DUST Search - [REQUEST] BUFF TURRETS

True Adamance wrote:

KING CHECKMATE wrote:

Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote:

KING CHECKMATE wrote:

There is NO reason a Tank should win against a turret 100% of the times just because its a player that purchased the tank.
...

The main issue is that a static target will never, ever, be able to withstand a mobile aggressor.
.

Which is fun, because most turret vs HAV fights go like this.

The tank gets in range of his weapon (turrnt 90% of the times wont fire until its fired upon first) then Stays still, and between Armor reps and shield boosters just stay still and trade fire and win.

Not very mobile if you ask me. Tankers say that they dont have equal EHP than turrets but forget turrets have no way to auto repair themselves in the mist of battle.

That's probably the most **** poor argument yet.

Turrets do have automatic passive repairs. They are by no means as powerful as HAV reps but then again you aren't paying for these assets, or fitting them yourselves. You are using turrets with 100% more EHP of the standard Madrugar and 33% more than the average Gunnlogi.

If only you could see how ****** up HAV were internally.......


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6073	Posted - 2014.12.03 17:44:00 - [1] - Quote Vehicles are USELESS. Except LAV's that are used for mobility, Tanks are only used to farm kills with less risk of dying (because there are only 4 weapons that have true AV capacity, and plasma cannons is a meh...) and Drop ships are used to farm kills when the enemy doesn't have AV or to place Uplinks in places unreachable for Infantry.(so much F**ng FUN) So basically If this game wouldn't have these vehicles then the game would be a little more balanced and enjoyable to everyone who ENJOYS FPS. DS pilots should just play EVE and Tankers should just play World of Tanks....But i guess they prefer just stomping on infantry than going against others of the same kind. But ok, with that said... I understand that they are in this game to provide options and different ways to play. BUT. This takes us to another point. ****AV and Turrets******** AV is not only not COMPLETE (we are missing Racial variants for AV) but the Turrets that are supposed to help control vehicle movement are lame and get farmed for WP. Turrets, are in definition defensive structures built to DEFEND a certain area from infantry AND vehicles alike. Infantry gets Headshot sniped by Blaster Turrets and RAil turrets insta pop people when they see them. But they do NOTHING against TANKS. (im talking about un manned turrets). I mean they might ATTEMPT to damage the enemy vehicle but they never win unless the TANKER or DS pilot is either a scrub or me. There is NO reason a Tank should win against a turret 100% of the times just because its a player that purchased the tank. IN FACT, i think Turrets should: 1-Not be destroyable while neutral (can only be destroyed if taken by an enemy) 2-Shouldn't be able to be solo'd by a tank. I think a DEFENSIVE turret should be a solid defense structure and a valuable ASSET. You know Turrets are lame when NO ONE but newblueberryscrubs hack them at the beginning of the match. WHY? Because they have NO STRATEGIC VALUE. In order to destroy a turret at LEAST 1 tank and 1 AV infantry should team to take it down. At least 2 tanks, or a tank and a DS , or whatevs but not a single vehicle. WIth no causalities whatsover. Taking on a turret straight on should be something to consider, something that needs planning, something difficult to do. Tankers should consider calling in a SCOUT to hack it instead of taking on a turret themselves, same as infantry has to call upon AV to at least scare said tanks away. What i think should be done is exactly the OPPOSITE of what CCP did. REDUCE TURRET EHP BY HALF DOUBLE TURRET DAMAGE *This is not a ''discussion'' .* IF people keep requesting stupid nerfs like to scouts or Breach AR or R/E , then i can surely request something that makes sense like this... Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6073	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:24:00 - [2] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Vehicles are USELESS. /me watches ADS perform strafing runs on an objective, successfully keeping redberries away even though they control the ground. /me watches HAV provide mobile cover to a fire team while they advance on an entrenched squad. ...'Kay... -ME watches this happen because a Swarm Launchers, an ANTI VEHICLE FUTURISTIC WEAPON , needs 6+ shots to down a Drop ship. -ME watches All the old threads of DS and tankers QQ about AV / so they got them nerfed to the ground/ so now nobody runs specialist AV Fits/ so now all that Riley said is happening. ...'m,kay... Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6073	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:25:00 - [3] - Quote ANYHOW, this is about the freakn turrets. Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6076	Posted - 2014.12.03 19:08:00 - [4] - Quote Crimson ShieId wrote: I don't even entirely agree with this, but on the idea that turrets are only useless because... it's not so much their damage, it's the fact the AI for them kinda sucks. They generally won't target you, even if you shoot at them (Aside from missile turrets) unless you're within a few dozen meters of them. Blasters are a bit better, but rail turrets are so easy to fool it's not even funny. Discussion or no, while I'd like to see the AI buffed, even as is, I don't think they're useless, unmanned or otherwise. Whenever I can, while tanking, I'll try to ensure installations are hacked around me when dealing with other tanks. Whenever the chance arises, I'll try to keep my tank within range of the friendly installations, thus if someone wants to try and take my tank on, they also have to deal with friendly installations. Aside from that though, they provide a fair bit of cover. With your permission Crimson... This is what turrets are for experienced players: - they provide a fair bit of cover -the AI for them kinda sucks. -They generally won't target you, even if you shoot at them - rail turrets are so easy to fool it's not even funny. -. Whenever I can, while tanking, I'll try to ensure installations are hacked around me when dealing with other tanks. (emphasis on, WHENEVER I CAN. means its not needed nor a priority) This does not compare to the usefulness of a CRU or a Supply Depo. If the turrets re not being useful then just reove them and give us a TRULY useful installation. Something that is worth the hack. -A Scanning Turret ? (turret taht provides 35db / 20mts scans constantly) -A Sniper Turret? (a turret that after hacked,5 seconds after that, it extends in height to provide good line of vision for infantry (at roof levels) etc... EVEN a simple mini bunker that can be accessed only by the team who hacks it...WHATEVER. just something thats worth the hack... Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6078	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:04:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Y'know King for all those Crusades we went on I wont say what I think other than.... "**** off" Seriously bad idea. They already have too much EHP for a tactical asset infantry barely bother to protect or use on a regular basis. It was actually a good time for vehicle balance when HAV could destroy CRU, Supply Depot, and Turrets in a meaningful manner. No surprise bro. We always had our differences while speaking AV / vehicle balance. I already mentioned that Turrets should have less HP, more damage and better AI. I really dont think tanks blowing up every asset infantry NEEDS was a GOOD time...Maybe for the one proto tanker in a team but not for the other infantry players... Here a +1 cookie for participating. Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6082	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:18:00 - [6] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: There is NO reason a Tank should win against a turret 100% of the times just because its a player that purchased the tank. ... The main issue is that a static target will never, ever, be able to withstand a mobile aggressor. . Which is fun, because most turret vs HAV fights go like this. The tank gets in range of his weapon (turrnt 90% of the times wont fire until its fired upon first) then Stays still, and between Armor reps and shield boosters just stay still and trade fire and win. Not very mobile if you ask me. Tankers say that they dont have equal EHP than turrets but forget turrets have no way to auto repair themselves in the mist of battle. Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6082	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:41:00 - [7] - Quote True Adamance wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: There is NO reason a Tank should win against a turret 100% of the times just because its a player that purchased the tank. ... The main issue is that a static target will never, ever, be able to withstand a mobile aggressor. . Which is fun, because most turret vs HAV fights go like this. The tank gets in range of his weapon (turrnt 90% of the times wont fire until its fired upon first) then Stays still, and between Armor reps and shield boosters just stay still and trade fire and win. Not very mobile if you ask me. Tankers say that they dont have equal EHP than turrets but forget turrets have no way to auto repair themselves in the mist of battle. That's probably the most ** poor argument yet. Turrets do have automatic passive repairs. They are by no means as powerful as HAV reps but then again you aren't paying for these assets, or fitting them yourselves. You are using turrets with 100% more EHP of the standard Madrugar and 33% more than the average Gunnlogi. If only you could see how ** up HAV were internally....... So by your logic: Since you are paying for the tank you should have an advantage over free stuff. Thats like saying that when im running proto no MLT fit should kill me. The thing is, turrets are useless.