DUST Search - [REQUEST] BUFF TURRETS

All Channels

General Discussions

[REQUEST] BUFF TURRETS

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 5292	Posted - 2014.12.03 17:48:00 - [2] - Quote 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... My advice to you, playa...
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19823	Posted - 2014.12.03 17:54:00 - [3] - 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 blows both of them up solo The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 5293	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:02:00 - [4] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: /me blows both of them up solo /me 360 no scopes you from another map. My advice to you, playa...
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1042	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:02:00 - [5] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: /me watches ADS perform strafing runs on an objective, successfully keeping redberries away even though they control the ground. You're playing an extremely different game to the one we have and are discussing. ADS quite simply cannot perform strafing runs. They can kill people for sure, but a strafing run is unviable. As far as the turrets are concerned, I think their EHP could be brought down by a good chunk and damage buffed up, but more importantly I the need a prominent position on the battlefield such that they are able to affect the fights going on at each objective. We need blasters able to choke infantry assaults and rails/missiles around vehicle routes. With turret replacement we'd see a lot better use of them. HAVs would be needed to remove blasters for an infantry push and vice versa. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 156	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:03:00 - [6] - Quote 1. G8 B8 M8 R8 8/8
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14097	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:15:00 - [7] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: 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 blows both of them up solo /me hands Arkena some of my finest liquors. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6073	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:24:00 - [8] - 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 - [9] - Quote ANYHOW, this is about the freakn turrets. Amarrian Born. State Patriot.
Mad Kras Made in Poland... E-R-A 54	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:30:00 - [10] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: TO THE POINT THEN, to avoid them trolls XD ******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... Nice troll man *glitches are for btches arrogance and sarcasm lvl 5 longest plc kill= 146.28 m**

Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2416	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:53:00 - [11] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: 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'm not sure I agree with #2, but I sure do agree with #1. Seems like yellow turrets are just WP farms for tankers early in every match. What's the point?
Crimson ShieId Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1524	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:57:00 - [12] - Quote 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. I want to punch.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6076	Posted - 2014.12.03 19:08:00 - [13] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15395	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:00:00 - [14] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: TO THE POINT THEN, to avoid them trolls XD ******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... 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. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6078	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:04:00 - [15] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15395	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:13:00 - [16] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: 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. It was essentially all we've every had to do on the maps and it was taken away from us by the general whining masses.....hell the current turrets has more EHP than tanks and neither team isn't even paying for them or bloody well attempting to defend them. Frankly IMO infantry don't deserve 12K EHP turrets when they plenty of solid AV options and barely bother to protect their own assets. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 648	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:15:00 - [17] - Quote True Adamance wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: TO THE POINT THEN, to avoid them trolls XD ******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... 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. Seriously though, turning a Turret to your side with a tank or DS nearby can ensure that tank or DS is dead. I really wish people would use both AV and vehicles before posting there thoughts on balance. Right now the only real issue between them is that ADS are too expensive for how easy they are to kill and the armor based vehicles other than the LAV are suboptimal to shield variants. Myrons > Grims, Gunnlogi > Madrugar, Pythons (If you can fit them otherwise they are pretty bad) > Incubus, and so on. It's especially true of the dropships since not only is everything firing at them armor profiled but they also have those massive weakpoints on both sides of them. Anyone know where the LAV and Shield dropship weakpoints are? I've never found them. Not too even mention doubling turret damage on installations is going to make them utterly destroy infantry, they already kill them very quickly and have much better accuracy then tank blasters.
Everything Dies Santa is coming...FOR BLOOD 1094	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:58:00 - [18] - Quote First thing I do as a tanker is take out any and all neutral turrets; yeah, the WP is nice and all but there's simply so many turrets on many maps that if the enemy manages to actually man one or two of them you're toast. Rail turrets, in particular, would make HAVs obsolete if Rattati follows through on making them actually target enemy vehicles without being manned. To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing turrets restricted to the redzone of each map and be locked out from being manned; they'd exist solely to prevent redlining (which doesn't happen quite as often nowadays.) In return, infantry could be given the ability to place small, weak turrets to act as sentries. Mike Patton is the greatest singer in music. Proof
Mex-0 185	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:01:00 - [19] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: /me blows both of them up solo /me 360 no scopes you from another map. /me kicks your butt back to CoD Meh, I give up on FW.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2828	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:04:00 - [20] - Quote 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. A tank will always be able to surprise the turret, and from then be able to go into cover and then at it again. Any time the tank starts losing it can go a few meters back to cover again, where as the turret is in one spot. Next issue is, if the turrets are literally unkillable, then HAVs will be useless as will LAVs and Dropships, as you now have an unkillable extremely dangerous half dozen turrets covering the whole map collectively providing ridiculous areas-of-denial. Currently Turrets already are deadly enough as is, just poorly placed the majority of the time in my opinion. Turrets could stand another HP buff, but not a ridiculous amount more. Currently a Rail can take them out with 10/8/7 shots depending on the level, which is a bit too fast. But seriously, Turrets are static and thus can never ever expect to win against anyone with a brain and an HAV. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire

TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 648	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:08:00 - [21] - 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. A tank will always be able to surprise the turret, and from then be able to go into cover and then at it again. Any time the tank starts losing it can go a few meters back to cover again, where as the turret is in one spot. Next issue is, if the turrets are literally unkillable, then HAVs will be useless as will LAVs and Dropships, as you now have an unkillable extremely dangerous half dozen turrets covering the whole map collectively providing ridiculous areas-of-denial. Currently Turrets already are deadly enough as is, just poorly placed the majority of the time in my opinion. Turrets could stand another HP buff, but not a ridiculous amount more. Currently a Rail can take them out with 10/8/7 shots depending on the level, which is a bit too fast. But seriously, Turrets are static and thus can never ever expect to win against anyone with a brain and an HAV. Exactly, at a competitive level we have two choices. Either turrets that cannot be destroyed and therefor shutdown vehicle play or turrets that can be outmaneuvered by HAVs... On a side note... I'd love to see small rails that are deployable as equipment so you can set up blaster/missile/rail nests at objectives and such. It would make battle lines feel more like battle lines. No auto fire as this isn't TF2 but the ability to man the gun kind of like how players are in the back of a LAV.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15397	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:16:00 - [22] - 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. A tank will always be able to surprise the turret, and from then be able to go into cover and then at it again. Any time the tank starts losing it can go a few meters back to cover again, where as the turret is in one spot. Next issue is, if the turrets are literally unkillable, then HAVs will be useless as will LAVs and Dropships, as you now have an unkillable extremely dangerous half dozen turrets covering the whole map collectively providing ridiculous areas-of-denial. Currently Turrets already are deadly enough as is, just poorly placed the majority of the time in my opinion. Turrets could stand another HP buff, but not a ridiculous amount more. Currently a Rail can take them out with 10/8/7 shots depending on the level, which is a bit too fast. But seriously, Turrets are static and thus can never ever expect to win against anyone with a brain and an HAV. Turret unmanned should never be able to destroy a tank. Hell they cannot unmanned kill infantry unless you stand stock still..... I honestly cannot ******* understand this communities desire to relegate vehicles to the background of this game because they cannot be arsed to deal with a functioning tank in a specific role. There is no reason on any map any where that an unmanned AI turret should ever be able to hold a tanker. Frankly with bloody AV in a great place, negating one of two specific tank types, and having options for Anti Shield Capacity in excess of 2000 damage and Alpha Forges there is no goddamn reason infantry should get the bets of both worlds. Turret and AV. And the more poorly thought out AVers suggest their bullshit buffs, in this case strategic emplacement that players are highly unlikely to use or defend, the further we get away from an actual meaningful vehicle balance. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6082	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:18:00 - [23] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15397	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:26:00 - [24] - Quote 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....... I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 648	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:33:00 - [25] - Quote 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. Turrets have passive armor rep... Don't believe me go damage a neutral one and watch it slowly tick up its hp. If you are really concerned about repping one though why don't you whip out an Axis rep tool and do it yourself? Why should an unmanned turret beat tanks exactly?
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6082	Posted - 2014.12.03 21:41:00 - [26] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15400	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:18:00 - [27] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: 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.... No my logic suggests that by CCP's own design of the HAV it should be the heaviest terrestrial unit deployable that should have the capacity to engage other terrestrial vehicles and entrenched positions (such as turrets, CRU,Supply Depot) with the clear intent to either destroy or render them untenable as a position. What I am saying is that I believe fundamentally the the time where AV-Vehicle balance was closest and best was back before 1.7 where turrets were threats to vehicles but did not utterly prevent their movements on the map. Currently it takes roughly 30 seconds or more to remove a turret from the battlefield and in order to function effectively as an HAV you cannot leave any turrets on grid lest you take a Railgun to the ass mid fight. All I am suggesting is that a weapon designed to combat , arguably, the most heavily armoured units on the field shot not have to spend most if not all the battle revolving around whether or not infantry have the capacity to recognise large turrets as a meaningful and tactically important site...... which they don't. Most if not all turret on the map are not in use when I destroy them....... AV is more of a threat than ever and armour HAV are not viable in the slightest due to the Anti Armour meta. 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. 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 spend most days on the forums trying to bring to Rattati's attention the core issues within the Vehicles tree themselves so that we can firstly achieve tank type parity and viability then how we can ensure that roles are established for vehicles without impacting too heavily on infantry balance. Hell you know better than anyone how much I complain about Blaster Turrets and how they should not be primary Anti Infantry Guns, how much I talk about the fact that Gunnlogi are comparatively OP vs the current AV meta due to their natural resistances and fitting capacity, and how I don't care about KDR and just want my goddamn role back with enjoyable mechanics. Hell even you can't argue that AV vehicle balance was bad pre 1.7 since it was wholly in AV's favour. THAT is what I want to go back to. Where vehicles and module activation required skill and thought, where ISK was a factor, where AV was deadly as hell, where Vehicles had the opportunity to efficiently destroy infrastructure and could actively help tear down entrenched positions even when they couldn't damage the infantry. Heck have you even seen my blaster rebalance suggestion? I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6083	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:28:00 - [28] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15401	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:36:00 - [29] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: @ 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? 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. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6085	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:32:00 - [30] - 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.**

KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1552	Posted - 2014.12.03 23:34:00 - [31] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: - rail turrets are so easy to fool it's not even funny. Ahem. There's no fooling rail turrets - as they are utterly broken. In 1.9, unmanned rail turrets never shoot. Ever. First step before 'fixing' turret installations on the whole is to fix THAT. PS: you should update your thread name to reflect that you are talking about turret INSTALLATIONS. I came here expecting a request for more turret firepower on vehicles. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 280	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:03:00 - [32] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: 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.( <==thats how OP taht s** is when a team has no AV) /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... 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
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6088	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:21:00 - [33] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15412	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:28:00 - [34] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: 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... Indeed talking Shield Vehicles they are damn OP currently when you consider due to their fitting capacity they can fit armour modules as well. Trying to work on that as well. I will get Rattati to talk tanks with me! hell I'm not a Proficiency AVer but I put 6 volleys into a Shield HAV and it didn't go down. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1339	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:51:00 - [35] - Quote I think neutral turrets should be indestuctible and they mostly need better placement. There are a few that are well placed and valuable, if you can stop the tanks are the guy with the railgun turret in the redline from destroying it first. Blaster turrets are good partners with AV, not much challenge by themselves though. Because, that's why.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1339	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:53:00 - [36] - Quote I like vehicle/AV balance now. Needs some tweaking is all. Because, that's why.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15423	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:53:00 - [37] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: I think neutral turrets should be indestuctible and they mostly need better placement. There are a few that are well placed and valuable, if you can stop the tanks are the guy with the railgun turret in the redline from destroying it first. Blaster turrets are good partners with AV, not much challenge by themselves though. Personally while a valid suggestion..... you expect me to wait for you to capture the turret right out from under us so that I can get rid of it? I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Sir Snugglz Red Star. EoN. 930	Posted - 2014.12.04 02:11:00 - [38] - Quote if you are gonna buff installations then you have to remove passive agro -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5483	Posted - 2014.12.04 02:18:00 - [39] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: 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.( <==thats how OP taht s** is when a team has no AV) /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... 6+ shots to kill an Assault Dropship? Checkmate, I dont' mean to be too offensive, but how bad are you? I run a Wyrkomi Swarm launcher and I can solo most ADS fits with only one magazine. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Edgar Reinhart Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2014.12.05 11:28:00 - [40] - Quote Sorry this has become a bit longer than intended..... I believe that turrets and installations needed the HP buff that they were fairly recently given.However after the initial period of adjustment they have kind of gone back to being WP farms. This is partly to do with the installations and partly to do with how people play the game in pubs. (This isn't a complaint, I still consider myself fairly new to the game, just my opinions) Pubs aren't very 'team play' orientated. No one wants to sit at the back on a turret in case a HAV/LAV/DS maybe wanders too close it's not exciting like running around on the front lines. I sometimes do it and I sometimes quite enjoy it but I still run starter suits and it's a way to hide from the pain. I had a very enjoyable match long duel with DELBOY a few weeks ago which I enjoyed. As a newberry I often find that falling back and using a turret is one way that I can...... briefly..... be of genuine use to the team. Sometimes it can net you fairly impressive WPs BUT sometimes you can just sit there twiddling your thumbs. Generally however it's a case of run to rail turret, shoot anything in range, ignore for rest of battle. I don't know how to change peoples behaviour in this regards but it would be worth buffing the turrets in a way that might encourage them to be manned during the battle. To this end I thought it might be worth giving them active modules as standard so that if there is somebody operating them they have access to a decent dmg module, repair module and hardener module meaning they can keep the turret in the fight longer and do more damage and would need to use a degree of skill in choosing when to use not use them. I don't know how the AI works but presumably it wouldn't have access to the modules and therefore a manned turret would have the potential to be more dangerous and useful than an AI one and to repair itself faster after an engagement. HAVs and, especially, Dropships and LAVs can easily out manoeuvre a turret and would need to use this advantage more. I'd also remove WP from un hacked neutral turrets, by all means destroy them for the threat that they POTENTIALLY pose but until they are an ACTUAL threat no WP...... or substantially reduced say +5 like equipment. As I said this is coming from the POV of a relative newb with little experience of using vehicles themselves so I only have a one sided view of balance at the moment but that's my two cents worth. Have a good day all and maybe see you on the field over the weekend.

