DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Full Balance of Large Turrets

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

Railgun: If railguns are supposed to be AV only, then they need to be better at it than the other turrets. If blasters are just as good as rails at AV with AI capability besides, then what's the point of running it?

Because Rails have 300m range and Blasters have like....30-40m? The same principle applies to infantry weapons, where the Plasma Rifle has better DPS than the Rail Rifle. The Railgun will be better AV in far more situations than a Blaster will, so overall its a better choice.

EDIT: Also agree. Missiles with falloff doesn't make sense, they should do full damage up to their point of self detonation. I'd also love to see them be more effective at longer ranges so the DPS can be brought down to more reasonable levels.

If you think about the fact that fuel is added into missile strength calculations irl depending on the type, it really does make sense, but depending on how smart our warheads are, and how strong the fuel is would decide that.

We could go with man ways to go about it: Stronger fuel and weaker warhead, which has a stronger close range and a high travel speed, but ****** at range (accelerated rockets?), vice versa for slower but less of a dropoff, maybe weaker (normal), etc.

That makes no sense. Fuel has nothing to do with the payload of a missile (ie: the part that goes boom) I could MAYBE understand the missiles slowing down as the run out of fuel, but reduced damage? Unless some complete moron decided to use the payload as fuel (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Then missile damage should be consistent at 0m and at max range.

You misunderstand. Remaining fuel would add to the damage that the rocket or missile can do, but once burned, it would lower the amount. That is a real thing. Put it like this: If I throw a rocket full of fuel with a tiny warhead, but it burns most of it's fuel trying to get to you, and then the opposite, but it burns all of its fuel trying to get to you, which will hurt more? Well, how powerful is the fuel, and how powerful is the warhead? Did the rocket pierce the target? etc.

