DUST Search - To Rattati: anti-infantry large blasters.

shaman oga wrote:

Imo there is no need for such turret.
Blaster are more or less fine, maybe they need a little less dispersion.
Missiles need to do less direct hit damage, but more aoe.
Rail just need their 2 meters aoe back.
AoE is needed for both missile and rail to compensate their lack of mobility (mostly downward).

Another problem is fitting space, when little turrets were mandatory, there was enough fitting space to have different fittings, now if we want to mount little turrets, we are in a cage, 1 or 2 fittings are available for shield tanks and a single fit for armor tank.

But as long as i write, i find more and more things not fine in vehicles.

To be honest, vehicles were more entertaining before 1.7, even with OP swarms and lack of mobility, the current vehicle situation is utterly wrong, skill tree and bonus set, turrets, tanks slot layout and variety of modules.

The only good things are isk cost and better mobility.
To do a good job we should restart from 1.6 tanks.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2359	Posted - 2014.12.30 11:37:00 - [1] - Quote So I feel like the HAV bring-back initiative is going all sorts of wrong. I see lots of bickering from both sides of the issue, and not really a lot of suggestions, or perhaps their getting buried under the snapping back and forth. I'm making this thread in order to separate from the initiative thread, that my proposal may be more easily seen and referenced rather than having to dig through all that lot. So vehicles have been in contention for quite some time. AV cries that vehicles are OP, vehicle pilots (myself among them) cry about AV having too much advantage, and around and around we go. I feel like the biggest complaint is towards the idea of a vehicle being able to kill infantry. AV cries that blaster tanks are too powerful and can slaughter entire teams, admittedly at one point this was cold fact. Tankers countered about HAVs being tanks that should take multiple people to reliably. Both sides came up with great arguments and counter-arguments, but I feel we missed the initial problem; vehicles have no role other than to slay. Let's look at what vehicles have the ability to do. They can engage infantry, and they can engage each other. And that is it. There is nothing else that matters in this game. No objectives only accessible by dropship, no walls that only a HAV can bust down, nor can any vehicle hack a point. Nothing to do but kill things. And I feel like we haven't fully understood this concept. Therefore, I will lay out the viewpoints of my proposal. I am formulating various ideas that would bring about my view, but this thread will focus on the first one I worked out; the anti-infantry large blaster. My main theory is thus: 1. That there should be a vehicle/turret whose PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill infantry, TO THE EXCLUSION OF AV DUTY. This vehicle/turret should be unable to kill vehicles unless assisted. 2. That this vehicle/turret should be usable by one person. (ie: anti-infantry large blaster on a HAV hull) 3. That this vehicle can be killed reliably by one AV user. This can be a point of contention, but it should take one full magazine in order to destroy this vehicle. Of course there will be some that can kill sonner, like breach forge guns, but in general a full magazine should be expected of most AV weaponry. 4. That the solo AV required to destroy this vehicle should have to match the tier/skills of the pilot in order to reliably destroy the vehicle. ie: a proto tank should not be destroyed in one magazine by advanced swarms. AV should have to match tanks SP for SP. However, at max level AV should win the fight in one magazine. 5. That this vehicle/turret be equivalent to infantry weaponry in terms of DPS/range. 6. That this vehicle cannot easily escape destruction if caught off-guard, and so relies on infantry in order to protect it from the flanks and rear. The purpose of these points is to create a vehicle that, uncontested, can wreck through infantry. However, a player pulling out AV should definitely give this vehicle pause. A player that can match this vehicle in terms of SP investment should be a deadly threat. I want pilots to be able to have a vehicle that does the only job that's truly necessary; killing infantry so they can't hack the point. But this vehicle needs counters, and hard ones at that. Now, onto my large blaster idea. The large blaster would be reworked into an anti-infantry role. I would make changes thus: 1. Reduce damage to 68.3. This ensures that even a complex damage mod cannot break the shield damage threshold of vehicles. This turret will be unable to kill other vehicles, save coming up on a wounded one or having support from another player. 