jonny battles Titans of Phoenix 10	Posted - 2014.12.05 11:52:00 - [41] - Quote This is just dumb installations do not to be buff at all not when a rally in installation can kill any kind of tanks in 3-4 shots it doesn't matter if it's proto or militia then the fact that takes 2 clips from a proto missel tank then the 1 and a Half for particle cannon It was just that easy
Pvt Numnutz Prophets of the Velocirapture 2017	Posted - 2014.12.05 12:19:00 - [42] - Quote This is a bad idea. King checkmate, from what I have read in your op and in your other posts I can only come to one conclusion, you want turrets to have ridiculously high HP, have extremely high damage and auto engage vehicles at their maximum range. I can't believe you would be surprised that vehicle operators would call this stupid. Turrets are already a huge problem for vehicles, before they were changed it was every dropship and tanks primary target to clear the field of essentially free tanks so that they would have a clean AO. When it was changed dropships lacked the firepower to destroy them as it takes far too long even with two gunners and is basically a waste of ammo and time. Tanks still have the capacity to destroy them in a span of time that's reasonable, and as they don't have the option of moving our of range quickly like the dropship have no choice but to engage them. Before the turret change I said that turrets would still be the primary target early game for vehicles because of the threat they pose and the lack of defense they receive from friendly ground troops. It comes down to the simple fact that ground troops cannot be trusted to defend turrets and pose too much of a risk to the vehicle to leave it for a red to hack. This is why vehicles always destroy neutral turrets closest to the friendly red line, so blues don't hack and forget and reds don't cut off a route to safety later on when you need it. Its tactics, not farming, and even if we didn't get wp for it we would blow them up anyway. In my dropship I just drop a shock trooper on it and have them hack it before conducting operations as its a waste of time to sit there and destroy it, especially with missiles and blasters as they have insanely accurate A.I. that tracks you across the map. In fact I find it better when a player is running them because I can actually sneak behind it rather than it auto locking. The fact that you don't know this and want further upgrades to the AI shows you really don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, turrets aren't meant to be autonomous vehicle slaying machines that you hack once and then let it work. They are an asset, one that if needed can be manned and used to fend or hold off an assault. If you want the turret to be more effetive then get on it and be one of "those guys" otherwise you are just like every other blueberry, cannot be trusted to defend the turret you hacked and leaving it the reds to kill blue vehicles later. TL;DR if you want the turret to be better man it. If you want vehicles to stop blowing them up show that you can actually defend one. Turrets shouldn't be autonomous vehicle slaying machines that you hack and forget. Master Skyshark rider Kaalaka dakka tamer
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2433	Posted - 2014.12.06 07:54:00 - [43] - Quote You have the absolute worst ideas I've ever read on here regarding vehicles. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.