Stuff about turrets

Well...the MD needs a better way to sight as well...but a sight that's something like this...with practice it can be very very accurate.

Wait...do you want Tiered Turrets or do you want to Tiericide Turrets?

I'll just say two more things before the conversation reverts back to what CCP Rattati actually asked for,

The First is that I do understand that Dust is not a conventionally military shooter game and therefore does not have to follow what I/we might consider to be conventional shooter game designs however what I find interesting about vehicle and tank use in other games that I do not in Dust is that they are grounded in the conventional even if the premise of the tank is not e.g the T85 Levkov from Battlefield 4 or the Magrider from Planetside 2, even the Starwars Battlefront 2 Hover Tanks which allowed you to fire anti infantry blasters but had slow firing rocket pods as your main damage dealer.

It's something that can be recognised by players universally and it means that its a solid platform for CCP to later say "Hey you guys know what?"

Also I see it as a move closer to EVE. In EVE as you know your turret modules are always cycling. Firing. Then Cycling again. Much like my proposed ideas. Also I see it as a chance to remove damage modules entirely form the game and let CCP base their base values which can be modified with things like Reload Speed Modules which do what Gyrostabilisers, Heat Sinks, Accelerators etc do in EVE.

What exactly am I looking at above?

Tiercide, what confused you?

If there was a more efficient way of doing this, tell me and we can do it.

1: Yes, and that's why they would have such a short range. I would agree with you if they were further away, but they are not. Remember, in his idea, the blaster is essentially firing multiple rounds at once, instead of just one in a rapid firing manner. Technically, they should have the same range as now, assuming they are the same charge, and the same or similar energy is given to each shot (which seems to be the case, seeing as the damage per shot is similar still).

Anyways, no, not canister shells (those are AP rounds, not AT), cluster shells. It's a shell sent at a target that sends smaller rounds into it mid flight, kinda like this, more or less (most likely less, unless there's nuclear warheads involved). They are in fact workable as far as killing tanks goes, and I was told there's shells like that for tanks, and that's newer tanks. Sure, a traditional AP round will pen more (and that's why a rail clearly has more direct damage than this), but this would be much easier to aim and hit with, especially when on the move and in closer ranges (assuming there's no guidance computers involved).

This is still a lore argument by the way, but it is interesting.

2: There's two parts to this:

A- Lots of people, not just myself, has grown to like the close range action that blasters, or anything of similar traits gives. If you want to play long range, hang back, grab a missile (and a actual missile, not these ******* rockets), rail, beam laser, or arty and let us do what we do.

B- tanks naturally get close to each other. It's bound to happen. Even with the ridiculous ranges that WWII tanks had (at least later in the war), they STILL got into close ranges with each other (a friend of my gramps shot the gun or a Sherman, and he told me how often he would get in close to the Germans, which apparently happened a lot). So far, I haven't seen any different in any game generally, and Dust is no exception.

C- This would mean that, again, Blasters, AC's, Pulse Lasers, Rockets, and anything else that COULD happen won't, because everything has to be a long range cannon. Even if they did, they would be useless, because everything long range would just snipe them down. On top of that, only the best long range turret (since they are all similar in nature, slow ROF cannons) would be used, creating a situation that we have now.

Speed tanking would exist MORE with good close range turrets. It makes zero sense with a long range turret however. Why would you even possibly need speed when you're not going anywhere very fast due to sniping things? Also, terrain is already used to advantage people, and was used even more when smart people played.

Shotgun turret with a lower ROF and a way smaller mag and reserve mag, and you go around killing infantry, even higher heat, and you go around killing infantry. Cool, your choice.


3: Changing the guns so it's everyone sniping at everyone would change jack. We trying to balance the hulls and raise the TTK back to old Uprising levels is in fact making that player skill return. As for your desc's of each turret, the way they work aside, that's generally what people is pushing for minus the splash (it varies). Otherwise, that is a VERY limited list of turrets to choose from, and a even more when you look at it from the above perspectives, so I'd rather not.