2. Set ROF at 450. High ROF is blaster bread and butter, and should be the large blaster as well. In addition, high ROF means we can have low damage, again to ensure that it is ineffective in an AV capacity. -Total DPS with these would be 512.25, slightly higher than most rifles. 3. Give it slight dispersion (numbers are hard to extrapolate for this) but have the dispersion be unchanging. This is for two reasons: it ensures that the large blaster cannot operate at full efficiency beyond comparatively close range, and two gives the large blaster better suppression at range. Hard to supress when dispersion builds up so quickly and resets so slowly. Physics wise, The HAV is forty tons of metal with lots of contact with the ground. It should be an unshakable platform from which to fire from. The dispersion comes from the fact that it is flinging plasma everywhere, and isn't built to be that accurate. I would say as a starting point to be exactly 50% of the current dispersion buildup (the dispersion that is exactly halfway between current min dispersion and max) we can shift this either way to balance it. 4. Increase heat buildup. I am unsure of how numbers work here, but It should overheat in about 4-5 seconds of constant firing, with a 7 second cooldown/10 second seize. This ensures the large blaster cannot run around willy nilly and mow down large groups. It will take heat management to be effective, which allows quick infantry to find cover. 5. Decrease HAV acceleration/top speed. Again numbers are hard to set in stone, but I would say 25% for both would be a starting point. This is to ensure that a caught HAV is a dead HAV. IT has a chance of defending itself from AV that attack it head on, but I feel like escape shouldn't really be an option for something so massive. Running out of space to type, so I'll end with this: all vehicles need a defined role, and need to do that job well. A vehicle for infantry slaying, and vehicle for vehicle slaying, a vehicle for mass transport, etc. etc. Try to be constructive even if you disagree. LEt's make vehicles fun for both sides of V/AV. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6069	Posted - 2014.12.30 12:57:00 - [2] - Quote Honestly I think what you want to have happen here can be accomplished by simply reducing large blaster dispersion. Unfortunately one of the issues with the changes to the turret is that every change to reduce it vs. Infantry has affected it's AV capacity. I'd like to see the heavy blaster turrets be a bit more effective overall vs both vehicles and groundpounders from the perspective of me the AV gunner. I feel that the ability of infantry to completely bypass the fire from an HAV at 10m to be excessive. It makes it as much of a chore to kill them as it is to kill a gunnlogi brick because there's little feeling of challenge. As far as one magazine I think HAVs in general should follow that rule only when active defenses or hardeners are deactivated. At the moment killing a fully hardened madrugar is fairly trivial and it requires a much higher awareness to pilot a madrugar than it does AV. The gunnlogi is another bucket of crazy and doesn't need to be rehashed in this thread. But yes, TL;DR if HAVs cannot suppress infantry at all why do we have HAVs? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3537	Posted - 2014.12.30 13:31:00 - [3] - Quote Imo there is no need for such turret. Blaster are more or less fine, maybe they need a little less dispersion. Missiles need to do less direct hit damage, but more aoe. Rail just need their 2 meters aoe back. AoE is needed for both missile and rail to compensate their lack of mobility (mostly downward). Another problem is fitting space, when little turrets were mandatory, there was enough fitting space to have different fittings, now if we want to mount little turrets, we are in a cage, 1 or 2 fittings are available for shield tanks and a single fit for armor tank. But as long as i write, i find more and more things not fine in vehicles. To be honest, vehicles were more entertaining before 1.7, even with OP swarms and lack of mobility, the current vehicle situation is utterly wrong, skill tree and bonus set, turrets, tanks slot layout and variety of modules. The only good things are isk cost and better mobility. To do a good job we should restart from 1.6 tanks. Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 324	Posted - 2014.12.30 13:56:00 - [4] - Quote 1. Rattati thread has gone to hell and back 2. Skirmish 1.0 had a reason for vehicles other than to slay, if your team could slay and push up just whack the null cannon instead for 5mins and destroy it to keep the game going, tho you would lose since the final 3 objectives were in a city most likely 1. Uprising L Blaster turret - It did both AV & AI, if you were accurate you got the infantry kill, if you missed you missed and they escaped - For AV it was harder to do slightly, you needed a heat sink at least and maybe a dmg mod too if you wanted but it worked well - If you pick a turret for pure AI what happens if infantry cry about it again and it gets nerfed to uselessness like the current blaster? The old blaster was fine but what we have now is accuracy replaced by luck with dispersion that can miss a LAV at 50m - I do feel infantry will cry about this no matter what, L Missiles had very good splash since it was a missile the size of a merc being hurled towards them but now its like a pea shooter unless you get a direct hit 2. If we have high ROF do we get a bigger clip? does it overheat quicker? will i have any of the old mods like heat sinks to combat this? will the AI turret require less PG/CPU requirements if its going to have an output of an infantrys AR? 3. I loved my dot - It required aim, if its single shot then really shouldnt have the HMG reticule since its not a 6 chambered minigun 4. Heat sinks 5. Current AV such as the SL can lock on from behind cover, fire when behind cover, look away from target and not lose lock, look away from target and still fire, missiles follow where the vehicle was and not where the vehicle is so the missiles end up going around several corners, invisible missiles at close range still pop up - The SL needs fixing 1st before the HAV speed is changed because you cannot avoid something that is so clearly broken
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6069	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:09:00 - [5] - Quote Swarm launchers are one of the primary reasons blasters need less dispersion. I have said this before and I'll say it again. An ineffectual weapon in any venue is a useless weapon. The blaster cannon is outclassed at all levels by the railgun and missiles for AV. It's less effective than both missiles and rails for AI. What the hell is it supposed to be? As another person pointed out, the anti shield AV turret cannot break a gunnlogi's shield regen if a hardener is turned on. Blaster turret needs a fix and it needs a substantial one. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
taxi bastard Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 270	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:49:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Swarm launchers are one of the primary reasons blasters need less dispersion. I have said this before and I'll say it again. An ineffectual weapon in any venue is a useless weapon. The blaster cannon is outclassed at all levels by the railgun and missiles for AV. It's less effective than both missiles and rails for AI. What the hell is it supposed to be? As another person pointed out, the anti shield AV turret cannot break a gunnlogi's shield regen if a hardener is turned on. Blaster turret needs a fix and it needs a substantial one. I fear the blaster turret above all turrets when I go hunting tanks as an infantry player. It really is a lot more affective than any other type at killing me, so I think on the AI side it's doing its job fine, I can't comment on the AV role.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6071	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:57:00 - [7] - Quote Blasters couldn't pop my AV suits if their lives depended on it. Rails get lucky blapping me about as often as I successfully blap assaults with an IAFG. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1430	Posted - 2014.12.30 16:30:00 - [8] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Imo there is no need for such turret. Blaster are more or less fine, maybe they need a little less dispersion. Missiles need to do less direct hit damage, but more aoe. Rail just need their 2 meters aoe back. AoE is needed for both missile and rail to compensate their lack of mobility (mostly downward). Another problem is fitting space, when little turrets were mandatory, there was enough fitting space to have different fittings, now if we want to mount little turrets, we are in a cage, 1 or 2 fittings are available for shield tanks and a single fit for armor tank. But as long as i write, i find more and more things not fine in vehicles. To be honest, vehicles were more entertaining before 1.7, even with OP swarms and lack of mobility, the current vehicle situation is utterly wrong, skill tree and bonus set, turrets, tanks slot layout and variety of modules. The only good things are isk cost and better mobility. To do a good job we should restart from 1.6 tanks. No they need accuracy and less range. I don't want to have to depend on dumb luck to get a kill. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris


Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris