2x 578) = 2131 Xt-201 Missile Launcher with 2x Particle Cannon = 3500 + (578x2) = 4656 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. 1. So basically you fine with 1 AV player killing a HAV with 3 ppl in it? I can do that now 2. Point 7 is the most important point of the lot frankly, the blaster has already been changed so if it gets changed again im not too fussed because the glory days of the past are dead and my skill and accuracy gone to the wall anyways since its decided by luck and nothing else 2a. If im using a vehicle with 2 others and 1 AV guy can wreck it then seriously what is the point? What use is the HAV? What use is the other 2 when 1 AV guy can out range all the turrets on it anyways 3. As it is the HAV is weak, these changes wont help if i need a crew of 3 to beat 1 person, frankly its like opposite day if anything it should be the other way around This is not a discussion about how I believe the HAV's should be rebalanced this instead is about how I believe Large Blasters should be altered. Just wait. I am confident the Pokey Dravon with his Vehicles Rebalance proposal can get CCP to reinstitute 180mm plates, Active Armour Reppers, adjust the PG CPU issues on Maddies, and bring Shield HAV back into line by reducing their natural passive reps. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15550	Posted - 2014.12.07 08:29:00 - [19] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If you change how it works and then also try and push onto pilots another 2 ppl with small turrets then you have to be able to answer the questions that will be asked, if you cannot answer them then leave them out or create a diff thread 2. I have no faith in the CPM and all we need is to bring back Chromo vehicles/turrets/skills/modules and skill bonuses Then another thread to discuss your concerns will have to be made this one is solely for talk about the Large Blaster and how to make it more competitive and less infantry mauling focused. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15555	Posted - 2014.12.07 19:43:00 - [20] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If you change how it works and then also try and push onto pilots another 2 ppl with small turrets then you have to be able to answer the questions that will be asked, if you cannot answer them then leave them out or create a diff thread 2. I have no faith in the CPM and all we need is to bring back Chromo vehicles/turrets/skills/modules and skill bonuses Then another thread to discuss your concerns will have to be made this one is solely for talk about the Large Blaster and how to make it more competitive and less infantry mauling focused. 1. Then you should leave out forcing pilots to use small turrets let alone another 2 players, if this is about the L Blaster then it should just be about the turret and not about anything else I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I've merely made a suggestion that has received support and commentary from tanker and non tankers alike. Something I consider very positive. I simply think most tankers are "better" than the Large Blaster as it is now. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15562	Posted - 2014.12.07 23:16:00 - [21] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If you change how it works and then also try and push onto pilots another 2 ppl with small turrets then you have to be able to answer the questions that will be asked, if you cannot answer them then leave them out or create a diff thread 2. I have no faith in the CPM and all we need is to bring back Chromo vehicles/turrets/skills/modules and skill bonuses Then another thread to discuss your concerns will have to be made this one is solely for talk about the Large Blaster and how to make it more competitive and less infantry mauling focused. 1. Then you should leave out forcing pilots to use small turrets let alone another 2 players, if this is about the L Blaster then it should just be about the turret and not about anything else Adamance's proposal is to make the Large Blaster Turret an Anti-Material Weapon first and foremost...as I've stated earlier, infantry happen to be made of material as well...it'll just become in some ways easier to hit infantry (as it'll have less dispersion and splash damage, albeit with a firing arc) while in other ways harder (as it will have fewer shots, and loose its spamability) Indeed. Blasters as they are now as just a luck based weapon.... or one where you play on specific mechanics to essentially convey the impression of aim....aka tap firing the first shot on a blaster to give reduce dispersion against long ranged targets...... while close ranged targets skate through fire that should have torn them limb from limb..... The proposition I feel will put more power in the hands of skilled pilots allowing us to project greater fire power at targets at longer ranges requiring better aiming of us and better management of ammunition. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15574	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:24:00 - [22] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: not going to lie. but the blaster wouldn't need changing befor it got unfairly nerfed. you know when it had pin point accuracy and none of this dispersion bullshit. I always remember finding and being attacked by and from forge gunners/swarmers on top of buildings pre-chromosome levels. you know back when the blaster had no dispersion and was pin point accurate. even from 300m damage was next to nothing with the blaster. you were luckly enough to be dealing even 10 points of damage from that distance. getting blaster sniped from 300m? must have been sitting still long enough for me to overheat the cannon and kill you. lets not forget the insta popping lai dai nades. even though the ability to hit things at 300m was takein away it was irrelevant since the blasters best damage comes from 0-100m with decent damage out to 125 befor