DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6613	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:02:00 - [1291] - Quote Because none of us want tanks to be untouchable god-engines. Any thread where someone suggests that HAVs should be destructible he threadcraps it up to try and remove any chance of constructive discussion till everyone else goes away except the very tiny minority of the HAV pilot population who want to be the kings of the game. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 718	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:02:00 - [1292] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles. Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? cowers in fear Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in. You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data. Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16677	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:06:00 - [1293] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data. Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost. Actually Tesfa I've been wondering. Since you are a pilot....(which kind of vehicle I am not to sure but DS and HAV seems to resonate) could you remind me about your opinions on the subject of rebalance/ redesign? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 718	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:36:00 - [1294] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data. Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost. Actually Tesfa I've been wondering. Since you are a pilot....(which kind of vehicle I am not to sure but DS and HAV seems to resonate) could you remind me about your opinions on the subject of rebalance/ redesign? I've talked with Breaking about some of this stuff. Dropships: Dedicated Inc pilot, i have the SP in place to run a proto python, but its jst not my thing. VS Infantry AV Dropship pilots just want to have a functioning counter to swarms. Not afterburn straight into the air to go back to the " lol swarms" days, or keep things as we have now. VS forges right now its all good. VS Tanks Its the pilots engagement to lose, even if the pilot cannot win. large turrets shouldn't reach so high, but i would love the small turrets on top of the tank to give a better angle for tank AAA defense. Not 90 degrees but perhaps 80 degrees might work. Slight buff to ROF or (as i think others have pointed out) a seperate designation for ADS small turrets. So we wont have two mini tank killers on the nose of a gunlogi or higher, but enough punch so that the inc wont be scared to engage the new heavy tanks. Tanks: VS Infantry AV I run both a gunlogi and madrugar, and shield tanks are in an excellent place right now. Regardless of what Spkr says, VS 1 swarmer i can switch on a hardener and drive around a corner. There is an option to drive away that some havent caught on to yet. Despite the complaints about no shield AV i've run into Plasma cannons over the last couple days that have given me a very rough time. It just that plasma cannons aren't popular to use. If they were as popular as swarms, man, shield tanks would be having a rough time of it. But hey, for my guni AV ignorance is bliss. Blasters however are pretty ineffective. They just need a few tweeks to be honest. Right now they are merley OK for killing infantry and the worst of the three for fighting other tanks. You are better off going only anti tank, and not running the blaster. VS Tanks Missiles are OP vs Armor tanks but very UP vs other shields. 2 clips of every missile hitting to kill another gunlogi, no other large turret requires 2 clips for a kill. That said, it hardly takes more than one burst to kill any armor tank. This is why i would rather up the armor tanks defenses rather than nerf missiles. in short i agree with pokeys basis for balance. Vehicle fights should be long enough to recover from an ambush if you are properly fit, but not so long that it becomes a fight for attrition or punishes the patient player who set up a proper ambush. Really, it all comes down balancing engagements within a few seconds. As long as we can give everyone a fighting chance (no to the rock paper scissors whay of doing things) then i'm down. I've told breaking before though, i can only give feedback based on my current experience and use that to try to work out if your hypotheticals may work or not. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.19 22:00:00 - [1295] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6618	Posted - 2015.01.19 22:05:00 - [1296] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4429	Posted - 2015.01.19 22:25:00 - [1297] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Well I wont argue exact numbers, but my point is that if the rail engaged the blaster tank in a suboptimal location, the TTK needs to be long enough for the Blaster to get behind cover and reposition itself. Incidentally the TTK can't be so long that the rail is incapable of killing the Blaster, even if its positioning is optimal. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:15:00 - [1298] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Well I wont argue exact numbers, but my point is that if the rail engaged the blaster tank in a suboptimal location, the TTK needs to be long enough for the Blaster to get behind cover and reposition itself. Incidentally the TTK can't be so long that the rail is incapable of killing the Blaster, even if its positioning is optimal. Well, even with the 30 second TTK, that's how it was. I don't remember anyone saying that that was too long of a TTK in the first place........... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4430	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:21:00 - [1299] - Quote I dont think it ever took 30 seconds of sustained fire to kill a vehicle with a railgun... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:22:00 - [1300] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles. Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? cowers in fear Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in. What the ****? Sparky, you're doing a CharChar right now. Quit it, and argue in a civilized manner. Back on topic, or I end you. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:24:00 - [1301] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. OH NO! Justification for the weapons to not overheat as fast! Who'da thunk it? If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:27:00 - [1302] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I dont think it ever took 30 seconds of sustained fire to kill a vehicle with a railgun... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying It didn't, but a railgun never consistently hit for a perfect DPS situation either. 30 seconds considered reps, hardeners, missing, pilot error, skills, etc. Fights ended up lasting between good pilots much longer than 10 seconds, in which now and during Chromo they really did last 10 seconds or less, even accounting for all those things. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16692	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:45:00 - [1303] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:53:00 - [1304] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. OH NO! Justification for the weapons to not overheat as fast! Who'da thunk it? What about damage bonuses? +10% -10% to shield for blasters -10%+10% rails? -20% +20% missiles is for sure. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 would get a 586 / 717.2 spread Highest base Missile DPS: 750 or a 600 / 900 spread Highest base blaster DPS: 850 or a 935 / 765 spread Also, becare full about the upclose blaster thing, its nothing for an armor tank to fit a speed booster and wreck you upclose. You dont need any stratgey you'll just charge in firing , and with the size of plalabe area on some maps being extremely small, its not something i would encourage. Thats how they fought rail tanks and lived to tell the tale, which only encouraged rail tanks to seek the saftey of the redlone to get out of blaster optimal. With the bonuses it looks like a close fight between the shield missile vs armor blaster. A blaster can still take on railtanks and win, but we have to watch out between balancing blasters for armor tanks, and see them equiped on a gunlogi. I've said this before, before you are sure something is balanced according to how you think it should be run, you also have to consider of all the bastardized ways someone else can put them together. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 02:17:00 - [1305] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16699	Posted - 2015.01.20 02:35:00 - [1306] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2320	Posted - 2015.01.20 02:43:00 - [1307] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do. Home at Last <3
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16701	Posted - 2015.01.20 02:52:00 - [1308] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do. As I've said it seems counter intuitive to fire plasma directly. Inefficient, dangerous, and illogical. However if you fired charges that delivered the plasma to the target before detonating or that covered a fair amount of the distance before detonating you'd not only get more range but greater destructive power. As such firing a machine gun of plasma rounds doesn't work well. But firing a Canister Shot of Suspended Plasma Particles would net you better range, accuracy, and energy release on impact. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 03:33:00 - [1309] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. First off, do you realize how much energy it takes to make it to where you could even heat material up to a plasma state, and then some to make it worth actually throwing at our defenses? Also, seeing as you want them to become how while mid flight, almost at your target, so you're going to have to heat each shell, and faster than usual, so more energy is needed. That is inefficient and costly, which makes it even more inefficient. Also it has been noted that EVE's smalls are XL turrets (You know, the one's on MCC's) already. So no, you're wrong. They are actually quite smaller. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 03:35:00 - [1310] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do. Also this. Make sense True, you should be good at this. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16705	Posted - 2015.01.20 04:21:00 - [1311] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. First off, do you realize how much energy it takes to make it to where you could even heat material up to a plasma state, and then some to make it worth actually throwing at our defenses? Also, seeing as you want them to become how while mid flight, almost at your target, so you're going to have to heat each shell, and faster than usual, so more energy is needed. That is inefficient and costly, which makes it even more inefficient. Also it has been noted that EVE's smalls are XL turrets (You know, the one's on MCC's) already. So no, you're wrong. They are actually quite smaller. As I said that seems inefficient to me. Rather than heat it up simply store the required number of charges (the containers that house the suspended particles in plasma state) and accelerate the changes so that they are what is fired and so that when they break apart on impact the energy in those charges is fully released. Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 04:36:00 - [1312] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts. [/quote] That is arguing based on size of the charge itself. And in clase range situations that relies on manual aiming, it makes much more sense to have a system of spreading out the charge over a area rather than firing it in one lump. It's better to do some damage than none. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Oceltot Mortalis 51	Posted - 2015.01.20 05:20:00 - [1313] - Quote Are we still in an era where dropsuits are advanced enough to have a native repair, but giant mechanical war machines aren't? In life, I have this to regret. That too often, when I acquired ISK, I did not have enough of it. -everyone in EVE, ever
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6620	Posted - 2015.01.20 05:33:00 - [1314] - Quote Yes godin I realize that blasters have the shortest range. Get too close and they eat you. Tesfa, I didn't write the turrets with the idea that people wouldn't play mix'n match. Even at 850 DPS the blaster is still 150-1900 DPS slower than the turrets we have today or in chrome. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16705	Posted - 2015.01.20 05:38:00 - [1315] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts. That is arguing based on size of the charge itself, or rather if the charge splits up into many pieces or stays into one (depending on looking at machine gun, cannon, or shotgun) And in close range situations that relies on manual aiming, it makes much more sense to have a system of spreading out the charge over a area rather than firing it in one lump. It's better to do some damage than none. At least you're realizing that this is how it generally works, because the charges are stored on board the HAV, and then heated to a plasma state rapidly, and then launched. Assault Turret delivery method just works better in the end of it, because it gives you much more room to breathe in. But requires **** all aim, skill, or thought. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6620	Posted - 2015.01.20 08:12:00 - [1316] - Quote I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS. If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1309	Posted - 2015.01.20 08:18:00 - [1317] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS. If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again? nubs that want to farm infantry All jokes aside, blasters need a further falloff it feels so abrupt. There's no point in between "full damage" and "holy **** I'm doing no damage ccplease" Dual tanking is for bad players. Come play a better game.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6620	Posted - 2015.01.20 08:37:00 - [1318] - Quote Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16705	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:04:00 - [1319] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6621	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:06:00 - [1320] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.