** Waste of programming, of banwith,of time (to hack)....They either make them work or remove them. I hate that their only purpose is have tankers go around and destroy them while they are neutral. LOL (or not XD) This is not a HAV nerf thread for you to get all hyped. Im requesting for something that doesnt work, to WORK. You know that the passive repairs of turrets is SO CRAP that it doesnt count at ALL in a vehicle vs turret battle. Again with the EHP. I told you, remove half, or MOSt if you want of its HP. But give them Good AI and damage. ''If only you could see how ***** up HAV were internally''* I truly wont get back into AV vs HAV/DS talks like before True. This is about the turrets that dont work for s**. And any Vehicle driver saying that TUrrets are powerful is either a scrub or really new at Dust514. IF I can easily kill turrets with a freakn soma fitted with MLT crp, then so can all the other Vehicle specialist...EVEN LAV's.... Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6083	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:28:00 - [8] - Quote @ True Adamance ''All I am suggesting is that infantry do not deserve/require the presence of emplacements more heavily armed and armoured than vehicles when they also have access to powerful AV measures and the advantage on most maps now of not being target-able on objectives or in most key areas.'' We have access to powerful AV measures but we cannot deal with Infantry AND Vehicles and turrets as the same time as HAV users do. Again, Tankers prove to me that every time something that MIGHT threaten their vehicles is suggested they jump right in to attack the idea. ''Basically all your complaints are doing King is planting that final nail of the coffin in most vehicles preventing them from having true roles on the battle field.'' I AGREE, TANKS NEED A PURPOSE in this game besides moving around doing nothing and ruining the game for everyone not skilled into AV. This is the reason why i request turrets to be better. Im not going to SKILL into AV again. Im not interested. But i dont want to just cloak and fade away while my whole team of blue dots is massacred by a vehicle and even if i have the skill i dont have the weapon to do so...and THIS SI THE PURPOSE of the Turret. You might be right thou. This might be the incorrect solution. The reason most people DONT use Turrets is because Infantry kills you REALLY easy while operating one. Tell me. IF i requested a PAssive Scan For turrets. maybe 10-15mts 36-35db scan. This wouldnt affect vehicles direclty, would increase the utilities of a Turret PLUS would make them slighly more usable ...right? Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6085	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:32:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Can you just let me un-** the huge imbalances in armour vehicles before you start posting stuff like this. Tanks have not been enjoyable for the longest time (even when they were OP they *** sucked ass to drive) since they removed active armour tanking. There is no point on iterating on more AV measures when we cannot even balance the HAV themselves. AHHA i love when you get mad. Look bro, this is not about YOU. This is about the people who DONT have AV capabilities. Not me specifically, because i dont have AV by choice. But thinking in the new players. Who cant take on a tank with MLT swarms. ''There is no point on iterating on more AV measures when we cannot even balance the HAV themselves'' There is. New player experience. Amarrian Born. State Patriot.**
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6088	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:21:00 - [10] - Quote STYLIE77 wrote: I pop ADS in three or four shots. I pop tanked Grims in 5 or 6 Scrub Sica and Soma pop in 4-5 shots Pro fit Shield tanks take 6+ shots -Winmando That info doesn't make me doesnt make me think very good of AV weaponry AT ALL. YOu are kind of proving my point. You are sacrificing a Light/Heavy weapon that kills infantry effectively for a weapon that takes 4+ shot to kill any vehicle. IF you have them in your line of sight long enough that is... Amarrian Born. State Patriot.