completely disapearring at 150m. so apparently the infantry/AV users still weren't happy with the blaster being a close range turret. (by close range I mean by vehicle standards not infantry) is it no surprise that these days missile launchers and railguns are BETETR at killing infantry than the actual blaster. railguns are capable of cheap shotting (or skill shotting if you prefer) infantry therby instantly killing them. missile are the cruel bastard turrets with many ways to kill you. either by single missile to the head. (missile head shots are hilarious) or firing bursts of 2-4 missiles to ensure your death. or unloading the entire clip at you since your campeing ona building and is highly likely one of those missiles is going to hit you. then theres the blaster. thanks to dispersion makes it a harmless beast while still capable of killing you will do so with much difficulty. even just tapping the trigger to fire a lone single round wont gurrante its going to hit thanks to lol dispersion. and the fact it over heats befor it even unloads 60-70 rounds on full auto (not takeing the finger off r1) still dosnt bring its damage up to the missile launchers or the railguns damage output. so alas. I agree with you adamance. that yes the blaster of current. needs changing. BUT it never would have if it wasnt unfairly nerferd in 1.6 with the vehicle changes. I do remember those halcyon days well. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15574	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:26:00 - [23] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. iam all for nerfing the railgun into the ground. I hate the dam thing. and just to troll/**** off other rail tank users. have the particle cannon with 2 or even 3 complex mods on it just to laugh in their face and say..''this is why this turret is bullshit in tank vs tank fights. and the fit is nicely named as the noobcannon. Oh damn.....you won't like my Railgun suggestions then........... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15587	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:41:00 - [24] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: Oh damn.....you won't like my Railgun suggestions then........... [/quote] I would......if your not going to suggest to make it stronger than it already is. as I said. I hate the railgun and use it as little as possible. so long as you don't bring up anything to boost its damge or allow it to fire more shots.. i'd be all for it. iam those few rare people who automatically agree with anything to nerf the railgun. lets face it. even compared to an XT missile tank. the particle cannon still has the clear lead in damage/dps.[/quote] I'm hoping to reduce its DPS, increase its alpha and range, and alter/tweak the tracking, magazine size, barrel depression, reduce reload speed, etc. Ion Cannon - 975 DPS Particle Cannon - 1077 DPS XT- 201 - 3597 DPS Basically this entire set up is a little iffy. I think my suggestion drops Rail DPS to a little over 850 but jacks alpha up. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15589	Posted - 2014.12.08 08:06:00 - [25] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Hmm, while I like the blaster changes you propose (though not sure how this would effect small blasters), I'm a bit iffy on your rail changes. We already have a huge alpha weapon, the XT missile turrets, though making the large railguns more of a long-range bombardment weapon does sound a little sexy. With just four shots per magazine, and a slow firing rate, will the proposed rail gun changes keep it competitive and able to kill vehicles before they disengage? Getting that third or even fourth round off depending on your target sounds like asking for a lot, if we assume current Gunnie EHP values vs rails and speeds... Missile's aren't actually and alpha weapon..... they're DPS in Dust at least but have such prolific DPS (which they shouldn't have) might as well be alpha. You pose a valid point. I'll come back to you on that. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:01:00 - [26] - Quote I genuinely feel like this change could open up the possibility of introducing the Large Auto Cannon (replacing the current Large Blaster Archetype with a higher per shot, greater dispersion turret) and allow the blaster to have the DPS it deserves and a role in both Anti Vehicle game-play and Anti Infantry (to a lesser extent). *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:39:00 - [27] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: NOPE. No thank you. I'm keeping my DESTRUCTIVE BLASTER as it is. Have you looked at the statistics? Vs other Vehicles, Installations, etc this Charged Ion Blaster IS more devastating. Vs infantry you just have to aim a bit better and you have reasonably powerful anti infantry weapon. The point of this however is to reduce the effects the Large Blasters currently has vs Infantry so as not to ruin their balance while at the same time buffing DPS, and range, and re-introducing accuracy to the Large Blaster. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17193	Posted - 2015.02.22 20:20:00 - [28] - Quote Serious Bumps for Serious Suggestions CCP Rattati! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17200	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:09:00 - [29] - Quote Devadander wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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 So. Much. No. True, I respect your vehicle opinions but not on this... You want this? Make a proposal for this to be a NEW turret entirely. PLEASE, for the love of odd, no more changes to large blasters. The booming sound through the stereo is what makes me call them out and drive. I have insane trouble killing infantry now. Working as intended Rattati, can confirm. When hardeners become limited to one, tanks not so much. Triple ion blasters with two competent gunners, I can still go ham like it was chrome again. (vs HAV, my gunners add that needed oomph to break tank, and also kill any infantry dumb enough to poke out... sooo working as intended eh?) A slight range and dmg per round buff is all I need. I can suppress infantry at the moment. Dedicated AV not so much, they get out of all blasters (S/L) optimal and stand still knowing if we do score a hit, it won't deal enough dmg to suppress. The proposed RoF would be a joke vs all other large turrets. And 1550 at PRO? LOL ....see how long that lasts before nerfed into oblivion. This proposal would make "plasma volley cannon" easy mode bs for farming infantry, and WORTHLESS against competent AV. Seeing as the slow arc is easily dodged from HAV ranges. I never die from PLC from long range as infantry or HAV, it's the close ones that get the blap. Three days and every scout in new eden would gather to burn the forums down from all the splash deaths. I agree more than anyone that blasters are in a dark place, but this is not the light at end of tunnel. My suggestion; Give us a burst blaster variant much like HMG and see how that fares vs HAV. Increased dispersion from insane RoF would hamper infantry farming vs all but the most combat un-aware, but still allow suppression. Heat management would become a risk/reward concern for blast-HAV to not linger in one spot. Pair with dmg module for hard targets at the cost of tank. Any other blaster-HAV out there agree? I appreciate the feed back however can you more consisely present what your concerns are about this turret. Currently in this game a Blaster HAV is not a tank, it does not have the large calibre turret to be called such. At best it is an IFV. I also believe I have addressed the concerns surrounding the muzzle velocity of the rounds which I believe can be altered to move more quickly than the standard PLC round. Specifically the point of this suggestion is not to remove the current Blaster from the game but relegate it to a smaller turret tier so that we could ideally have 3 sizes of turret each with specific roles and draw back on the battlefield. e.g- Small Blaster - Anti Infantry Medium Blaster (what we have now) - Between Anti Infantry and Anti Vehicle Large Blaster - Anti Vehicle Weapon Now before we get into this debate I have to stipulate that the premise for this weapon is specifically to reinforce the role of larger turrets as powerful weapon that are as powerful or more powerful than the hand held counter parts. Remember the general design of tanks revolved around the large calibre main gun it carries and the thick armour/shielding not the small supporting machineguns that are crewed by others. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17200	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:28:00 - [30] - Quote Devadander wrote: With the odds of medium turrets actually happening.. I would rather keep what I have before being forced into an alien turret. I don't PLC. So this ruins my entire skill tree if it happens. Am I to assume this is more a personal gripe than a bad idea? As it stands the current blaster is woefully inappropriate for the main turret of what should ideally be an MBT simply because a rapid firing assume weapons defeats the general tactical purpose of the MBT and is in most respects more typical of an IFV (infantry fighting vehicle). In Dust 514 we are piloting massive vehicle designed for 2.5m tall soldiers and yet they are equipped with the equivalent of a .50 calibre machinegun rather than a 120mm smoothebore cannon. Now I cannot convince people that removal of rapid firing assault weaponry is the correct cause if action. Nor can I deny that the weapon itself is a fair infantry killer and suppression agent. However I feel it achieves these goals in the wrong way. Rather than through massed/ concentrated fire power it does it through volume. In this particular case I am merely suggestion that this weapon be looked and so that it better represents a.) a weapon that would be mounted on a tank b.) a more appropriate gallentean weapon c.) something that is better an AV (since Rattati confirmed the weapon IS NOT supposed to be anti infantry) d.) puts aiming back into the hands of HAV pilot, adding to their range, while removing what makes it the prolific infantry killer that it is. Moreover this does not necessarily have to be a bad thing resulting in the removal of this kind of turret entirely. It may even aid in making room for an Autocannon Turret (though I'd rather see Artillery [the conventional kind]) and only requires small changes using animations actually present in the game. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17202	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:39:00 - [31] - Quote Devadander wrote: Don't real world it or we could just one-shot each other. Where have you been? Have you tried to kill infantry with a large lately? Drove all match without death finding me, only killed 4 infantry. And that is not an isolated statistic. You would prefer it was zero maybe? a.) 40-80mm is considered anti material (as is .50 cal but w/e) and still retains a very nice fire rate. b.) We call it the plasma rifle, but it's really just another AR. c.) So we can't MAKE it AV by raising dmg and range? My burst suggestion you didn't even second glance? d.) You don't aim PLC, you arc it. ( yes I know, a form of aim, but rails are your artillery and they have no drop so rejoice) And if you think it won't be VERY good at killing infantry, you clearly didn't read your own suggestion. Moreover, it sounds very much like you would be happy with the removal of large blasters before a replacement could be worked out. Yup. Personal. I am the final word in blaster operation. And lo, here is your PERSONAL suggestion to completely remove and replace with something totally foreign, my turret. So yes, I consider it a very bad idea. This would have to come with a full respec token, not just blaster tree, as I would be done with HAV forever. But undoubtedly that's not on