I honestly don't care, I'm just saying that it does make sense to do it like that. Hell, you could say that the fuel is so weak that it doesn't make a difference between burning half of it off or all of it off.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2492	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:16:00 - [1] - Quote How about instead of a raw buff to pg/CPU for vehicles, why not give the vehicle electronics/engineering skill to increase pg/CPU? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2492	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:19:00 - [2] - Quote As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2493	Posted - 2015.01.28 13:16:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: This thread is becoming fairly derailed. The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine. Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers. Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button. Blaster: Again, if you balance it to be useful for AV, you will make it OP against infantry, especially (WAY especially) if you add in a dispersion mod. Having enough damage to kill vehicles reliably means it's going to wreck infantry. Being balanced against fighting infantry means it doesn't have near the punch it needs in order to kill vehicles. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either redesign it as some have suggested to be AV, or balance it around AI at the expense of AV capability, but don't try and make it do both, because it will either be incredibly OP or laughably weak. Missile: It's a CQC turret simply because the missiles have travel time, so shooting anything outside 100m is moot. Not to mention missiles have falloff (what exactly is the justification for this, btw?) If it's going to be a medium range bombardment turret, then substantially increase missile speed and decrease ROF while retaining full-auto capability. This means it can actually engage at range without having to lead/pray the target doen't change course, and lowers it's DPS to be more in line with this. And remove falloff (seriously, why do they have this?) Railgun: If railguns are supposed to be AV only, then they need to be better at it than the other turrets. If blasters are just as good as rails at AV with AI capability besides, then what's the point of running it? As far as balancing rails, buff the damage. Way too tired to crunch numbers (sleep eludes me) but I'm talking ~25-35% more alpha than now. Then increase refire rate (making it shoot slower) by ~50%. The railgun should hit HARD, as in an untanked sica/soma should be wrecked in two hits, 3 at most. It should be a monster. But the slow ROF coupled with high heat buildup means it is punishing to miss any of your shots, and ensures it can't kill 3 vehicles in a row without backing off to cooldown. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2494	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:50:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Railgun: If railguns are supposed to be AV only, then they need to be better at it than the other turrets. If blasters are just as good as rails at AV with AI capability besides, then what's the point of running it? Because Rails have 300m range and Blasters have like....30-40m? The same principle applies to infantry weapons, where the Plasma Rifle has better DPS than the Rail Rifle. The Railgun will be better AV in far more situations than a Blaster will, so overall its a better choice. EDIT: Also agree. Missiles with falloff doesn't make sense, they should do full damage up to their point of self detonation. I'd also love to see them be more effective at longer ranges so the DPS can be brought down to more reasonable levels. If you think about the fact that fuel is added into missile strength calculations irl depending on the type, it really does make sense, but depending on how smart our warheads are, and how strong the fuel is would decide that. We could go with man ways to go about it: Stronger fuel and weaker warhead, which has a stronger close range and a high travel speed, but ****** at range (accelerated rockets?), vice versa for slower but less of a dropoff, maybe weaker (normal), etc. That makes no sense. Fuel has nothing to do with the payload of a missile (ie: the part that goes boom) I could MAYBE understand the missiles slowing down as the run out of fuel, but reduced damage? Unless some complete moron decided to use the payload as fuel (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Then missile damage should be consistent at 0m and at max range. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2495	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:28:00 - [5] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Railgun: If railguns are supposed to be AV only, then they need to be better at it than the other turrets. If blasters are just as good as rails at AV with AI capability besides, then what's the point of running it? Because Rails have 300m range and Blasters have like....30-40m? The same principle applies to infantry weapons, where the Plasma Rifle has better DPS than the Rail Rifle. The Railgun will be better AV in far more situations than a Blaster will, so overall its a better choice. EDIT: Also agree. Missiles with falloff doesn't make sense, they should do full damage up to their point of self detonation. I'd also love to see them be more effective at longer ranges so the DPS can be brought down to more reasonable levels. If you think about the fact that fuel is added into missile strength calculations irl depending on the type, it really does make sense, but depending on how smart our warheads are, and how strong the fuel is would decide that. We could go with man ways to go about it: Stronger fuel and weaker warhead, which has a stronger close range and a high travel speed, but ****** at range (accelerated rockets?), vice versa for slower but less of a dropoff, maybe weaker (normal), etc. That makes no sense. Fuel has nothing to do with the payload of a missile (ie: the part that goes boom) I could MAYBE understand the missiles slowing down as the run out of fuel, but reduced damage? Unless some complete moron decided to use the payload as fuel (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Then missile damage should be consistent at 0m and at max range. You misunderstand. Remaining fuel would add to the damage that the rocket or missile can do, but once burned, it would lower the amount. That is a real thing. Put it like this: If I throw a rocket full of fuel with a tiny warhead, but it burns most of it's fuel trying to get to you, and then the opposite, but it burns all of its fuel trying to get to you, which will hurt more? Well, how powerful is the fuel, and how powerful is the warhead? Did the rocket pierce the target? etc. I honestly don't care, I'm just saying that it does make sense to do it like that. Hell, you could say that the fuel is so weak that it doesn't make a difference between burning half of it off or all of it off. Fuel DOES contribute to the explosion, but its contribution is negligible at best. Rocket fuel (modern) is very stable. When it catches fire, and it is hard for it to catch fire, it simply burns, it doesn't explode. Imagine using a firecracker to set off c4. Yes, technically the firecracker DID add to the explosive power, but does it really count for much? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2509	Posted - 2015.01.31 11:08:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin, one point of contention. Are you sure your blaster damage is enough to stop shield regen? No point in any amount of dps if it can't do that. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2515	Posted - 2015.02.02 12:20:00 - [7] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. Honestly, it will continue to be derailed, because more than anything else, AV/V is the most hotly debated topic in Dust. Having played both sides, I know how irritating it is when a tank rolls up and there's nothing I can do to stop it, and I know how frustrating it is when 1 player can destroy my proto tank with all the support skills to 5. Both sides feel like they are the underdog, and even you yourself get emotional on the subject. Plus we have people that just try and start fights (not gonna name names, but Spkr) and that gets everyone all riled up until we are trying to win the argument, not to find balance. I feel like some people have forgotten your intent as far as vehicles go, so perhaps re-outlining your vision could help get things back on track. Do you want a large turret(s) to be able to effectively and consistently engage and kill infantry? Do you want there to be a vehicle or variant dedicated to the anti-infantry role? How do you see infantry/vehicle interaction going? How do you see vehicle/vehicle interaction going? Re-establishing these guidelines will surely make one side or the other upset, but it would make it easier for the people who generate good ideas to structure their ideas into how you envision the game to be, meaning we get more ideas you would be willing to take action on. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2526	Posted - 2015.02.03 02:08:00 - [8] - Quote A point of contention on all blaster discussion; they MUST MUSTVMUST do enough damage to stop shield regen AT THE MLT/STD LEVEL. There can be no arguments made here. If it cannot do that on its own unassisted, then it cannot do AV. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2530	Posted - 2015.02.03 19:33:00 - [9] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: True Adamance wrote: Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets. He means like in an Abrams main turret kind if way. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2539	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:06:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: The-Errorist wrote: True Adamance wrote: Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets. He means like in an Abrams main turret kind if way. Yeah I don't like the idea for firing more than 1-2 shells in rapid succession....and by rapid I do mean within the space of 3 seconds. Suppose a shell like you describe with an entire railgun reload time between shots? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me