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)
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:14:00 - [1321] - Quote @ Breaking yeah, mix and match is somehing that will have to be dealt with seperatley depnding on the tank fits. The more i think about it, the less i think it is the responsiblity of you to come up those proposals. Its something that tankers with experience should comment on after any changes got implemented, not really before. Any sort of random fits found to be rediculously overpowered, like the dual afterburners on a DS can be fixed later, maybe with a module cap or something. So don't bother with it. True Adamance wrote: 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. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:46:00 - [1322] - 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? That's not even the point. Seeing as you want extremely low TTK's, I won't even be able to approach the redline rail in time to kill it. That's like simple logic. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:47:00 - [1323] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: 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" Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list. Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:49:00 - [1324] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6626	Posted - 2015.01.20 12:41:00 - [1325] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:31:00 - [1326] - Quote speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 549	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:55:00 - [1327] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 549	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:57:00 - [1328] - Quote 1. Any chance of Rattati updating that spreadsheet before he gets busy with the various PC threads he made today?
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:00:00 - [1329] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 549	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:06:00 - [1330] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:25:00 - [1331] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 549	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:35:00 - [1332] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either. 1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range? 2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same 3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens 4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:53:00 - [1333] - Quote 1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range? No. 2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same SL hit at 400 m and beyond, (which is broken but in not in any relation to rail tanks), but only lock on andfire on targets from 175m. That limitation doesnt apply to rail turrets, + 600m range means a player track and shoot at +600m range. 3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens I'm not sure if you mean Large missles or Swarms. Extending missile range to compensate for large rail range does not make sense if we don't have the maps to support it. 4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved [/quote] Problem hasn't been solved, but lets not compound the problem even futher. By the way, to be clear, are you saying you want the 600m rail turrets to return? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 549	Posted - 2015.01.20 15:09:00 - [1334] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: 1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range? No. 2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same SL hit at 400 m and beyond, (which is broken but in not in any relation to rail tanks), but only lock on andfire on targets from 175m. That limitation doesnt apply to rail turrets, + 600m range means a player track and shoot at +600m range. 3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens I'm not sure if you mean Large missles or Swarms. Extending missile range to compensate for large rail range does not make sense if we don't have the maps to support it. 4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved Problem hasn't been solved, but lets not compound the problem even futher. By the way, to be clear, are you saying you want the 600m rail turrets to return? [/quote] 1. So max range for everything is 300m then 2. Even if lock on is 175m all volleys are gone by 4seconds which is far too quick and to get out of 400m range for a ground vehicle is like asking it to fly let alone getting away from 175m anyways or find decent cover 3. Large missiles - Swarms need deleting or big injection of skill and aim and since swarm missiles can do 400m then the large should be able to do 300m 4. The redline for me will always be a problem 5. 600m rails now means they are in there spawn more than before due to redline changes, i think the rail should be the turret to fire the furthest out of the current 3 and also fire further than the handheld FG
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6631	Posted - 2015.01.20 15:43:00 - [1335] - Quote without bigger maps there's no reason to increase ranges any more. Nor do I see any particular reason to reduce ranges at all. I'd prefer bigger maps, no redline and dynamic spawn points, but wishing isn't going to get us anything. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 551	Posted - 2015.01.20 15:49:00 - [1336] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: without bigger maps there's no reason to increase ranges any more. Nor do I see any particular reason to reduce ranges at all. I'd prefer bigger maps, no redline and dynamic spawn points, but wishing isn't going to get us anything. 1. No redline ruins games 2. Well 400m SL missile is getting dropped back to 300m flight range for my propsal 3. Dynamic spawns were uplinks, bandwidth nerfed it to hell
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 565	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:22:00 - [1337] - Quote 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml 2. Added most rigs - Havnt added weapon rigs 3. Rest of it is mostly done and dusted - AV i havent changed yet but will most likey add in notes like SL working like it should ie no lock on through cover 3b. Turrents havnt changed - Except fragmented missiles are for killing infantry 3c. Modules added and tweeked with numbers - Most chrome numbers stay since it means a armor vehicle can actually fit useful things 3d. Hulls mostly same
