DUST Search - Large Blaster Turret Proposition

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?

"This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15587	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:41:00 - [61] - 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.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2857	Posted - 2014.12.08 07:01:00 - [62] - Quote 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... "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15589	Posted - 2014.12.08 08:06:00 - [63] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 107	Posted - 2014.12.08 08:13:00 - [64] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. Currently in DUST Missiles are a Burst DPS weapon, not a true alpha striker, but performing a similar role (Like what they made RLMLs in EVE)... Railguns space-side are pretty much middle of the ground in all stats except for range (at which they are number 1...or two depending on the boat that's fitting cruise missiles). Space side I like to joke about Blasters being knives you mount on the outside of your ship...but they have the highest DPS and best damage application of all (well...except for a certain limited issue missile platform, but it would suffer from application issues)... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Draden Brohiem D3ATH CARD RUST415 14	Posted - 2014.12.08 10:00:00 - [65] - Quote Bumb
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 125	Posted - 2014.12.12 08:30:00 - [66] - Quote Friendly Neighborhood Bump for a great idea. 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 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:01:00 - [67] - 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.
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 131	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:03:00 - [68] - Quote NOPE. No thank you. I'm keeping my DESTRUCTIVE BLASTER as it is. 48th Special Operations Force. "As a team or alone, I dominate the battlefield."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:39:00 - [69] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 134	Posted - 2014.12.20 23:16:00 - [70] - Quote Another bump...also going to mention this in another thread...I want CCP to try to rush out a Snowball Version of this turret so people could see how it feels 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 17193	Posted - 2015.02.22 20:20:00 - [71] - 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."
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 252	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:53:00 - [72] - Quote 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? "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17200	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:09:00 - [73] - 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."
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 253	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:12:00 - [74] - Quote 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. Edit; Meaning my large and small blasters V would be wasted because I don't care for PLC projectile style. Forcing me out of my desired weapon.. And I have already been forced out of my desired hull to remain competitive. So I cannot support this even IF mediums happen. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17200	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:28:00 - [75] - 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."
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 253	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:02:00 - [76] - Quote 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. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17202	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:39:00 - [77] - 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."
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 253	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:47:00 - [78] - Quote plasma rifle was just a kick at wanting things to be more gal lol to me its just a classic AR nothing gal/space/eve/special I come off as hostile, I know, but it's the forums. I hate being here, but it's the only way to be heard over the gunfire. As for 22/0... jeezus gawd, do you have a key for academy matches idk about??? I went 12/0 yesterday but that was five HAV, one with three, one with two, one fully loaded LAV. Sadness. o7 btw "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2934	Posted - 2015.02.23 02:57:00 - [79] - Quote 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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17204	Posted - 2015.02.23 03:02:00 - [80] - 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."

Soul Cairn Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 59	Posted - 2015.02.23 04:01:00 - [81] - Quote Love the idea True. Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist I need to play more often...
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2934	Posted - 2015.02.23 04:29:00 - [82] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. Agreed on that. Heavy PR needs to go. And as far as how it would work is debateable. Hell, it could be a entire gun (or possibly the mode change thing I suggested for artys), that can be discussed. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 11:03:00 - [83] - Quote When you add splash to something it means you dont have to aim as much since damage is caused either way Also your propsal also misses that if a plasma cannon round can have a 3.5m radius and cause enough splash to kill a scout then the Large Missile Turret should also get spash damage and radius back something along the lines of 5m and 300 damage
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7358	Posted - 2015.02.23 11:10:00 - [84] - Quote 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. AV
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 3140	Posted - 2015.02.23 11:20:00 - [85] - Quote An interesting proposition. I would very much like to talk about the pros and cons of this change and what other factors might have to be considered as well, (Such as projectile speed, any change to the projectile arc to affect range and useage etc.) but... Do people like the idea? More importantly Do CCP like the idea and is it something they would consider? Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17216	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:04:00 - [86] - 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."
Soul Cairn Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 62	Posted - 2015.02.24 05:09:00 - [87] - Quote bump Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist I need to play more often...
Soul Cairn Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 62	Posted - 2015.02.25 05:44:00 - [88] - Quote grandmaster bump Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist Grandmaster Bump
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 209	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:18:00 - [89] - Quote Whatever changes come to the blaster, blapsters got to blap... PLC and Shotgun style are preferable to the autocannon/.50 cal we have now...turrets on whatever is considered an MBT need to feel like an MBT turret ...hmm Blaster as a short range T-Fire cannon...so many different ways this could be done Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 466	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:11:00 - [90] - Quote I like this idea with the exception of the splash addition.



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

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!