4: And that sill is valid. Looking at Thaddeus's AC, it looks like something to kill a HAV or a turret with, not infantry. the Barrage AC's would be the worst thing to kill infantry with, seeing as missing shots is probably easy enough to do, and you only get a grand total of three bursts before you've seized up. That is just unwieldy as hell for fighting infantry, but on a bigger target that you won't miss, that 1k DPS looks real nice.

Also, your point is to remove variation?


5: No, it is not. People build fits for situations they plan on getting into. They also play how the fit is built for (skilled people anyways). a MAJOR part of that is the turret. If everything turret is very similar, people would build their fits around very similar things, making only a couple fits per hull (hell, some hulls might even be useless compared to others, and entire ideas for hulls would be even cut out, and not just for HAV's; LLV's are best on amobile HAV, and worst on a hiding, camping HAV). This would have the opposite effect of variation, aka what we have now.

you don't have to have rapid firing weapons to have solid CQC combat on tanks

however unlike you I don't believe balance and the development of HAV necessarily requires the game to provide "assault weapons" for tanks.

Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns?

Update: even with the basics fully on, you can't fit a unskilled Maddy. fit is 2 armor hardeners, a 60mm and 120mm plate, and a heavy armor repairer (not the hull repairer).

assault guns are easy enough to build. The problem is the conceptual clash between "I want a machinegun turret" and "I want a cannon."

It's why my turret builds are set up to accommodate both.

I just upped the fitting slightly, see if that changed anything...if not I'll look into armor mods efficiency vs shield mods more carefully

Dear Players,

We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them.

So kind of good news and bad news.

All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working.

In short

The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay.

Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs
Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu
Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder

Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs
Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver
Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking

Main Battle Tank - HAV
Marauder - Same (with tweaks)
Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks)

I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting.

Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors.

TYPO underlined.

I think you meant "Madrugar" not "Marauder". :)

We are 61 pages in, and THIS is what you point out?

Get on topic, or I will end you

It basically comes down to these two things, in which

Yes, you kinda do have to have fast firing weapons in CQC, as every second you're not putting rounds into the target is rounds wasted in CQC. It doesn't matter as much at range because you have to aim more, which gives more time to think. That's why good CQ weapons are most likely high DPS low alpha weapons, or a pseudo alpha like a shotgun.

I never said it wouldn't lead to balance, I said it would lead to constantly changing meta due to FOTM's. With this, everything preforms differently, and would preform better or wose depending on the situation you're in. It leads to pilots egging the opponents into the ideal situation, so it becomes a situation of who can get better positioning, who can break that to their advantage, or who can maintain it, while properly using their modules. It just works better for variations within variations, instead of everything being the same, which I'm frankly sick of in any game.

Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns?

alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.

They freaking well do.

Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him.

You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas

Can't sorry.

Squee me!

I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does.......

Since I'm pretty much done with core things... You really should open the racial parity tab

I'm just doing things for FUN now.

Why does the Amarr HAV at a standard level has less armour than the gallentean counter part?

I mean you were some close to the stats I was going to suggest to you of

800 Shields and 3200 armour

fixed.

Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even?

Even Numbers > Odd Numbers.

If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have

1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively.

because I'm hashing out average baseline differences between armor values and shield values. I had to use the Surya as the baseline.

then I'm finding the HP baseline for the Gungnir. then I'm changing the hull shield/armor/cpu/PG of the minmatar vehicles based on the percentages of change between the types of amarr hulls so the progression is even. I'm currently rounding off and am going to clean up the values so they aren't oddball numbers when I finish. rounding up or down as needed.

I'm not done yet

Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even?

Even Numbers > Odd Numbers.

If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have

1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively.

Assuming that hopefully I could fit

180mm Poly Crystalline

1x Heat Sink
1x Damage Control

1x Passive Armour Hardener
2x Active Hardeners
1x Heavy Repper