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:33:00 - [1338] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want. It doesn't matter what the TTK is if you want them to kill anything in around 10 seconds. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:36:00 - [1339] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want. It doesn't matter what the DPS is if you want them to kill anything in around 10 seconds. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:38:00 - [1340] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either. Which is why I have a massive issue with a low ass TTK. Kiting is a thing after all. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:45:00 - [1341] - Quote Breakin has explained his numbers in detail to me, what I described is now a non issue (unless someone seriously tries to use those numbers, in which case **** off, no.) in terms of his own idea, so far anyways. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1313	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:07:00 - [1342] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list. Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it. It's nothing about you, just a stab at the general idea most selfish infantry have towards people who want to tank. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16717	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:44:00 - [1343] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. *"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 - 2015.01.21 01:10:00 - [1344] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list. Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it. It's nothing about you, just a stab at the general idea most selfish infantry have towards people who want to tank. Oh. **** my bad bro, I couldn't hear you that well. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2709	Posted - 2015.01.21 01:15:00 - [1345] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........ click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16718	Posted - 2015.01.21 01:39:00 - [1346] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........ They aren't much smaller..... plus Godin you and I both know CCP is far behind in their lore and very contradictory with it. However this does not mean that does not mean rounds in Dust need be limited to the incredibly short ranges.... honestly it's more fun talking about the mechanics behind potential weapons than is currently is preparing to face another boring X months of automatic railguns, Blasters, and instant kill missiles. My only hope is that if a laser turret is ever made it's not a larger version of the ScR or the Laser Rifle......good god I hope that day never comes. *"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 2710	Posted - 2015.01.21 01:50:00 - [1347] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........ They aren't much smaller..... plus Godin you and I both know CCP is far behind in their lore and very contradictory with it. However this does not mean that does not mean rounds in Dust need be limited to the incredibly short ranges.... honestly it's more fun talking about the mechanics behind potential weapons than is currently is preparing to face another boring X months of automatic railguns, Blasters, and instant kill missiles. My only hope is that if a laser turret is ever made it's not a larger version of the ScR or the Laser Rifle......good god I hope that day never comes. So a XL turret being said several times as the equivalent of small EVE turrets (aka on models made for the game, models ingame) are lies because of dated quotes (which mind you haven't been changed due to new data, like ever)? Cool story bro. Also, if that's the case, then I should be able to shoot OB's at things. And the difference between XL and L turrets is massive (iirc XL missiles are Large 4 missiles put together), I don't want to here that they are only slightly larger. And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16719	Posted - 2015.01.21 02:19:00 - [1348] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally. Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters. *"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 2710	Posted - 2015.01.21 02:51:00 - [1349] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally. Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters. If it's still ****** in all ranges but close (as is how a PLC or anything of the sort ends up being), then what is the point of trying to cppy that style in the first place when there is FAR better CQ solutions. Do you not know what min maxing is? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16721	Posted - 2015.01.21 03:04:00 - [1350] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally. Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters. If it's still **** in all ranges but close (as is how a PLC or anything of the sort ends up being), then what is the point of trying to cppy that style in the first place when there is FAR better CQ solutions. Do you not know what min maxing is? It's not that a turret is ** at range merely less effective that the other based purely on the arbitrary racial predispositions. Yes the Gallente typically do up close and personal work with rapid firing high damage blasters. Thus their turret cycles faster than others, achieve a respectable damage, but might have a greater projectile drop than specially designed rounds of other races, however with compensation the rounds can still remain accurate. Yes the Caldari typically like to keep themselves at a range with slower firing high alpha Railguns. Thus their turrets cycle a bit more slowly, their rounds do not fall off a much as other weapons, and have high alpha damage, But their barrels are bulk and traverse more slowly. Etc Because when you consider the fundamental premise of a tank and a tank turret both of which specifically state in the definition of the concept the nature of the primary gun as large calibre you cannot effectively achieve the intended role for a tank using a ***** machine gun. There is a reason historically tanks have not been fitted with short range rapid firing turrets. This is because they cannot penetrate the armours of the vehicles they are targeting unless they have significant force, power, etc behind them. Even accounting that the projectile being fired is a small amount of plasma we are talking super dense materials, specialised armour designs,technologies which harden the armour and shielding, graphine based technologies in incredibly advanced manners etc. There is quite literally no justification in using a smaller calibre rapid firing turret when a larger calibre comparatively slower firing weapons achieves a better result. Now I'm not saying that all turrets are going to be exactly the same, that would be pointless, however the core functionality of a tank turret is power, accuracy, and rate of fire. You can achieve all three of these via the conventional tank turret with an Auto Loader producing a cannon with 15-17 RPM. There is a specific reason these are mounted on top of heavily armoured main battle tanks and not in their place 25mm Auto-cannons. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.



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.