your agenda. Take it there, and I will follow, brougham. I have been attempting to kill infantry over the last few days with the Large Blasters. Considering when I returned to the game my first match was 22/0 on infantry I definately understand that the large blaster has its issues and needs a for of change. This suggestion is just one of many I have put forwards. I am not necessarily of the opinion that a weapon needs a high rate of fire to work well at anti infantry gameplay, however I can accept this is the common train of thought. Now I can certainly see why you would suggest 40-80mm rounds are effective anti material sizes and they are for the most part though I remain adamant (no pun intended) when I suggest that it very much so defeats the purpose of the tank to equip a small calibre weapon to the hull when more powerful hand held variations of the weapon exist. As for the Plasma Rifle I am not sure I understand its relevance when discussion anti vehicle weaponry especially when the Plasma canon is the more appropriate parallel. That is fundamentally exactly how I arrived at the concept for this HAV drawing on the standard 48 rounds that can be fired at 136.5 damage for a total before over heat of 6552 damage. I then divided that into six individual large calibre rounds. But I do understand and acknowledge the concerns you and other have. You do to a certain degree aim it, though I have said that that muzzle velocity of the plasma cannon round could be increased so that it more effective at shorter ranges before arcing more noticeably the longer it travels. Also consider the tactical applications of being able to arc shots and the additional skill threshold to secure kills at longer ranges. I certainly would not be. Better to keep more content in the game than see it removed. The lack of it and removal of it has been detrimental to vehicle play but I am suggesting this hopefully so we can see that change. I'm also a big fan of the blaster from the old days. I loved that tank turrets had range, and the power to secure kills at range if you could aim them correctly. However what was done to our beloved blaster was awful...just awful. It's functionality should never have put it at the mercy of random chance....and yet there was no way to avoid that considering it was a rapid fire machine gun rather than an actual tank turret. I doubt this turret however would be so foreign to you if you've played your fair share of FPS and 3rd Person Shooters. In regards to your last comment...it's unworthy of you to say the least since we used to be alliancebro's and all. However it touches on specific issues. These being that I cannot be responsible for your enjoyment of the game especially at the detriment of my own, you choosing not to agree with me is fine...in fact it keeps me grounded when altering this suggestion in future. This thread and suggestion was by no means intended to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game but instead to enhance the experience by bringing to light a solution to the issue of the Large Blaster using assets we have game. Infantry often complain Blaster tanks require no skill because its like driving around, immune to their guns, with a heavy assault rifle. I figured that if we - reduced rate of fire - brought DPS up to competitive levels - made it more like existing examples of Gallentean weapons - made the weapon require aim to secure kills It would wholly better the weapon and give it a proper place on the field without it remaining overly effective against infantry. If you want to touch on my personal agenda it is to ensure that Tanks in Dust function in a more conventional manner so that players can more easily recognise the role of the HAV while keeping their racially unique profiles. This means giving them more appropriate firepower for their turret sizes. MOAR! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17204	Posted - 2015.02.23 03:02:00 - [32] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd much rather have a Shotty Blaster, as it's much better to aim and shoot with something that although is high in a volume of "shots", can still do damage even if a part of it misses. Probably why blasters were made like this in the first place. Made a variant that preforms like a really tight spread, or a shell that preforms like the suggested blaster? Again there are other things I would like to see done but this can actually be achieved with in game effects and models. Not saying a don't want the shotgun but quite literally anything is better than the AR. Shotgun or Plasma Cannon = better large turret variants than a Heavy AR. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17216	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:04:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The only problem I see overall with comparing an EVE vollet with a DUST volley is that the EVEside blasters are actually fairly slow and single fire. They just hit like a truck. The "volley" is 5-8 blaster turrets lobbing shots all at once. I'll admit I'm unfond of the currernt blaster MG I think volley-fire would be more appropos to missiles. And no, not the same as we have them now. That's over all what I'd prefer but players in Dust could not handle conventional main battle cannon. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17310	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:52:00 - [34] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: I like this idea with the exception of the splash addition. Splash Radius certainly needs to be less than the Plasma Cannon's standard 3.5 however as a heavy weapon mounted on an HAV splash damage simply a part of the weapon. Again certain variations of the main gun could exist (stabilised, standard, compressed, etc) but I'd think a probably between a 1.0 and 1.75m splash radius might suffice. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

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.