DUST Search - Large Blaster Turret Proposition

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Large Blaster Turret Proposition - Re-designation of Role

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

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

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

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

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19854	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:49:00 - [31] - 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? If I had a 60 RPM, extended clip plasma cannon, I would not only be shooting tanks with it. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15470	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:51:00 - [32] - 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.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19854	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:53:00 - [33] - Quote I adore the concept of an offensive bombardment oriented weapon rather than a sniper or alpha volley weapon. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 100	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:57:00 - [34] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I adore the concept of an offensive bombardment oriented weapon rather than a sniper or alpha volley weapon. Hey I like my Railgun being an Industrial Strength Sniper Rifle...although we do need more bombardment type weapons...and industrial strength PLC (Like what Adamace suggested for the Large Blaster) or an Industrial Strength Mass Driver for a minmatar weapon 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 15471	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:01:00 - [35] - 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.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2245	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:04:00 - [36] - Quote 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. Strapped down to my bed, feet cold and eyes red I'm out of my head, am I alive or am I dead
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15471	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:09:00 - [37] - 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.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19857	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:34:00 - [38] - Quote And also plasma cannon rounds are really, really satisfying to kill with. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 8683	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:43:00 - [39] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: And also plasma cannon rounds are really, really satisfying to kill with. 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) CCP holds the Caldari's hand so this doesn't happen again.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 195	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:04:00 - [40] - 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

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15501	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:08:00 - [41] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 101	Posted - 2014.12.05 07:17:00 - [42] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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 Auto Cannons should be somewhere between current Blaster and current HMG IMO. Small Artillery as a Mass Driver Mount would be awesome...as would be having a "heavy" versions of small turrets more specialized for AV. Large Blaster Turrets need to be useful as an infantry support Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 162	Posted - 2014.12.05 14:41:00 - [43] - Quote 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
Ld Collins Titans of Phoenix 174	Posted - 2014.12.05 17:15:00 - [44] - Quote 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15513	Posted - 2014.12.05 19:24:00 - [45] - 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 - [46] - 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.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 168	Posted - 2014.12.06 12:37:00 - [47] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. 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
VikingKong iBUN T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 276	Posted - 2014.12.06 13:15:00 - [48] - Quote I like it. No more constant large blaster fire torturing my eardrums. Hooray.
GENERAL FCF Sentinels of New Eden 50	Posted - 2014.12.07 07:52:00 - [49] - Quote I really wouldn't mind this given I use a Ion Cannon and it is laughably the worst of the three L turrets. I think it should be the moderate to close range killer with the Caldari as the long range killer and the missles being mid-long range killers. A buff to the current sucky Blaster doesnt necessarily mean unbalanced weapons across the board.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15550	Posted - 2014.12.07 08:29:00 - [50] - 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.

Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 470	Posted - 2014.12.07 12:01:00 - [51] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Bump. Please God let Rattati actually read a Vehicles thread for once. lol Rattati butchers all vehicles. But who cares, pilots are but a tiny minority. interesting proposal though. I like & justice for all
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 171	Posted - 2014.12.07 13:52:00 - [52] - Quote 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15555	Posted - 2014.12.07 19:43:00 - [53] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 103	Posted - 2014.12.07 23:03:00 - [54] - 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 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) 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 15562	Posted - 2014.12.07 23:16:00 - [55] - 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.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 464	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:20:00 - [56] - Quote 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. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 464	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:24:00 - [57] - Quote 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. Elite Gallenten Soldier**
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15574	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:24:00 - [58] - 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 - [59] - 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.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 464	Posted - 2014.12.08 03:32:00 - [60] - Quote [/quote] 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. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*

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.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17310	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:52:00 - [91] - 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."


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

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

I Live for Tears

I Live for Tears

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!