|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
166
   |
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:22:00 -
[1] - 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
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
167
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:04:00 -
[2] - 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
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 00:03:00 -
[3] - 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
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 00:17:00 -
[4] - 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
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
|
|
| |
|